Transit surveillance: Wrecks, lies & videotape
“We’re in the money!” A few years ago, a passenger on a Broward County (Fla.) Transit (BCT) bus belted out that Depression-era tune following a minor crash between the bus she was riding and a parked bus. Although a dozen other passengers vacated the bus unharmed, the overzealous singer and a few others feigned injury in an attempt to win settlements from the transit agency. Too bad their dancing and singing following the accident were caught on video.
After the crash, transit authorities pulled the video from the bus’s on-board cameras to review the incident. “I’m watching this video, and I see all of these people connive with one another to go to their lawyer or their chiropractor or doctor, and they’re going to do this and that. And [I hear them say], ‘Oh, man, we’re going to be rich,’” says William Sorrells, manager of the Safety and Training Department for BCT. “How do you think that turned out in court?”
Like BCT, many transit agencies are using closed-circuit surveillance cameras on vehicles to record passenger and operator behavior. As the technology of the systems has improved, more agencies are relying on them to boost the safety and security of their vehicles. Although some people bristle at the thought of being watched by government agencies, transit officials say most passengers and employees accept the technology and appreciate its use.
Advancing technology
The technology used in mobile video surveillance systems has developed considerably since its introduction in the 1980s. Early versions of the technology relied on analog equipment that recorded images on media such as VHS tapes. “Initially, when [on-board surveillance cameras] came out, we were looking at early formats of taped surveillance, and machines were not as reliable,” says Greg Hull, director of operations safety and security programs for the Washington, D.C.-based American Public Transportation Association.
Although the systems worked well enough, agencies found that the equipment wore out easily. “We found that the VCRs couldn’t handle the environment,” says Emily Kretz, surveillance program coordinator for the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni). “After a year, [the recorder] would die, and we’d have to replace the heads.”
Additionally, analog recorders often had limited storage capacity. “Years ago, on the old system, we had a window of four hours to go and retrieve a tape; otherwise, it would tape over itself,” Sorrells says.
More recently, vendors have created digital video recording systems, which are more durable and have more storage capacity than analog systems. BCT’s digital systems can store up to 10 days of images, allowing the agency more time to retrieve records of incidents from vehicles.
Muni has been using digital video surveillance since 1998 on many of its diesel buses and electric trolleys. The buses have surveillance equipment from Durango, Colo.-based Loronix, and the trolleys use equipment by Saddle Brook, N.J.-based Viscom Products.
Each of the Muni vehicles is equipped with four color cameras. Two cameras are mounted at the front of the vehicle, recording passengers as they get on the bus or trolley, and as they walk down the center aisle. Two more cameras are mounted toward the back of the vehicle to record the back door and passengers in the rear. Additionally, a microphone is mounted at the front of the vehicle to record passenger interactions with operators. If an incident occurs on a vehicle, operators can push a button to mark the recording, which makes the incident easy to find during video reviews.
To view recordings, officials remove the digital storage device from the vehicle and install it in a desktop computer equipped with viewing software. They can choose to view images non-sequentially, and they can download and save images.
The durability, storage capabilities and playback process of digital video surveillance systems are appealing features to a growing number of agencies. “While certain transit agencies moved toward this [early on], others were waiting until technology advanced so the reliability was high and the prices would go down,” Hull says. “We are seeing more and more transit agencies moving toward this technology for both buses and rail transit.”
Minimizing liability
Transit agencies have several reasons for installing surveillance video systems on vehicles. Like BCT, many agencies are hit regularly with injury claims by passengers, and surveillance video can document whether an injury actually occurred and what caused it. “From a risk management standpoint, [surveillance video provides] good, solid documentation of what did happen if someone slipped and fell,” says Elizabeth Van Lauwe, administrative manager for MetroLINK, the transit agency serving Rock Island County, Ill.
Late last year, MetroLINK began installing digital video surveillance systems from Austin, Texas-based GE Interlogix on its buses. It already has recorded an incident in which an elderly woman fell on board a bus. “She has not called to make a claim, but, if she were to call, thanks to the installation of the cameras, it’s very clear that she just misjudged where the seat was,” says Rick Ryckeghem, risk manager for MetroLINK. “The bus wasn’t moving; there was no error on the driver’s part; there was no defect or anything wrong with the bus. She clearly just reached out and sat down in the middle of the aisle.”
Similarly, TriMet, the transit agency serving the Portland, Ore., metropolitan area, used surveillance video to dispute a claim by a man who said he was injured while riding an agency bus. “When you looked at the video of the bus, this person, who wore a very distinctive hat, was not on the bus,” says Mary Fetsch, communications director for TriMet. “So we prosecuted that person, and he had to pay a fine.”
In addition to documenting injuries (or lack thereof), video surveillance systems can document unruly behavior. “Often, as the agencies and the employees are trying to piece together what has occurred, having something captured on film to assist in reconstructing [events] helps to shorten any debates as to who may have been involved,” Hull says.
Muni recently used video from one of its buses to identify and prosecute a group of teenagers who beat up another teen on board. Police officers took the video to area school officials to help identify the aggressors, and the district attorney used the video as evidence in their prosecution. “The DA was going to let them off, but, once he saw the video, he said, ‘I’m going for it,’” Kretz says. “Once the lawyers saw it, they were ready to plead. We won this big time all because we had the video.”
Because video surveillance tapes have been used successfully in prosecuting and defending court cases, their presence on transit vehicles can be a deterrent to crime and inappropriate behavior, Fetsch says. “Most people will not do something in front of a camera that they don’t want to be caught at,” she notes.
Watching out for big brother
Although video surveillance of public spaces may deter some crimes and disruptive behavior, critics of the technology claim it is intrusive and ineffective. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Web site points to a British study that claims public video surveillance does not lower the overall crime rate. Additionally, the organization claims the technology will have a “chilling effect” on public life.
Some people are particularly critical of the technology’s use by government agencies, sensing a high potential for misuse. The ACLU Web site notes the activities of a Washington, D.C., police officer who used surveillance technology to blackmail patrons of a gay club. Additionally, the site refers to a British sociological study that found surveillance camera operators focus disproportionately on people of color.
Despite those criticisms, transit agency officials have seen a shift toward acceptance of video surveillance since Sept. 11, 2001. “The issue of privacy concerns has changed dramatically,” Hull says. “Where we may have seen from employees and some rider groups that there were concerns, such concerns now are very minimal and infrequently heard because it’s understood that these technologies can help to provide and enhance the level of security for everybody.”
Agencies have found that, by working with labor unions to create policies for video surveillance use, employees are more receptive to its installation. BCT operators have grown to rely on the surveillance cameras much like they rely on their two-way radios, Sorrells notes. “We have operators requesting video surveillance equipment on their routes,” he says. “They don’t want to leave without being able to say, ‘Hey, I can prove what I did; can they prove what they did?’”
Passengers also rely on the cameras to support their claims against vehicle operators. BCT has had several requests from passengers to pull surveillance tapes to view poor behavior from operators. “Now we have people calling us, telling us, ‘You need to pull the camera on this because this is how I was treated, and I think you ought to know that,’” Sorrells says.
As one of many technologies designed to improve public transportation safety and security, mobile video surveillance systems are gaining acceptance among transit officials. “[The technology is] relatively inexpensive when you consider what potential there is for you both in terms of real and implied safety,” Sorrells says. “People have a perception that they’re safer on a bus or anywhere else with video surveillance equipment.”
