15 Sep 2014
61° Clear
Patch Instagram photo by daniellemastersonbooks
Patch Instagram photo by longunderwearman
Patch Instagram photo by quadrofoglio
Patch Instagram photo by athomeinmygarden
Patch Instagram photo by daniellemastersonbooks
Patch Instagram photo by healthandbeautynz
Patch Instagram photo by andreagazeapt
Patch Instagram photo by reh_22
Patch Instagram photo by athomeinmygarden

New Report Raises Concerns About Red Light Cameras

The Report - "Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead - The Risks of Privatizing Traffic Law Enfrocement and How to Protect the Public" - was produced by the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group.

New Report Raises Concerns About Red Light Cameras

Editor's Note: The following is a news release issued by the  New Jersey Public Interest Research Grou p. South Brunswick had considered placing a red light camera at the intersection of Route 1 and Henderson Road before being

A new research report released on Oct. 27 outlines problems with the growing trend among cities to outsource traffic enforcement to red-light and speed camera vendors.
 
“Too many cities wrongly sign away power to ensure the safety of citizens on the roads when they privatize traffic law enforcement. Automated traffic ticketing tends to be governed by contracts that focus more on profits than safety,” said Jen Kim of NJPIRG, the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group.  “That shouldn’t happen,” Kim added.
 
The report, titled Caution: Red Light Cameras Ahead; The Risks of Privatizing Traffic Law Enforcement and How to Protect the Public finds that approximately half of the states have enabled the use of automated traffic law enforcement. 

Municipalities in these states contract with private companies to provide cameras and issue citations to traffic violators. Citizens have often objected to privatized forms of traffic enforcement and many municipalities have found themselves in legal trouble when they attempt to change or update these contracts.

Traffic engineering alternatives, such as lengthening yellow lights, are often the best way to reduce injuries from red-light running. However, those solutions too often get ignored because contractors and sometimes municipalities are more focused on increasing revenue from tickets.
 
New Jersey began a pilot program for red light cameras in 2008. To date, twenty-five municipalities across the state have joined the program, with most outsourcing to American Traffic Solutions (ATS) or Redflex, private vendors. 

Redflex and ATS have both been the subject of “deals gone bad” in contracts with other cities. The report detailed one example in Tempe, Arizona where Redflex filed a lawsuit against the city for implementing a program where drivers could avoid fines by attending traffic school. In California, Bell Gardens signed a contract with Redflex that would penalize the city if it chooses to alter the length of its yellow lights. 
 
“If these contracts put revenue first and safety last, its puts the public at risk. Safety should always be first,” said Kim.
 
“Because of the controls established by law for the red-light camera pilot program, many municipalities decided not to participate or withdrew before contracting with a vendor to avoid many of the pitfalls outlined in the report,” said Steve Carrellas, of the New Jersey chapter of the National Motorists Association.
 
Cities including Paramus are currently considering adding red light cameras. “Paramus’s contract discussions involve a fee-for-service structure which is the least problematic. It means the city will pay a flat fee, rather than one that incentivizes the camera company based on the number of tickets,” said Kim. “But, they should still also explore alternatives such as longer yellow lights.”
 
Last October it was discovered that the town of Glassboro, one of the many to install red light cameras, had yellow lights that lasted shorter than the federal minimum of 4 seconds (in 35 mph zones). It was discovered after the former Harrison Township mayor received a ticket himself.
 
The report recommends stronger guidelines to ensure that automated traffic enforcement programs must focus on improving road safety, rather than ticket revenue.  Deals between local governments and traffic camera vendors should:

  • Put public safety first in decisions regarding enforcement of traffic laws – this includes evaluating privatized law enforcement camera systems against alternative options without regard to potential revenues.
  • Ensure that contract language is free from potential conflicts of interest.
  • Avoid direct or indirect incentives for vendors that are based on the volume of tickets or fines.
  • Retain public control over traffic policy and engineering decisions, including cancelling contracts if the public is dissatisfied.
  • Ensure that the process of contracting with vendors is completely open, with ample opportunity for public participation and each ticket listing where to find online data about automated ticketing for each intersection.

 

“We are lucky that New Jersey hasn’t yet seen the same level of controversy and lawsuits over red-light cameras found in states like California and Texas. Looking at the growth of this industry around the country, we want to learn from problems elsewhere to prevent them in New Jersey,” said Kim.
 
“Most of all, the law calls for the pilot program to end so any contract should have taken into account the anticipated end or a possible premature end if the New Jersey Department of Transportation rules that any particular camera system installation is creating safety issues,” added Carrellas.
 
New Jersey’s pilot program ends in 2013 at which the state will evaluate the usefulness of the program.

Share This Article