Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
TagsBY BOB HOLT
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
The red-light camera program for traffic violators which has been operating in New Jersey since 2008 has certainly been earning its keep as far as raising city revenue.
16 New Jersey municipalities are now using red-light cameras to catch drivers who run red lights, with the goal being to reduce accidents. An Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study reported that red-light cameras saved 159 lives in 14 of the largest U.S. cities between 2004 and 2008.
New Jersey is one of 25 states with red-light cameras operating in at least one location. According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, 21 states, along with the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands, allow red light camera use. They are prohibited in nine states, and 20 states have no state laws about them. 25 states, plus the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands have at least one red light camera in operation.
In New Jersey, red light violations are $85 in most areas, but if the cameras are on a “Safe Corridor” of the highway, the fine jumps to $140. No points go on a driver’s license.
Drivers who fight their tickets see a 12-second video of the violation. Most then choose to pay the fine, said Capt. John Rein of the Brick Police Department, according to the Asbury Park Press. The two people who challenged their tickets in court lost, he added.
Mycentraljersey.com reports Brick was the first New Jersey municipality to use red-light cameras. They were activated at the intersection of Brick Boulevard and Chambers Bridge Road in January 2010. For 30 days, alleged violators got warnings, then tickets were issued by mail.
Linden began its red-light camera after Brick. Between the end of July 2010 and mid-May, police in Linden had given 50,170 citations and 4,900 were under review. From August to December 2010, the net revenue to Linden earned over $1.1 million in net revenue from their cameras, and gave another $1.1 million to the state.
New Brunswick, averages about 1,300 summonses a month. Its chief financial officer said the city has earned $312,193 since the start. Between September and May, New Jersey received $106,927 and the county got $255,695 between September 2010 and May.
Phil Dinicola, municipal court director of Woodbridge, said from August 2010 through May, the city had issued 9,928 tickets from their red-light cameras. Those tickets were worth $1,240,526, and Woodbridge saw $632,837of that, he said.
While the earnings results of the program have been positive for cities, safety records have been mixed. Statistics from cities that have had the cameras operating the longest have not shown any noticeable decline in accidents at those intersections, and at least one actually showed a slight increase.
Something the scamera vendors generally don't want to happen. (Go ask citizens in Houston, TX or a number of Washington State towns!)
See:
www.motorists.org
www.banthecams.org
www.camerafraud.com
www.bhspi.org
If you actually read all of the studies on red light cameras(there are dozens of them out there, many more than the 2 or 3 that advocates mention) you will see that red light cameras lead to a significant increase in crashes and injuries.
If they were truly interested in improving safety, they would increase the yellow signal time by one additional second. Doing this has proven in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, New Mexico, Missouri and California to be more effective at preventing red light running than red light cameras are, but nobody makes money that way.
You should take the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety "death study" results with a grain of salt(or maybe a pound of it). The IIHS member organizations make millions every year off of red light cameras, and this study assumes that red light cameras are the only reason for the decline in intersection deaths. In other words, intersection engineering changes and changing traffic volumes are completely ignored by their study so they can promote red light cameras. They also chose a very small percentage of red-light-camera-installed-cities, and they cherry-picked the time periods for their study to fit their desired results. This study is about as valid as when the tobacco industry claimed that cigarette smoking increases lung capacity.