Flock Safety's AI cameras are under fire for more than surveillance. Now critics say they can cause crashes.

Key points

• Flock Safety cameras, used by hundreds of US law enforcement agencies, face new criticism over their physical placement on public roads.
• Safety advocates say some camera poles are installed at the bottom of hills on narrow rural roads, where they can surprise drivers.
• The cameras already drew controversy for enabling AI-assisted surveillance of ordinary citizens and for being used to flag undocumented immigrants.
• No federal highway safety standard specifically covers roadside automated license plate readers, leaving a regulatory gap.

A black metal pole stands at the bottom of a tree-lined hill on a narrow, two-lane road in Greene County, Ohio. At the top sits a camera and a solar panel. To a passing driver, it can appear with little warning.

That pole belongs to Flock Safety, a company that sells automated license plate readers, cameras that photograph every passing vehicle, read the plate number, and check it against police watchlists in seconds. Hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the country pay for the service. Flock Safety has faced years of criticism, first reported by The Guardian, over privacy concerns and reports that its cameras helped identify immigrants for federal agents.

Now there is a second complaint. Roadside safety advocates say some of these poles are placed in spots that drivers might not expect, and that the cameras may not meet the standards that normally govern objects placed close to moving traffic.

What is the actual safety concern?

The worry is about what engineers call a "clear zone," the strip of space beside a road that is kept free of hard obstacles so that a driver who drifts off the tarmac has room to recover without hitting something solid. Federal highway guidelines recommend a clear zone of up to 30 feet on roads with higher speed limits.

A camera pole planted inside that zone can become a crash hazard. If a driver veers slightly off the road, that pole is exactly what they would hit.

Safety advocates say the problem is partly that no specific federal rule covers where these cameras must or must not go. Highway safety standards exist for signs, utility poles, and guardrails. Automated license plate readers, a relatively new technology, have slipped through without equivalent rules.

Who is paying for all this?

Local governments and police departments pay Flock Safety for access to the camera network, typically through annual subscription contracts. The cost falls on taxpayers. In many cases, residents were not consulted before the cameras went up.

Flock Safety argues its cameras help solve crimes and recover stolen vehicles. That may be true. But the placement of the hardware is a separate question from whether the technology works.

What should drivers and local residents do?

If you live in a town that uses Flock Safety cameras, or any other automated plate reader, you can ask your local council or police department two things: where exactly are the cameras located, and did an engineer review those placements against highway safety guidelines?

You are entitled to that information. Most contracts are public records.

Keep one thing in mind, though. Stories like this one tend to highlight the worst-placed cameras. Many poles are probably installed without incident. The towns where something went right do not make the news.

Honest takeaway: Before assuming your local cameras are hazardous, file a public records request for the installation plan. If no safety review was done, that is the real story to take to your council meeting.