| Tru2Chevy |
01-08-2008 04:39 PM |
A few articles I found on the topic:
Quote:
Red-light violators in New Jersey could soon be caught on camera under legislation approved by legislators on Monday.
The legislation, which is now headed to Gov. Jon S. Corzine for enactment, authorizes a five-year pilot program that would allow municipalities to install cameras to monitor intersections with a high number of accidents or violations. Municipalities would have to apply for inclusion in the program and if accepted would be required to submit annual reports listing increases or decreases in accidents or violations at the intersections being monitored, bill sponsor Sen. Joseph Coniglio, D-Bergen, said.
"If we can save lives by encouraging people to stop at lights when they know a camera is recording their decision, this pilot program will be well worth it," Coniglio said. "This program is said to be working in other states, so we should see if it fits for New Jersey."
|
Quote:
As the final hours tick away on the two-year legislative session in New Jersey, a legislative effort that could lead to red-light cameras popping up in the state was scheduled for consideration on the floors of both chambers Monday, Jan. 7.
Existing New Jersey law prohibits use of camera radar by law enforcement officers or agencies.
As amended, the Assembly and Senate versions of the bill would remove the restriction for a period of five years to allow municipalities to use photo enforcement at traffic signals. The transportation commissioner would decide in which communities it is appropriate to post the traffic cameras.
The cameras snap pictures of red-light runners’ vehicles and license plates. Tickets are mailed to the vehicles’ owners, regardless who was driving at the time.
Supporters say the equipment encourages compliance with the law and saves lives by reducing collisions.
Assemblyman Joseph Coniglio, D-Paramus, said a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that the cameras, combined with longer yellow lights, reduced red-light violations by 96 percent.
Opponents question the claim that cameras are solely intended to keep people safe. They also say the process denies alleged violators to confront their accusers.
“The motivation of every player in this deal is economics. Whether it’s the local jurisdiction or the manufacturer: That’s not reasonable justification for doing that,” said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
Others question the effectiveness of such intersection cameras, arguing they have the potential to distract drivers and cause more fender-bender accidents.
In fact, a study paid for by the U.S. Department of Transportation showed rear-end crashes actually increased in cities with red-light cameras, as motorists stopped abruptly at yellow lights to avoid tickets.
|
Quote:
TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey drivers may soon be posing for unwanted portraits.
The Legislature on Monday voted to allow municipalities to install cameras to catch drivers disobeying traffic signals.
The bill needs Gov. Jon S. Corzine's signature to become law.
The Assembly voted 49-25 to approve the plan.
An initial Senate vote on the legislation fell short of the 21 votes needed to pass, but it passed 22-1 on a second vote.
Under the plan, violators would get tickets through the mail featuring high-resolution, color digital images of their vehicle driving through an intersection when the light is red.
While such cameras were rare just 10 years ago, they're now used in more than 300 U.S. communities, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. That includes major cities such as Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington.
Sen. Joseph Coniglio, the bill sponsor, contends the cameras would help improve driving safety.
"These cameras do save lives," said Coniglio, D-Bergen. "They do prevent accidents. They do save dollars."
Coniglio noted studies by the institute found that the cameras cut red light violations.
"Give it a chance," Coniglio said. "It will work."
But critics contend the cameras, among other things, deny alleged violators the right to confront an accuser in court. They also claim the cameras can lead to innocent drivers being charged and will do nothing to deter unsafe motorists.
"This nothing more than the generation of money for municipalities," said Sen. Nicholas Scutari, D-Union, who cited statistics that show the cameras can increase rear-end collisions. "This is not a public safety issue."
The AAA Clubs of New Jersey said a November poll showed 77 percent of 1,000 surveyed motorists supported cameras, but it also expressed concern about money and legal issues.
"We know from experience that this technology can work if it's improved safety we're after, not increased revenue," said David Weinstein, of the AAA Clubs of New Jersey. "Our concern with this specific legislation is that motorists get tagged with points but cannot face their accuser in a court of law."
The equipment isn't welcome everywhere.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox declared use of red light and speed cameras to be illegal. And the Minnesota Supreme Court struck down red light cameras, ruling it was wrong for police to ticket the car owner, regardless of who was driving.
New Jersey's proposal would establish a five-year pilot program to test its effectiveness. The state transportation commissioner could let as many municipalities participate in the program as the commissioner deems appropriate.
The state assesses two points against a license for motorists who fail to obey a traffic signal and charges fines ranging from $85 to $140, but those caught running a red light by a camera wouldn't be assessed license points.
"This is wrong," said Assemblyman John Rooney, R-Bergen. "It's Big Brother watching you."
|
- Justin |
