Drivers in Washington state may soon face better odds of getting caught on camera if they run a red light, speed through a work zone on a city street or fail to stop at a crosswalk.
A new law signed Tuesday makes it possible for cities and counties to deploy traffic cameras in more places to crack down on violators and prevent deadly roadway incidents.
“Speed cameras have proven to change driver behavior,” Gov. Jay Inslee said before signing legislation that broadens existing statutes concerning use of automated traffic enforcement cameras. “Drivers slow down and slowing down saves lives.”
Inslee began calling for greater use of speed cameras on state roads last summer as traffic-related deaths climbed toward historic levels.
The state recorded 674 traffic fatalities in 2021 and 743 in 2022 with preliminary estimates for 2023 showing the death toll eclipsing 800, according to data compiled by the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. Excessive speed was a factor in 32% of the fatalities in 2023, Inslee said.
Rep. Brandy Donaghy, D-Snohomish County, authored the bill that Inslee signed. It emerged as one of the session’s major traffic safety measures after others, like lowering the legal limit for driving drunk, failed to advance.
“We know the science. We know cameras are a deterrent. It’s going to help keep people alive,” she said.
Washington allows red light cameras at intersections under certain circumstances. Cameras intended to detect speeding are permitted in zones around schools, parks, hospitals and locations designated as priority areas by cities.
Before installing cameras, cities and counties must gather data to justify deploying the technology at a desired location. Then, notices must be posted publicly at the location for 30 days before the devices are turned on. And local governments must report annually on collisions and tickets issued at those sites.
Cameras, on local streets or a highway, may only take pictures of the vehicle and its license plate while an alleged infraction is occurring. State law bars those pictures from revealing the face of the driver or passengers in the vehicle.
House Bill 2384 expands several provisions of current law.
It will now allow traffic cameras to be used on portions of state routes in city limits that are classified as city streets, and in work zones on city and county roads, including those that are state highways.
It also permits use of traffic cameras to nab vehicles that fail to stop at crosswalks, or travel in lanes reserved for buses and other forms of public transportation. And cameras can be mounted on the front of a bus to photograph vehicles traveling in or blocking the designated transit lane.
Cities and counties, as part of the report demonstrating the need for using cameras, will have to add data on collisions and near collisions, evidence of vehicles speeding, and anticipated or actual infeasibility of mitigation measures other than cameras at the designated location.
And starting in 2026, cities and counties must report the amount of revenue collected from violators and how those dollars were spent.
The maximum penalty amount for violations captured by a traffic camera cannot exceed $145 per incident, adjusted for inflation every five years. This maximum penalty amount can be doubled for a traffic camera-enforced school zone speed infraction.
But the new law says the penalty will be cut in half for registered owners of vehicles who are recipients of state public assistance, other than Medicaid, if they request such a reduction.
The bill stirred partisan passions as Democrats used their majority in the House to pass it on a party-line 55-38 vote. It cleared the Senate on a 26-23 vote as three Democratic senators joined Republicans to oppose it.
The last couple sessions, Republicans did support using new technology and cameras to increase safety in highway work zones, said Rep. Andrew Barkis, R-Olympia, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation Committee.
“We know we have to do something to curtail what we’re seeing on our roads and highways,” he said.
But this legislation is too big of an expansion on the use of cameras on city streets and county roads, Barkis said.
It raises the specter of cameras becoming a source of revenue for communities, he said. And his colleagues disagreed with letting some people pay a reduced fine rather than treating all those ticketed equally, he said.
Donaghy pushed back, saying the financial burden isn’t the same for every driver.
“I don’t think the main goal is to punish,” Donaghy said, referring to the fine. “The main goal is to get people to slow down.”
by Jerry Cornfield, Washington State Standard
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Bill Lucia for questions: info@washingtonstatestandard.com. Follow Washington State Standard on Facebook and Twitter.
Having missed by a few inches being killed in a crosswalk on Third Ave. last week, by a car that never stopped or slowed down, I believe, regretfully, that this is a badly needed step.
As a regular walker, I experience all-too-frequent close escapes, including diving for the ditch when a pickup full of teenagers “buzzed” me and flipped me off as they drove away. I see more roll-throughs at stop signs than I see actual stops, and traffic speed on Olympic View Drive frequently exceeds 10 or even 15 mph over the legal limit.
Regrettable that traffic cameras are needed, but the, it’s regrettable that we need police, laws, etc. But we do.
I agree that some changes are needed to make streets safer, I just don’t think more cameras is the best way. The thing I don’t like is that a camera can’t discern what is “unsafe” and presumably will treat all drivers equally, whether the driver is going 2 MPH over the limit along with the flow of traffic, or the driver is going 20 MPH over the limit weaving in and out of traffic erratically. A human can differentiate between these two and elect not to give the first driver a ticket because their driving is clearly not unsafe, while the camera (presumably) can’t, and would give both of them a ticket, ostensibly for being equally “unsafe.” That makes it look like primarily a revenue generator. Edmonds looked at it that way when they first floated the idea of more traffic cameras last year. I assume all cities will soon recognize that. Will it ultimately make streets safer? Maybe. And it will definitely frustrate drivers, bring cities a lot of added revenue, and most likely increase everyone’s insurance premiums.
Hi Steve, initially I thought the same thing too.
If memory serves me correctly, which it occasionally does, I’ve read all video is reviewed by an officer prior to a citation being issued. There is a certain allowance over the posted speed but to avoid a fine I wouldn’t push my luck!
Occasionally I drive by Meadowdale high school which has enforcement cameras, and I’ll tell you, 20 mph is a real crawl. It’s caught me off guard in the past in our old Sienna and I’ve unwittingly cruised through at about 25 mph with no ticket being mailed out. Apparently the reviewing officer deemed my actions a minimal endangerment to society and cut me some slack.
On a side note the wife’s 2023 Hyundia Ionic 5 EV alerts you to all upcoming camera enforced streets and intersections as well as the current speed limits.
A very nice feature especially when driving in areas you are not familiar with. New cars have weapons too!
Interesting. I hope you’re right, and that will make me a lot more supportive of the cameras, at least for now. We recently received a ticket in a school zone, and now that I look back at it, there is a paragraph on the ticket that says it was reviewed and e-signed by an officer. Good! Human intervention will be good for us all, at least unless/until they decide to make the camera-enforced zones all zero tolerance to “help improve safety.”
If someone is a generally good law abiding and attentive driver; these cameras are unlikely to be much of a problem for them. There is so much bad and negligent driving now that I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion these cameras are probably a good idea. Plus, since our city does badly need revenue for whatever reasons, so much the better. I think it would be a good idea to admit we are doing it for money just as much as safety and earmark money earned over cost into road repair and real human traffic police. I get the fear of the “big brother is watching vibe” but, let’s face it, thanks to computers and AI we have entered the “Brave New World.”
Obliviously we wouldn’t need to be subjected to such measures, as traffic cameras, if everyone was “obeying the laws”. But judging by how reckless and unlawfully most us drive these days, none of us can deny “that something needs to be done” in order to make it safer for all of us, drivers & pedestrians. Unfortunately since we’re incapable of policing ourselves we have to be subjected to others to do it for us. No one wants a ticket in the mail and higher insurance premiums to go along with it, but if thats what it takes to wake us up to the fact that we need to be better drivers, so be it. Who knows, maybe safer streets will translate into more of us making it home safely. Let’s drive like we’re demonstrating to a young, new driver how it should be done, lawfully.