Posted in: News

Red Light Camera Suspension: Poorly Timed Cameras Bring N.J. Ticket Program To A Halt

red light cameras

For the time being, the red light camera program in New Jersey has been suspended. Officials will not be issuing tickets based on red light traffic cameras until the cameras are recalibrated.

According to WBGO, the red light camera program was suspended because officials determined that the cameras were not timed properly. New Jersey will not be handing out refunds for tickets that have already been paid for.

New Jersey driver Ron Andrews told CBS:

“That’s ridiculous. How would you put in something to enforce traffic adherence and not have it calibrated correctly. That just doesn’t make sense.”

CBS reports that New Jersey has 85 red light cameras. 63 of those were not calibrated correctly. The faulty stop lights weren’t giving drivers enough time during yellow lights and the cameras were handing out too many tickets.

Driver Juanita Sermons said:

“Once it’s yellow, then you go, you get a ticket! They got you!”

Attorney John Patti said that people who have paid red light tickets should talk to their attorneys about how to get a refund.

Patti said:

“Work out some type of deal with the prosecutor, or have the ticket just expunged absolutely with a refund of money.”

The cameras in New Jersey will remain on for the time being but they will not be used to issue tickets for the time being. Officials are currently working to get the lights recalibrated.

What do you think of the red light camera program? Should the red light camera program be permanently suspended?

Articles And Offers From The Web


15 Responses to “Red Light Camera Suspension: Poorly Timed Cameras Bring N.J. Ticket Program To A Halt”

  1. Shawn Ward

    Red light cameras are all about revenue for the states, cities, counties and companies involved. They want the CASH any way they can get their grubby little hands on it.

  2. Kathleen Hertf

    Have these been proven to be effective with reducing the incidences of accidents? From what I gather there are more accidents at intersections with the $camera$ than without. We live in and pay for a police state so it's not like we have a shortage of traffic patrol- It seems to be just another cheap shot to extort money from citizens.

  3. Ac Are Initials

    If a cop wasn't there to see you do it, or if someone else didn't report you doing it (or you didn't report yourself doing it, Hank Hill, haha…) then you shouldn't get in trouble for it!

  4. Eric Beckemeier

    There are some good legal arguments against red light cameras available for those who want to fight the tickets. The most effective is a Confrontation Clause argument. The Constitution requires you be able to confront and cross-examine your accusers. It is a little difficult to cross-examine a camera.

  5. Anonymous

    the cameras are ALL owned for a SCAM based company from Arizona. here on long island, POOR Pols are tricking the public out of MILLIONS with these same cameras. Even knowing they r there, one could go thru a the end of a red light just driving thru intersection. they r designed as SAFETY element, when in REALITY.
    they are an AGGRESSIVE method of collecting millions to pay for programs like $150k a year cops and teachers and over charged road work. THESE CAMERAS REALLY DO EXPOSE JUST HOW BAD THE PEOPLE RUNNING THE TOWN AND STATES ARE NOW!


  6. Christopher Young

    What a pile of crap… The cameras were working just fine NJ. They were programmed to issue citations like that. Houston, TX put that mess on the ballot and we voted them OUT! Then the red light company claimed the City owed them $20 million.

  7. Gabrielle Cynique

    As an attorney, let me just say: that's not actually a good legal argument. You're confusing evidence against you with your accuser. Your accuser is the state; the evidence is the photo from the camera. By your logic, a homicide conviction based on fingerprints would be thrown out because you can't cross examine a fingerprint.

  8. Eric Beckemeier

    Yes but you must have someone to introduce the evidence, such as the officer who collected the fingerprint. Simply playing a video from a red light camera will not do but that is what many cities are trying to do. They rarely have an officer at court who can properly introduce the evidence. You are confusing physical evidence with testimonial evidence.

Around The Web