O’Scanlon: Red-light cameras amount to ‘highway robbery’
O’Scanlon: Red-light cameras amount to ‘highway robbery’
Profit motive, not safety, spurs traffic surveillance, legislator says BY KRISTEN DALTON Staff Writer
RED BANK — A video posted on the Internet showing a series of crashes and near misses at intersections participating in New Jersey’s five-year red-light camera pilot program has Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon (R-13th District) seeing red.
“My immediate reaction was these people are foolishly putting out a video that shows the drivers are not consciously driving through a red light, and it shows that their equipment is a failure at getting people to somehow alter their subconscious to not drive through a red light,” O’Scanlon said about the video posted on YouTube by American Traffic Solutions (ATS) on Dec. 23.
“This is simply highway robbery,” O’Scanlon said in an interview on Jan. 5. “these people have a huge profit motive. If we show, like other states have shown, that we’re not going to fall silent to the song of the profit motive, they’re going to be out of business. and it’s huge money. So they have a profit motive.”
ATS collects a portion of the fees associated with violations. the amount is negotiated between ATS and the municipality.
Charles Territo, an ATS spokesman, responded to O’Scanlon’s comments last week, saying he does not believe that being distracted is a defense for running a red light. he believes that drivers were aware of the fact that the light was red before they drove through it purposefully.
“unfortunately, those aren’t excuses to breaking the law and putting others in danger. Traffic signals are there for a reason and that’s to safely control the flow of traffic,” he said.
“no one believes that red-light safety cameras can stop people from running red lights altogether; that’s not what they’re designed to do.”
According to Territo, the video was meant to show just how prevalent red-light running is. ATS frequently posts videos to itsYouTube channel to remind people of the dangers of running a red light, he said.
“keep in mind, this isn’t being done unilaterally. our customers, the police officers, in many cases, put them on their own social media pages or their own websites as a reminder for people to drive safely,” explained Territo.
He said that hundreds of people die and more than 100,000 people are injured nationwide in entirely preventable red-lightrunning related collisions. more than two-thirds of people are innocent bystanders, pedestrians or drivers other than the red-light runner, he said.
“what the cameras are designed to do is to change driver behavior, much like no one believes that putting burglar alarms in every house can stop people from trying to break in— what they can do is help law enforcement catch people when they do. It’s the same premise,” said Territo.
“Enforcement is what prevents people. If no one ever got caught robbing a bank, people would rob banks all the time. It holds people accountable.”
However, in a presentation to the Eatontown Borough Council in May 2011, Charles Callari, a representative of ATS, said the monitoring system would reduce accidents and raise revenues for the borough.
he estimated $500,000 to $750,000 could be generated — after ATS fees — per year per camera, with each camera producing between $50,000 and $120,000 in revenues a month per intersection.
O’Scanlon said the red-light cameras are in use beyond New Jersey and not every town has bought in. he said Syracuse, N.Y., recently decided to nix the cameras because the government realized it wasn’t about enhancing driver safety.
“they are removing the cameras because it isn’t about safety. It’s about revenue and picking people’s pockets,” he said .
O’Scanlon referenced a report from Syracuse.com that stated that Los Angeles lost $1.5 million a year on the cameras and in Houston, voters forced a referendum that killed the use of cameras. Additionally, seven states — Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia and Wisconsin — have all banned red-light cameras.
According to Territo, however, the feedback from ATS’s 300 customers across the nation has been overwhelmingly positive.
“It has been as positive as you can imagine. I’ve had more than a quarter of a million views of the New Jersey video in the week that it’s been released on YouTube. the majority of the public, as we know from polling that was done earlier in New Jersey this year, recognizes the danger of red-light running,” he said.
“Remember, there is no revenue generated if people obey the law and stop on red. in each one of those videos, the one thing that was in common is that none of those collisions would have happened if people had stopped at the light.”
Territo said that there are 250 million vehicles on the road in the United States and that it is impossible to eliminate all traffic fatalities.
“But red-light-running-related fatalities can be completely prevented if people just stop on red. Period. the law is the law. in a perfect world, there would be a policeman on every corner,” he said.
He added that the cameras allow police departments to do more with less by providing them with an extra resource to monitor intersections.
“the real value of a red-light safety camera for a community is not in the revenue that it may generate but in the collisions it helps avoid. One of the most staggering costs to a local government are the costs related to traffic-related collisions, whether that’s in lost time in wages, having to redirect manpower, or shut down streets for accident reconstruction, or costs related to legal issues,” said Territo.
O’Scanlon isn’t convinced there is anything positive the cameras provide to a community and urged government officials who may be considering installing them to think twice.
“I believe that those elected officials who are experimenting or toying with this are motivated by a genuine concern for safety, so I’m not questioning their motivation,” O’Scanlon clarified.
“they should also understand that this isn’t about safety. these things are revenue generators; they won’t affect safety long term. Maybe the first flurry or flush of an advertising campaign is making people aware and for a moment people are paying a little bit more attention, but in the long run it doesn’t make a difference, and that’s been shown in other states that have been doing this longer than we have.”
When the pilot program began in 2008, the state selected 25 cities to install the cameras, none of which are located in Monmouth County. However, several Monmouth County municipalities are considering installing the revenue-generating cameras, including Eatontown, Ocean Township, Keyport, Aberdeen and Middletown.
according to Territo, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) is in the process of retrieving data from the 25 cities. Once the pilot program is finished, the data will be analyzed and the DOT will determine whether or not the cameras enhance safety.
“One way will be to look at the number of violations, and as we expect to see in New Jersey, the number of violations overall will decline over time. We’ll also be looking for the types of crashes that are occurring and the number of crashes that are occurring at intersections monitored by these types of cameras. There’s no question that if you can reduce the number of injuryrelated crashes or the number of fatalities at an intersection, the cameras will be worth their weight in gold,” said Territo.
Or as O’Scanlon refers to the revenues generated by the cameras: “ill-gotten gains.”
The 13th District includes Aberdeen, Hazlet, Holmdel, Keyport and Middletown.
