Red-Light Cameras: Safer Roads or Big Brother?
South Orange enters a debate over whether red-light cameras are needed.
Red light cameras came up again in Monday’s Board of Trustees meeting, re-igniting a long debate over whether South Orange needs them installed.
A request for proposal came back with two responses for the camera to be installed. Police Chief James Chelel says that he supports them. Some trustees are on the fence.
A red-light camera would be installed on a traffic light to help catch drivers who run red lights. The camera records a short video that is sent to the police department to be reviewed. Upon review, the reviewing officer then decides whether or not to issue a ticket to the driver by mail.
The Federal Highway Administration says red-light running is a safety concern across the country and statistics show automated red-light enforcement using cameras is effective in reducing the incidence of red-light running and the number of red-light running crashes.
Some issues brought up were whether the cameras would errantly catch drivers making a right turn on red, how much of a grace period will drivers receive and what about drivers in the middle of the lane waiting to turn when the light turns red.
The trustees said that the cameras would not be used for any other purpose. The cameras would be free, however the company providing them would receive a percentage of every ticket issued as a result of them.
No action was taken at Monday’s meeting other than to ask the applicants whether they can submit studies on red-light running in South Orange.
So Patch has taken to you, the residents, to ask whether red-light cameras are needed and wanted in town. Is this going to make the town safer? Is red-light running even an issue in South Orange? Do you believe that the cameras will not be used for their intended purposes?
Vote below and let us know what you think in the comments section.
Jim
2:40 pm on Sunday, January 29, 2012
The cameras (indirectly) block emergency vehicles - because cars stopped at a camera hesitate to get out of the way! Other side effects: Rearenders, $$$ sent to Oz, AZ or Goldman-Sachs, where it won't come back, and tourists and shoppers driven away.
Worse, a false expectation of safety, because cameras can't stop the real late runners, who cause the accidents. (If cameras worked, camera sellers wouldn't have the crash videos they distributed in December.)
Want safety, no side effects?
To cut car/pedestrian accidents, train your kids not to step out just 'cuz the walk sign came on.
To cut nuisance running (a fraction of a second late), lengthen the yellows. It's cheap to do so can be done all over town.
The dangerous real late (multiple seconds) runs won't be stopped by the mere presence of a camera, because the runner won't know (a lost tourist) or won't remember (a distracted or impaired "local") that there's a camera up ahead. They're not doing it on purpose! To cut the real late runs, improve the visual cues that say, "Intersection ahead." Florida's DOT found that better pavement markings (paint!) cut running by up to 74%. Make the signal lights bigger, add backboards, and put the poles on the NEAR side of the corner. Put brighter bulbs in the street lights at intersections. Put up lighted name signs for the cross streets.
Who needs cameras and their side effects?