This essay critically evaluates New York City's red light camera program, which issues Notices of Liability to drivers photographed running red lights. The paper argues that while the city defends the program as a public safety measure, its practical effects are mixed at best. Key concerns include the inflexibility of automated enforcement, the short timing of yellow lights in dense urban traffic, and evidence from a Federal Highway Administration study showing a rise in rear-end collisions. The essay also challenges the program's consistency and fairness, noting that driver apps like Waze allow some motorists to avoid cameras entirely, and that similar programs in New Jersey and Nassau County were discontinued due to increased accident rates.
"I always feel like somebody's watching me." This isn't just the lyric to a popular 1980s song — it is the reality in New York City at many stoplights. In most cities, suburbs, and towns, if a driver commits a moving violation and no one witnesses it, the driver has effectively gotten away with the offense. As noted on the New York City official website, New York has instituted a red light camera system whereby drivers photographed running red lights will receive a Notice of Liability (NOL) ("Red light cameras").
The city's defense of this policy is straightforward: in a city as heavily populated as New York, it is difficult to deploy enough police officers to monitor every red light. Unfortunately, unlike human beings, cameras cannot exercise good judgment about what constitutes safe or unsafe driving. Most drivers have experienced passing through a yellow light that turned red just as they crossed the intersection. Sometimes it is actually safer to speed up slightly, or to slow down if someone is tailgating you. The red light camera system, however, leaves no room for this kind of common-sense decision-making. If a driver passes through the light while it is red — for any reason — the driver receives a ticket.
New York's dense traffic means that even experienced drivers often travel very close to one another. In one recent incident, the driver of a seafood truck was rear-ended after facing a difficult choice: continue moving forward through a yellow light and risk a $50 fine, or slam on the brakes. He chose to brake hard, and the result was an accident (Cole). This case is not isolated. Similar red light camera programs in New Jersey and Nassau County have already been discontinued because of higher accident rates linked to the cameras.
In an appearance on PIX 11 News, Juan Martinez, New York City Department of Transportation's Director of Strategic Initiatives, stated: "What you see happening is that when people expect the law to be enforced, they stop blowing through red lights. It really is very straightforward. Every yellow light is timed the same whether a camera is there or not: 3 seconds if it's 30 mph." Critics counter, however, that this is precisely the problem — the yellow light timing is simply too short for certain high-density urban areas.
Even more vocal critics of the policy, as reported in the New York Post, have alleged that the city is primarily using the program as a revenue-generating mechanism rather than a genuine safety initiative. The red light cameras have been stationed discreetly in 150 locations, and while word has spread quickly about where they are placed, the program's critics argue that if the city truly wanted to encourage safer driving, the cameras would be prominently displayed so that more drivers would come to a full stop at lights (Furfaro). The New York Times notes that many drivers are already using apps like Waze to locate and avoid the cameras (Quain). Of course, the ability to scan for camera locations also undermines the city's stated goal, since the same drivers can speed freely once they know no camera is watching.
New York City's red light camera program is therefore inconsistently applied. Whether a driver is caught depends largely on their familiarity with the city and which navigation apps they use — not on the quality of their driving (Blau). Although supporters claim the program has led to a decrease in collisions, a 2005 study by the Federal Highway Administration examining seven cities using the program found that while there was a "25% drop in front-to-side collisions, there was a 15% increase in rear-end accidents" (Quain). This trade-off raises serious questions about whether the program improves overall road safety or simply shifts the nature of the accidents that occur.
"Allegations cameras prioritize revenue over driver safety"
"Waze apps and uneven enforcement undermine program goals"
"Red light cameras." NYC.gov. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
Quain, John. "Red-Light Camera Debate Is a Stew of Anger, Revenue and Safety." The New York Times. 12 Mar. 2015. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.