The City of Portland is cautiously optimistic about fatal traffic crash trends as the transportation bureau reports a “dramatic drop in deaths” over the past two years. As of Monday (12/22), PBOT has recorded 39 traffic deaths, a 32% drop compared with a year ago and a 39% decline compared with the same period in 2023.
Today the Portland Bureau of Transportation said the trend is “encouraging” and that it might have something to do with a decline in excessive speeding — a behavior that spiked during the pandemic.
PBOT is also encouraged because their phalanx of automated enforcement cameras that had been offline since August are coming back. By tomorrow (12/23), 22 of the 39 (or so) cameras in the network are once again enforcing either speed and/or red signal violations. You might recall that back in August PBOT announced they would switch vendors and replace all of their existing cameras with new, more effective models. That switch is complete and now it’s just a matter of getting all the new cameras up and running.
This is good news for road safety advocates and for the City of Portland, who desperately wants to prevent traffic deaths and needs the revenue these citations generate. Enforcement cameras also happen to be a very popular program. Last fall, PBOT and the Portland Police Bureau surveyed around 2,000 Portlanders about the cameras. PBOT says 82% of respondents support using intersection cameras (speed and signal) and 76% support speed cameras as a way to enforce laws. The survey also found that 94% of respondents were aware of the cameras and 71% felt it was a fair way to enforce traffic laws.
Now PBOT hopes these cameras (from NovoaGlobal), along with all the other work they’re doing to make streets safer, will result in fewer people being killed on our roads. “If people continue to travel safely through Dec. 31,” reads a PBOT statement shared today. “Portland appears to be making significant improvement from the pandemic era travel patterns that saw traffic deaths by people in vehicles triple from 9 in 2018 to a high of 32 in 2023.”
In 2024, PBOT counted 57 people killed in traffic crashes, down from a 30-year record high of 69 in 2023. In 2019, the year before the pandemic, 48 people lost their lives in traffic crashes. The average from 2015 to 2019 was 41 deaths.*
Perhaps we are making progress. But it’s far too early to celebrate. For now, please just drive slower! If you do speed, there’s a much better chance you will kill or seriously hurt another person when you collide with them. Or if that fate doesn’t befall you, you might just receive a very expensive photograph in the mail.
*BikePortland’s Fatality Tracker has a higher number because I count deaths that PBOT excludes from their tally due to federal guidelines, such as collisions with TriMet vehicles, suicides, and deaths that happen months after the initial incident.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I think this is a great thing if data can be managed effectively. I sure hope there’s a way to prevent ice from using this to target and profile vulnerable populations.
Weird, just ~12 months ago the idea of having cameras on every corner was praised as a way to eliminate racial bias in policing. Now it’s a bad thing?
There have been a number of reports of ice and DHS using license plate readers to target people for unconstitutional detainment and summary deportations. If we were living in a country where the federal government wasn’t actively shredding the bill of rights and ignoring laws with the tacit support of Congress and the supreme court, I’d view camera based traffic enforcement as an unalloyed good. But unfortunately, we’re backsliding into an authoritarian state with seemingly no guarantees of legal rights or constitutional protections.
I know you’re just concern trolling. But I guess I’m taking the bait. Fire away with some bad faith obtuse questions.
Gron,
f you’re worried about cameras being used by ICE or DHS, it’s worth remembering what the actual reporting shows about automated enforcement. ProPublica did a big analysis of Chicago’s camera program and found that, while the tech is race-neutral in theory, more tickets were issued to Black and Latino neighborhoods — largely because of how the roads are designed and where speeding actually occurs, not because the cameras decide who to ticket:
https://www.propublica.org/article/chicagos-race-neutral-traffic-cameras-ticket-black-and-latino-drivers-the-mostProPublica
But here’s the irony: the same advocates who once argued cameras would be a “race-neutral” alternative to police traffic stops are suddenly acting like cameras are this Orwellian surveillance nightmare only used for political repression.
So let me ask you — given your concerns about ICE and racial bias, should we now rip all traffic cameras out of the city? Maybe go back to letting police make all traffic stops instead? LOL. Because if we’re really worried about bias and abuse of power, that discussion should include all forms of enforcement and how we actually mitigate real harms — not just seasonal panic over technology.
“LOL”
This is the kind of comment here I find less than helpful. You shout as if racial bias and dreadful policing and surveillance were not problems in our society. Overlapping, even countervailing problems. But they are. So sarcastic dismissals of these concerns really have no place here if you are interested in engaging with others who are concerned about these dynamics.
Do you know how hard it would be for the state legislature to require the deletion of traffic camera data not needed for immediate traffic enforcement purposes?
Not very.
Sure. But have they done that? Are they planning to do that? Until the state acts (and I’m not holding my breath waiting) Portland had better make damn sure they aren’t inadvertantly feeding data to the feds.
Also, if ice can tap into real time feeds (which supposedly was happening in Eugene, Springfield, and Woodburn) it doesn’t matter if you have data retention policies. You have to have a system that is preventing access by nefarious federal agencies.
We agree fully on this issue. There is no need to give up our privacy in order to have automated enforcement, and the state could easily set your concerns to rest if they wanted.
As far as I know they have not done that, and I know of no plans to do so in the future.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of accidental death in the country. We have to do all we can to reduce dangerous speeding and red light running, and automated cameras are worth the privacy concerns.
Car use is optional and anyone driving should expect that their car will be monitored.
There’s no need to choose between privacy and safety — we can have traffic cameras and not retain data unnecessarily. There’s no conflict there whatsoever.
agreed there is no need to retain data for more than a few seconds for any vehicle that is not being issued a ticket, as soon as the system confirms no violation the data should be deleted and no one should have access to the live feed.
I think that if the legislature writes that policy into law, it would ease one of the major concerns with the cameras.
The fact that they haven’t done so makes me suspect the cameras are recording everyone, but that’s purely conjecture on my part without any direct evidence to support it.
Again, as long as they aren’t using the cameras to target and round up people on the basis of their identity, I’m all for it. If you use these cameras to prevent speeding, drunk driving, and to stop actual crimes, great. If you’re using it to track down people who have active warrants, are known criminals, or who are driving around in vehicles that are associated with criminal behavior, great, find them, ticket them, pull them over. Use these cameras as intended and as marketed, with controls over data access to prevent abuse, and they are clearly a great thing.
But what the federal government is doing is rounding people up who are abiding by the laws and have not been accused or convicted of committing crimes. Many of them are legal residents, visa holders, asylum seekers, and in some cases, actual United States citizens. I’m sorry, but no amount of traffic safety is worth the active support of efforts to target people on the basis of ethnicity and to intentionally violate their constitutional rights. They are using locally operated camera systems to assist in these efforts. Eugene, Woodburn and Springfield have all taken their license plate readers offline to keep ice from stealing their data. This is a very real problem. It’s not just a theoretical thing.
Weird to think that Gron or any other individual poster holds the One Universally Agreed Upon Opinion
But Gron DIDN’T say it was a bad thing. They said,
Maybe I don’t know something you do, so pardon me if I’m out of the loop. Are you saying that these cameras are constantly filming and sending that info to servers somewhere? What data are you talking about? These are more nefarious in nature? These don’t just detect a speeding vehicle and take a picture of that speeding vehicle?
I don’t know if they are constantly filming. Seems like the hardware would be capable of that if it isn’t actively prevented from doing so.
What I do know is that video feeds from license plate readers that are intended to passively track vehicles and flag vehicles that are associated with outstanding warrants have reportedly been weaponized by the feds in their attempts to round up immigrants or people that look like immigrants.
It seems like there’s a risk that these cameras could potentially be hijacked for that purpose.
Care to share those reports?
Sorry, I’m not trying to be a jerk with this, but these are speed cameras, right? Not what you’re describing in your second paragraph, right? Do you have a legit news article about what you’re describing? I don’t know you so please don’t take this personally, but I can’t in good conscience take this info and try to share it later. “Where did you read about this, PTB?” Oh I got it from a comment that Gron left on Bike Portland. I’m not completely doubting you but there’s also a goddamn firehose of shitty news out there and one simply can’t keep up with it all.
The speed cameras are intended to capture still images. I am speculating that the cameras could also be used to capture a video feed based on my experience with consumer grade digital cameras of various types.
There is little difference between the sensors and image processing tech in camera systems that are marketed for capturing stills and those that are marketed for capturing video. Almost all currently available camera systems are capable of doing both things.
I am not claiming that there is a news article that has demonstrated that speed cameras or red light cameras have been used for surveillance purposes. I’m pointing out that the tech that has been installed is at least theoretically capable of being abused for unintended purposes, and that other camera systems that are sold and operated by flock have been taken off line by other communities because of documented misuse of data (as reported by the Oregonian, opb, and many other news sources).
The cameras that pbot is installing are not flock cameras. I have no reason to believe that these cameras or the data they are generating are being abused in this way. I’m simply pointing out that there is a risk, and that we should assume that based on recent behavior patterns, the federal government will exploit all available tools, legal or illegal, to violate the rights of immigrants and vulnerable populations.
If it would be legal and profitable for the contractor to collect our data, then they are collecting our data, whether or not they share directly with ICE. There are plenty of intermediaries who can keep data sharing at arm’s length.
Do you think these are a bigger risk than the smart phones we all willingly carry on our bodies at all times? I personally think the phones are a greater risk to our privacy and tracking than these cameras are and a greater risk to me as a cyclist and walker (because bad drivers can be seen on their phones *all the time*). Blanket the city with these cameras if it reduces the chance I get killed by a shitty driver.
Since the privacy issue is so easily remedied, we should just do that.
404 Media Podcast recently released an episode in which they tracked themselves with Flock cameras. They mentioned that there are at least two types of Flock cameras, and one of them is a PTZ camera that actively tracks people within their field of vision, and some of them are so insecure that they live stream the footage to an http URL that anyone can view. I’m with Gron in wanting to know that systems are secured.
If I was a member of a vulnerable population, I’d be doing my damndest to obey traffic laws
Smart City PDX works to address responsible use of technology in and by the City of Portland. In 2023 the City of Portland adopted foundational guidelines for the use of surveilance technology that agencies follow which includes the safeguard of data. Also keep in mind that the State of Oregon has Sanctuary Laws which the City of Portland follows.
https://www.portland.gov/bps/com-tech/smart-city-pdx
https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-justice/civil-rights/sanctuary-promise/
I guarantee that nobody in Portland government has thought about this. They’ve got dollar signs in their eyes.
Great news and a positive lead into the holiday week! Thanks (as always) for reporting!
Hey PSU TREC research students…this might be a potential opportunity to measure if a ‘halo’ effect exists when cameras are at rest vs active.
What’s TREC? What’s the halo effect?
Transportation research education center.
Halo effect would be investigating to see if traffic speed cameras have a measurable impact on reducing speeding outside the immediate enforcement area or an impact on reducing other kinds of traffic violations or crimes.
It’s a perfect opportunity for a natural experiment.
traffic cameras have already been extensively studied and are a five-out-of-five in effectiveness according to NHTSA.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/speeding-and-speed-management/countermeasures/enforcement/speed
Two years is insufficient to declare a trend.
How many deaths were we supposed to be down to by 2025 under Vision Zero?
Great to see cameras operating again, but most of us want results not optimistic hopes expressed in PBOT statements.
Offline since August, only 22 of ~39 back online now — for one of PBOT’s flagship safety and revenue programs. That’s not “Vision Zero,” that’s basic operational failure. Merry Christmas, Portland
By state law, the money from tickets can only go back in to running the program. It is not a revenue stream.
Are they stopping at 22? Or is 22 a specific milestone for this vendor and the remaining are in the queue?
I think this is all about the revenue. I was panicked near one down on Sandy. That camera didn’t have time to relax a second. It was f I ashibg and gojng off the entire time we sat there and long after we left.Just in one hour of rush hours probably 60 cars how much is a red light ticket even if it’s $200 x 60 =$12.000 in hour? OK why do we have pot holes still? I check the first n e AI says such a ticket r I ns $50 to $200. But portland charges $265 go figure. I’m nit so sure speed or red lights are the problem maybe the excuse to get away with extortion. I would like to know the actual cause of those fatalities. Because how many were drunk drivers, or on drugs, how many were unlicensed drivers , how many were pedestrians on something, how many were ditching potholes.
You wrote, “This is good news for road safety advocates and for the City of Portland, who desperately wants to prevent traffic deaths and needs the revenue these citations generate.”
I was under the impression that all traffic citations in Oregon go to the state and get disbursed equally in order to discourage speed trap towns. Is portland able to keep this money?
No.
2WheelsGood is wrong. Not sure why you leave so many comments with a certain tone when you seem to not take the time to actually know the facts. If you continue to do that, I will just delete your comments in the future as I have no interest in platforming inaccuracies.
To be clear, a portion of the camera citation revenue DOES IN FACT go to PBOT transportation projects. From the program website:
Sorry, you are correct, what I wrote was wrong. What I meant was that the city doesn’t just get the ticket revenue to spend as they like, but my answer was so incomplete as to have no real redeeming value.
Sorry!
I appreciate your reply. Thanks.
The state gets $50 if a city employee wrote the ticket and the city gets the rest. If a state employee writes it the state gets $50 and then the remaining amount is split between the city and state.
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_153.650
The money is split between the state and local jurisdictions.
I’m confused. What’s the difference in meaning between the phrases “traffic deaths by people in vehicles” (high of 32 in 2023) and “people killed in traffic crashes” (high of 69 in 2023)?
Many of the deaths are people killing themselves by driving dangerously. I think they want to make a distinction. Still bad, but less bad than the poor pedestrian or cyclist who is killed by someone else.
The way I read it the difference is ‘people killed outside of vehicles by people in vehicles.’
Ah, thanks for that interpretation. The 32 “traffic deaths by people in vehicles” means 32 people traveling inside vehicles died because of traffic, which I presume means they died in a crash and not incidentally while in traffic due to some cause unrelated to traffic. Add to that some 37 people outside of vehicles that were killed by the same or other vehicular crashes, and you get 69 people killed in traffic crashes that year? Requires a bit of guessing to do that simple arithmetic.
Is it true that more people outside of cars or trucks were killed by crashes than people in the crashing vehicles in 2023? Yikes. I better start riding in cars more to improve my chances!
I think your interpretation of the stats is correct. When you are riding in an auto you are protected by sophisticated and legally regulated safety systems developed using systematic research and testing. I think a lot of us outside the vehicles feel like we deserve similar consideration.
my gps notifies me of speed cameras (and also police activity on my route, objects in the roadway, etc.).
I’m pro-bike and public transport, but as someone who has to drive across town every day for work, so I can work for mostly wealthier people who often work remote or close to home, I find it unfair that I’m subjected to the risk of incurring traffic violations over small mistakes while they get to earn more without the same risk.
Saying that driving is a choice and you’re opting in to the risk of being monitored is very privileged. If the city needs more revenue, tax the wealthy!! Taxing driver is taxing the working class!
Think about an Uber driver for example. They spend all day on the road driving around wealthier people who aren’t taking on the risk of traffic cameras themselves.
This has been fun, but I will not be responding to any bologna. I’ve made my point.
Everyone has complete control over their level of risk – just don’t speed. It’s not like a random thing that just happens to you. And I would imagine the demographics of drivers fairly closely mirror the region’s demographics. Now if the fee was progressive, that would be even better.
It’s pretty easy to drive safely and these tickets. I drive every day for work and I have no concerns about ever getting a speeding or red light ticket, because I pay attention and treat driving seriously. We are operating deadly machines and we need to take responsibility for our actions.
It’s not a tax if you follow the speed limit and stop at red lights.
What are you talking about? Speeding or monitoring? And if the latter how are these cameras monitoring you?
Why do you need to speed? And how is getting zapped by a camera for speeding a tax?
Nobody here knows if the cameras are recording license plate data on cars that are not speeding. That’s the primary issue with “monitoring”. Given everything else we’re learning about widespread surveillance, it not exactly paranoia to worry about what a for-profit company does with data from cameras mounted along roadways.
Maybe it’s nothing. We just don’t know.
Ah yes, these poor hardworking people who are FORCED to break the law! It’s unfair that they might now actually face consequences for disregarding basic traffic laws and putting other people in danger to save a millisecond off their commute!
The fact that you think going 11+ mph over the speed limit and running red lights are “small mistakes” is the problem. This isn’t a tax on anyone that can follow the traffic laws. My wife works in the trades and drives all over town working for wealthy people too. She’s never gotten a ticket. If you’re getting tickets from automated cameras that are in the same locations every day that’s a you problem.
Anyone can drive with no risk of getting a traffic camera ticket. If fact, as I understand, you can drive several miles over the limit, so only people who are significantly speeding–not those making “small mistakes”–are likely to be ticketed.
This doesn’t target drivers, it targets speeding drivers.
It your concern is for non-wealthy people who need to drive, why wouldn’t you support something aimed at reducing significant speeding on the streets those non-wealthy drivers (or transit users or pedestrians) use?
ORS 810.437 only allows these cameras to issue tickets for people going 11 MPH or more over the speed limit. That is more than a small mistake.
You’re not at risk of getting a speeding ticket if you aren’t speeding. It is not, in fact, hard not to speed. You are the one driving, you are the one putting people at risk. If you can’t manage avoiding speeding tickets, please stop driving forever.
What about salami? Best of luck to you. Let’s tax the weathy, but also that’s not most of the people walking and biking and driving. I’m more of a driver than I care to admit, but I do always appreciate any nudges toward safety. This is one of those. We must drive like we are piloting a death machine, because we are. A little fine or warning letter is nothing.
What’s the risk if you’re not in the habit of driving 10 or more mph over the speed limit? And while daily driving may not be optional for everyone at all times, it certainly is optional at for most people at least some of the time. Not driving for those trips would also help reduce your “risk.”
You’ve made your point, and it’s sadly deficient.
This is a great way to destroy Portland. This is just another tax, “and needs the revenue these citations generate”. Portland is already the worst city in America for starting a company. Now it just doubled down and said, “leave”.
This “tax” is pretty easy to avoid.
How is a program that reduces reckless super-speeding (these only give tickets to 11+ over mph) a “tax” or a disincentive for starting a company?
This is law and order, albeit a weak form that allows a lot of law-breaking (up to 10mph over the speed limit). I thought that’s what conservatives wanted?
If you don’t speed and drive dangerously you won’t get a ticket. Are you advocating for speeding ?
Lol. This is a parody, right? Enforcing traffic laws is going to make Portland a bad city to start a company in?
I’ve got a simple solution for you – pay attention when you’re driving and you won’t have to pay the “tax”.
Hilarious nonsense.
I know a good way to not pay this ‘tax’. It comes with other benefits.
Does your business model require illegal or aggressive driving? Because that’s how you fall foul of traffic cameras.
Traffic cameras have been at these locations for years. Recently, they have not been operating due to a contractor under-performing.
The city hired a new contractor and now they work again.
In that sense, it’s hard to view them as new and “doubling down”.
If we suppose for a second that it is a tax, you can literally avoid paying 100% of it by not speeding while driving or choosing a different mode of transportation.
Paying a fine for violating the law? What a novel idea. Well, Portland certainly has said “leave” to a select 49 people this year, none of whom were expecting to hear such a thing. Speed/red light cameras are a way to mute that call, not a complete solution. Just hope that call doesn’t come for you or any of your loved ones, Roger, as I suspect you would change your tune in a big hurry.
Why did it take almost 6 months to replace the cameras?
I believe it has to do with the switch to a new contractor from the under performing one, getting the new equipment, installation, etc.
Once I had to replace some methane sensors at the Home Depot in Oregon City and it took 6 months for my vendors to even find some refurbished units to sell me. (And once they arrived, they’d barely hold a calibration)
Safety traded for liberty yet again. I hope you people like constant surveillance and automated law enforcement.
I don’t see how it’s any worse than non-automated enforcement, likely a whole lot more equitable. I don’t find the “Liberty” to speed 10 mph over the posted limit particularly desirable.
Considering how dangerous speeding is to people other than the speeder, perhaps you could think of this as rebalancing the three legs of “*life*, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”
As a year-round cyclist, active public transportation user and pedestrian, l welcome the reintroduction of traffic enforcement cameras. My apartment faces Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., the number of vehicles that routinely speed and run red lights at the intersection with my apartment building is alarming. It’s not just cars that speed and run red lights, it’s big commercial trucks of all varieties, semi’s, boxed-delivery, dump trucks etc. When I cross MLK, whether on foot or bike, I literally give the intersection a full 4-second count before attempting to cross. That’s how dangerous MLK/99W is.
Will these be ticketing modded class 2 / class 3 ebikes?
No, because the harm caused by reckless ebike riders is an order of magnitude lower than the death, dismemberment, and despair caused by reckless car drivers.
Two orders of magnitude. As far as I know the worst efforts of e-bike* riders in Portland have caused injuries but not killed anyone who was not actually on the bike. I hope that gets better and not worse. Well thought out regulations capable of suitable enforcement would be a help but so far we don’t have them.
*Including e-motorcycles, modified bikes, one wheels, scooters, etc.
umm, how could they when bikes are not required to have license plates? Are they going to ticket people pedaling at top speed who refuse to stop for kids at a crosswalk
?
Will these people on e-bikes be going 11 mph above the posted speed limit while traveling on a high crash corridor?
I highly doubt it.
But if they were to, are these cameras set up to use facial recognition to identify and cite people other than by their license plates?
Currently, I don’t believe so.
…so, no, probably not.
I just wish instead of spending money on making a surveillance state we would use it to make it feel unsafe to speed by building traffic calming, raised level crossings for pedestrians, more narrow roads, and less through traffic
Tickets and other fines are only illegal for the poor.
Let’s build a city that feels safe to walk in and is accessible to all and not just drivers
Nice dream.
This week I waited for my walk signal to turn green. It did and I proceeded out into the crosswalk. Turn to see 2 cars coming for me that, at high speed, ran the red light for the left turn. One slammed on brakes, nearly hitting me, 2nd one honked horn because they were mad that the first car stopped.
If we can’t get people to just obey basic laws and not think the world revolves around them then there will be little success. Creating a generation of narcissists with the need for “likes” in social media above all else hasn’t helped.
A poor driver can kill me just as easily as a rich person. Are poor people too stupid to put the phone down and go the speed limit?
Comment of the week
But poor drivers also kill people walking too.
I have no problem with significant punishment for all dangerous drivers, rich or poor, in fact I support it. The punishment should hurt, it should make it so they never dare do it again.
Plus, how hard is it not to drive more than 11 mph over the speed limit? It’s only hard for selfish people who put my family in danger.
Let’s not forget that in 2021, our police department, as a political stunt to increase their funding, made a public show of announcing that the PPB wasn’t able to enforce traffic laws. This gave carte blanche to drivers so they could disobey traffic laws with impunity. Maybe that contributed to a “pandemic era” spike in speeding and deaths?
Here are the facts Betsy is referencing in her comment above – https://bikeportland.org/2023/08/08/portland-police-bureau-officer-admits-no-traffic-enforcement-messaging-was-politically-motivated-377939
Can we get a red light camera at LIncoln/Chavez pleeeeease? It would be an bottomless money fountain for the city.
I’m always in favor of enforcing traffic laws. However, camera enforcement is selective enforcement in that it only results in a ticket if the driver is the registered vehicle owner. If the driver is a different person, or the vehicle is not registered, no citation is issued.
As opposed to cops, who are equitable in that they just never pull over or ticket anyone.