Richard Inkeles of Neptune Township returns to his seat after speaking about red-light cameras at the Township Committee meeting. PG photo
By Charles Layton
The Township Committee voted on Monday night to study whether red-light cameras would cut down on traffic accidents at certain Neptune intersections.
The study will be done by American Traffic Solutions, an Arizona-based company that specializes in installing and running these camera systems, which are designed to catch drivers in the act of running red lights. If ATS’s study shows that such a system would improve traffic safety in Neptune, the Committee would then consider implementing it.
Mayor Randy Bishop said the Neptune Police had suggested four intersections as likely sites for such systems because of their heavy traffic flow and/or number of accidents: Route 33 at Neptune Boulevard, Route 33 at Route 35, Route 33 at West Bangs Avenue, and Route 66 at Jumping Brook Road.
The state Department of Transportation has been putting pressure on New Jersey towns to adopt red-light cameras, and quite a number have already done so, including Brick, Deptford, East Brunswick, Glassboro, Gloucester, Jersey City, Linden, Newark, New Brunswick, Stratford, Wayne and Woodbridge. Bishop said he had spoken with officials in Brick who are “happy with how the system is functioning.”
This sign, in Linden, NJ, warns motorists that they're being watched. Photo by David Gard of New Jersey Local News Service
The way it works is, a city or town lets a private company install special camera equipment on poles at intersections with traffic lights. The devices capture images of cars in the act of running the red light. They take both video and still photos of the offending car, including shots of the license plate, and then send a traffic ticket to the car’s owner. The company supplies, installs, operates and services the equipment. When the owner pays the fine, the town and the company split the money.
One of the more controversial aspects of this arrangement is that such pictures are subject to interpretation and a private company with a built-in financial bias is acting in the role of traffic cop. A suit filed in Dallas in 2008 resulted in a judge’s decision that called into question millions of dollars in fines collected from that city’s red-light system. The judge found that the camera vendor had no legal authority to act as an investigator or to monitor intersections as an agent of the police. However, Bishop said that if Neptune were to adopt this system, a Neptune police official would review the pictures before the company issued a violation. “Our control over the violation being sent remains here at home,” he said.
Another frequently-cited problem is that the red-light camera system cannot determine who is driving the car at the time of a violation; it can only determine who owns the car, based on the license plate number. This has led to frequent law suits in other states, some of them involving ATS, the company Neptune will engage to do its study. There was no explanation at Monday’s meeting as to how the Township might address this problem.
The evidence has been mixed as to whether red-light cameras do, in fact, reduce traffic accidents. Some studies have concluded that they do. Others have concluded that the use of such cameras has actually led to more accidents — especially rear-end collisions. (The problem seems to be that drivers suddenly spot the cameras, slam on their brakes and get plowed into from behind.)
The main motivation for adopting red-light cameras has often been the increased revenues they may provide for a town. However, Bishop said he did not consider this a sufficient reason to move to such a system.
“I still oppose them as a revenue means,” he said. “I will support them if they improve safety.”
Both Bishop and Committeeman Eric Houghtaling have previously opposed red-light cameras. But on Monday they joined in the unanimous vote in favor of commissioning the study. Bishop said the study would likely take three or four months.
If you drive with caution, you have nothing to fear from red light cameras. If we had security cameras in the Grove, only criminals would be worried about them.
Is Neptune Township going to be paying ATS for this study and if so how much ?
Ken, to your mention of stop signs, I have no doubt that there are plenty of violators around town, but the (in my view) inaccurate upright “stop” signs at pedestrian crossings on Main Avenue have the opposite problem. These aren’t true stop signs and yet because they confusingly have a picture of an actual stop sign on them people think they are supposed to stop at them even if there is no pedestrian anywhere. Thus, if you’re following a car down Main Avenue, you have no idea when or if the car in front thinks it should stop, even when it shouldn’t.
The point is that these traffic controls, instructions and enforcement have to be thought through before they are imposed (and revisited when they don’t work), because even things that seem more protective (like the upright stop for ped-xing indicators) can actually make things more dangerous by engendering confusion and giving an inaccurate impression of the rules that apply.
Of course, my guess for the biggest fender-bender risk in Ocean Grove would have to be the diagonal nose-in parking on Main Avenue.
While driving through Asbury Park and Neptune I experience too many red/yellow light scenarios for comfort (same excitment as in Ocean Grove with the stop sign violators). If not cameras…then what? Perhaps “specials” authorized to issue summonses?
This problem seems akin to OG’s summertime parking situation….unhappily It exists but an acceptable solution escapes us. Suggestions anyone?
The conflict-of-interest question raised by “Anonymous” above is an interesting one.
My guess is that the company will mainly want to know whether it would make sense for them financially to put these cameras in Neptune. The expenses involved are not small, and their deal with Neptune would have to guarantee that if the system lost money none of the loss would fall on the township. So it’s possible the company might decide against the whole venture for financial reasons.
But if the company concludes that Neptune would be profitable for them, presumably they’d still have to show that the system would improve safety. We the public would need to look carefully at their evidence on that, for obvious reasons.
But even if the evidence is convincing that traffic accidents could be avoided AND that the Township could earn extra revenue, there’d still be other issues to consider. For instance, would Neptune be risking legal expenses if people start contesting the tickets or filing law suits?
Questions abound. If this thing becomes a serious possibility, we’ll explore those questions.
Seriously? The company doing the study also installs these cameras? What are the chances that they will say these cameras that they install are not worth it?
Just more excuses for the government to spy on us. They voted against it here in Houston and I am glad they did. Have they done a case study that proves that these cameras would lower accidents?
I think rear ending a car that slammed on it’s brakes to avoid getting a ticket creates a real danger. How about the poor soul stopped at an intersection attempting to make a turn when the light changes to red. Another Neptune money grab. Randy, we are disappointed in your change of position. If it was wrong in 2010 it is still wrong in 2012.
They should put up cameras in the Grove to capture images of all the criminals stealing our stuff. That would make ’em think twice about riding a stolen bike out of town.
The ability for government to see free citizens anywhere they go limits freedom. Think about it. What happens the day some force decides to use the cameras against people they deem inappropriate?
God forbid you or I are defined part of that group.
Funny this was proposed by Republican candidate back in Oct/Nov of 2010.
Now it’s going to be studied & possibly implemented, but only if it improves safety!!!
Give me a break, I have a bridge to sell if anyone is interested.
& Bishop & Houghtaling chided the opposition saying this was WRONG!!!!!!!!!!