A new report from the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) confirms what many opponents of red-light cameras have long suspected: the cameras lead to more accidents, more injuries, and greater costs for New Jersey drivers.
The NJDOT report, released in November, was compiled as an annual requirement of the state’s five-year red light pilot program that began in December 2009. Overall, the report found an increase in the total number of crashes as well as a drastic increase in costs at intersections where the cameras were installed.
The traffic control signal monitoring system, also known as Red Light Running (RLR), is an “integrated device utilizing one or more cameras and sensors that work in conjunction with a traffic control signal to produce images of vehicles that disregard a red signal or ‘run a red light’,” the report explains.
Although there are many supporters for the program, the costs outweigh the benefits for some New Jersey drivers. Created to increase intersection safety, some red light camera devices have been found to do just the opposite.
According to the report, the costs included, but were not limited to “vehicle damage and repair, damage to property, emergency response, medical care, and even funeral costs.”
Many, if not most of these crashes are the result of drivers who slam on their brakes when a traffic light turns yellow in order to avoid a ticket, the report explains. Motorists who are aware that an intersection is monitored by red-light camera systems tend to get in more rear-end collisions from cars following too closely behind them.
The NJDOT report found that the number of rear-end collisions increased by 20 percent (from 286 to 343) after cameras were installed, resulting not only in more injuries, but a cost increase of $728,000.
Overall, the total number of crashes at the 24 intersections included in the report increased from 577 to 582 (up 0.9 percent.) It may not sound like a large increase; but the total cost – which takes into consideration vehicle and property damage, medical care, and emergency response, increased by nearly $1.2 million for New Jersey drivers after cameras were installed.
However, many opponents argue that the most dangerous intersections are the result of poor engineering rather than careless drivers.
Through allowing red light cameras to make the objective decision of whether or not a driver has disobeyed traffic laws, the argument erupts as to whether or not automated enforcement is a fair technique for issuing traffic violations. While traffic tickets were formerly up to the discretion of New Jersey police officers, the power is now in the lens of a camera.
That is not the case with the University, however; Sergeant Joseph Oberc of the University Police Department explained. Contrary to what many students believe, the cameras above the traffic lights are not there to catch questionable traffic violations. Instead, they are actually just there to trigger light changes in order to add to the flow of traffic around campus.
Oberc explained that police officers should be making the decisions as to whether or not someone has committed a violation. “Ultimately, it comes down to the need for direct interaction with a police officer. Sometimes, people have very legitimate reasons as to why they might have to bend certain traffic laws, such as if a driver is sick or might need help,” Sgt. Oberc said.
“We cannot always depend on technology to decipher right from wrong,” he continued. Sergeant Oberc explained that during tough fiscal times, there is even more of a reason to make sure that someone is truly deserving of a ticket before issuing one.
Mike McKenty, a Senior and History/Education major at the University, had a first-hand experience with what many are considering an unfair method of traffic monitoring. “Not only did I get a ticket sent to me in the mail for stopping one second less than I was supposed to at a right-on-red, but it was accompanied by a play-by-play video,” McKenty said.
Like many, McKenty challenged the ticket he received and won; after township officials admitted that they did not calibrate the cameras for the 85th percentile of traffic. According to program regulations, all traffic lights were supposed to be set in order to accommodate the speed of 85 percent of all drivers on the road in a specific area – and were not.
Consistent with the ticket as well as the video he received in the mail, McKenty explained that he was flagged for going through the intersection .27 of a second too early. “Just because the timing of the light was incorrect, people were forced to stay home from their jobs in order to pay $85 to $140 in fines – a week’s groceries for some and a whole day’s pay for many, just based on hundredths of a second,” McKenty said.
Monmouth County Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon Jr, a long-time opponent of the current red light camera program has since introduced a series of guidelines for testing the existing program across the state.
“The bottom line is that, at the very least, these cameras are not increasing safety and are likely having a net negative impact on safety – these camera systems are making our roads more hazardous. We should all join together and call for the plug to be pulled on this program,” O’Scanlon said.
He explained that, like McKenty, many motorists might have been wrongly fined because yellow lights were timed incorrectly. O’Scanlon has been working diligently with traffic experts and engineers in order to find alternative methods to keep drivers safe on New Jersey roads.
A platform in which he has backed for months, O’Scanlon explained that the red-light cameras are “nothing more than a revenue generator,” and that “townships across the state continue to take advantage of innocent drivers.”
O’Scanlon’s opinion is similar to the feelings of many opponents of the current bill. While the report has illuminated many interesting statistics to NJ drivers, the report only analyzes two groupings of data: statewide data over the course of just two years and data from a mere two intersections in Newark over one year’s time.
Rather than focusing on statewide camera data, O’Scanlon argues that the narrative of the report centers solely on Newark – “ignoring the negative realities of the program,” he said.
After calling for a ban of red light cameras, claiming that they fail to decrease overall accidents, O’Scanlon has not only called for the program to be suspended, but has demanded that no other municipalities be allowed to enter the current program.
Instead, he has introduced a revised bill that would stretch the duration of yellow lights as well as give drivers an extra 1.5 seconds to clear an intersection before tickets are issued. His proposal also would reduce fines from the current $85 to just $20.
While there are many opponents of the current bill that have similar feelings to O’Scanlon, none are as drastic the unidentified shooter who decided to settle the score with red-light traffic cameras once and for all in Newark this past August.
Two of the cameras located at separate intersections in Newark — Broad and Market streets and Broad Street and Raymond Boulevard; were riddled with bullet holes from an shooter who was outraged by the cameras, according to a Star-Ledger published in August.
At the same Newark intersections, the NJDOT report found that right-angle crashes, the most common at right-hand-turn lights, dropped from 7 in the year before the cameras were installed to 1 in the second year — a more than 85-percent decrease.
Many opponents and proponents of the current bill are split on their decision based merely on the muddied results found in the report. While some intersections found that crashes increased, others found that crashes decreased with the institution of the red-light cameras.
Samantha Conoscenti, a Senior and Health Studies major at the University expressed support of the red-light camera program. After getting into an accident that left her car totaled, Conoscenti explained that she wished that a camera were at the scene of the accident so that there was footage of what actually happened.
“While going through a green light, another driver unexpectedly went through the intersection where they should have been stopped at red light and t-boned my car,” she said.
Conoscenti explained, “At the time, the intersection never had cameras and up until this past summer, they still didn’t have them. If the cameras had been there when I had the accident, maybe I wouldn’t have had such a nightmare with my car insurance company.”
Although many states have found traffic-light cameras to be a helpful resource in presumably reducing traffic accidents and fatalities, the data shows that this may not be the case in New Jersey.
According to Professor Bordelon of the Political Science Department, “There are currently five bills in the state legislature dealing with the matter and none seem to be gaining any traction in either the Senate or the Assembly.”
“The legislation seems to suggest a lack of consensus on the effectiveness of the current devices and whether they actually do deter unsafe driving rather than unintentionally encourage it,” he further described.
Red-light cameras bring about debatable legal concerns. “It appears difficult for the government to be able to proffer evidence of guilt solely on the data from the camera. It could be possible that someone accused of committing a traffic light violation observed by a camera could argue the functionality of the camera, the timing of the motion capture, among other things,” Bordelon said.
Similar to Sgt. Oberc’s opinion, Bordelon explained that “it seems harder to cross examine a camera than a living, breathing police officer therefore making a defendant’s case against it stronger than that of traditional human enforcement.”
As many local police resources have faced economic strain, municipalities may fight to keep the current red-light systems because cameras are cheaper than putting officers at every intersection. “It’s a debate that will get resurrected in the legislature, and with obvious bipartisan support, that will likely be sooner rather than later,” he said.
As communities across the nation seek to address and remedy accidents as well as reduce both injuries and fatalities, states are increasingly looking for tools to enhance traditional enforcement techniques. Two years remain in New Jersey’s pilot program. If stats don’t show a full and legitimate increase in safety, this pilot program may not fulfill its term.
However, the Department of Transportation report recommends that the show must go on: the existing red-light camera program will continue with further analysis by the DOT. However, legislators just like O’Scanlon are working diligently to reform and improve what so many are considering to be an absolute failure of a program.
