Our Vision of ATE
Leniency Convenience Equity Transparency Accuracy Fairness Privacy Climate Affordability Safety
Traffic calming infrastructure isn’t always enough. Reconstructing an intersection may take years--and it doesn’t always put a stop to dangerous driving.
In-person traffic enforcement is not always a good option. It is inequitable, expensive, and can lead to violence, causing a nationwide push to reduce traffic stops. According to state lawmakers, some law enforcement officers now avoid making traffic stops.​
But having no enforcement has allowed drivers to think they can get away with traffic violations whenever they are not physically stopped by infrastructure. Dangerous driving is going unchecked, imposing safety risks for us all.
​​
ATE preserves the option for enforcement as an additional deterrent when necessary, while preventing bias in individual enforcement decisions and limiting direct contact between drivers and law enforcement.
When enforcement is needed, make it automated.
​
Given that ATE can be necessary to protect safety in an equitable way, we propose that municipalities should have the option to use it--in line with the following guiding principles and constraints contained in our bill.
​
Targeted
Our ATE captures only the most dangerous driving behaviors.
-
Only a few traffic infractions–speeding, disregarding stop signals, and obstructing bike lanes–can be enforced with ATE. These are infractions that present serious risks to public safety.
-
Only a few geographic locations--school zones, work zones, and other zones approved by MassDOT--can use ATE enforcement.
Lenient
Our bill ensures that ATE is a reminder to drive safely, rather than a punishment. Fines are low and may be substituted with cost-free alternatives.
ATE will be installed for safety, not for punishment or revenue extraction. To ensure ATE isn’t punitive–especially for people with lower incomes––our bill contains limits:
​
-
No fines issued for minor speeding violations.
-
Every driver gets a pass on one violation every 2 years.
-
No license penalties.
-
Low fines: The highest fine ATE can impose is $25 (except in rare cases). Municipalities must annually confirm that they considered a neighborhood’s socioeconomic context when setting fees.
-
Alternatives to payment: Municipalities can offer an online driving course as an alternative to paying a fine.
-
ATE is only allowed in safety zones (i.e. school zones), work zones, and locations approved by MassDOT.
Convenient
ATE targets dangerous behavior without requiring you to slow down.
Nobody wants to get a ticket. But, we also don’t want speed bumps or stop signs on all the roads we drive on. Without ATE, towns are lowering speed limits and installing speed bumps on roads where they might not be needed. With ATE, towns can use a camera that fines only those drivers who go 60 in a 45–rather than making everyone else slow down. ATE targets dangerous drivers without getting in the way.
Equitable
Low income communities and communities of color deserve safe roads. But, they should not be overburdened with traffic enforcement. Our bill strikes the right balance.
Massachusetts has disturbing inequities in traffic safety: Bostonians from predominantly black and Latinx neighborhoods are significantly more likely to be struck while walking. This includes when individuals from black and Latinx neighborhoods are walking in predominantly white neighborhoods--suggesting that inequitable road design is not the only cause. A 2017 Nevada study found that drivers in a high-income neighborhood were less likely to yield to black pedestrians in the crosswalk.
​
In addition, Massachusetts' history of inequitable urban planning has led to poor traffic safety design in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color. This endangers pedestrians: Boston's "least-white neighborhoods" had 2.7 times as many emergency calls for pedestrians injured by a crash than in Boston's whitest neighborhoods.
Communities harmed by urban planning inequities shouldn’t be burdened with more traffic enforcement than neighborhoods that benefitted. But, they also shouldn’t be burdened with dangerous roads and more traffic deaths.
​
Rochester, NY ended its ATE program out of concern that it targeted low-income neighborhoods. But then, safety got worse: in 2023, 13 pedestrians were killed in the county. Rochester is now trying to bring back ATE.
Rather than allowing either extreme–prohibiting ATE or overburdening low-income communities and communities of color with excessive ATE–it makes more sense to use ATE with care:​
-
With ATE, communities can make sure that traffic stops and police interaction are never necessary to fix everyday traffic violations that endanger public safety.
-
When ATE generates revenue, MassDOT has to reinvest those funds in non-ATE traffic safety infrastructure in the community it came from. Funds collected from the community lead to improved safety– potentially ending the need for ATE in the future.
-
Transparency requirements facilitate public scrutiny of ATE siting decisions. Communities can check whether ATE is implemented fairly, including whether:
-
ATE is imposing more of a burden (relative to average income) in some neighborhoods
-
Non-ATE infrastructure is prioritized for wealthy neighborhoods
-
No Revenue Incentive
Cities and towns that decide to impose ATE will not receive the revenue. The only reason to install ATE is because it is the right choice for traffic safety – not because it will make money.
ATE won’t be a revenue generator for towns or the state. In fact, the goal is for it to improve driving to become a revenue loss. How do we ensure that happens in practice?
​
-
A municipal government that installs ATE does not get to keep the fees – the revenue goes to Mass DOT. The only incentive cities and towns have when they choose to install ATE is traffic safety.
-
Mass DOT must use the revenue to fund traffic safety infrastructure in the area where funds were generated. As a result, the revenue structure for ATE directly incentivizes a move away from ATE, towards other traffic safety methods–meaning that ATE will only be used when it’s the right choice to improve safety in an area, rather than to generate revenue. Since revenue must be used in the municipality where it was collected, Mass DOT cannot use revenue paid by drivers from one area to pay for improvements in another.
Transparent
Communities will know whether ATE is working and what other interventions could be used instead.
Cities and towns will be required to report information to MassDOT, which MassDOT will publish. This includes:
​
-
How a site was chosen
-
Why ATE was chosen over other infrastructure changes at a site
-
Whether ATE is working: crash data from before and after ATE was implemented
-
How many fines were issued
​
This visibility ensures that ATE is implemented and functions the way communities want and will be implemented where it improves safety, rather than in ways that penalize the surrounding community.
Accurate & Fair
Citations are issued for easy-to-identify violations. They will not be issued if a driver made a reasonable decision, like getting out of the way of an emergency vehicle.
The traffic violations enforced by ATE–speeding, disregarding stop signals, and obstructing bike lanes–are simple to enforce, minimizing the risk of erroneous citations.
​
ATE will retain video 30 seconds before and after a detected violation and a human reviewer must check each video before a citation can be issued. This ensures that drivers will not be cited for responding reasonably to conditions on the road. If a driver believes that ATE made the wrong call, appeals are possible–and since the citation must be issued within 14 days of the alleged infraction, drivers will still remember what happened.
Affordable
Safer streets mean lower insurance premiums. ATE can lower drivers’ costs.
Privacy-focused
Data is only collected when a traffic violation occurs. It is deleted within 48 hours and cannot be used to investigate other crimes.
To ensure privacy is protected: ​
-
Images of faces are blurred.
-
Cameras only retain video from the 30 seconds before and after a detected violation.
-
Data is deleted within 48 hours after a violation is resolved.
-
Data cannot be used by the state or town for any purpose other than traffic enforcement.
Climate Conscious
ATE makes climate-friendly travel possible.
In Massachusetts, we care about climate change–which means we have to ensure that travel without a car is safe. But, pedestrian and bike fatalities are making climate-friendly commuters question whether their commute is worth the risk. ATE is an important tool to ensure roads and bike lanes are safe for all commuters.