Advocates push school‑bus cameras, automated speed enforcement and speed‑limiter bills
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Advocates told the Assembly committee that school‑bus cameras and automated speed enforcement in school zones reduce dangerous driving and recidivism, and urged swift consideration of bills including a school‑bus camera pilot, automated enforcement authority and a speed‑limiter program for repeat speeders; witnesses also criticized the state’s narrow high‑injury network.
Advocates for Vision Zero‑style policies urged the Assembly Transportation and Independent Authorities Committee on Feb. 19 to adopt automated countermeasures they say have proved effective in other states and localities.
Corey Hennigan of the Tri‑State Transportation Campaign described a Woodbridge Township pilot that recorded roughly 3,000 illegal passes of stopped school buses and said similar camera programs exist in at least 26 states. "We do not have enough police officers to follow every school bus and enforce the law, but we also don't have to," Hennigan said, urging passage of school‑bus camera legislation (L‑13).
Hennigan and other witnesses supported automated speed enforcement in school zones (L‑2) and defended such systems against claims that they are revenue measures. "Far from their characterization as a cash grab, they have proven to be an effective and proven safety countermeasure," he said, noting federal Highway Administration recognition.
Speakers also promoted 'stop‑superspeeders' proposals that would require temporary speed limiters on vehicles of repeat extreme speed offenders (L‑24). Hennigan cited evidence from other jurisdictions showing low recidivism after automated enforcement is introduced and described limiter programs as a behavioral intervention that preserves driving access while reducing extreme speeding.
Committee members and witnesses discussed thresholds for automated triggers (commonly 10 mph over the speed limit in some programs) and implementation approaches that avoid points on a driving record. Hennigan said different technical designs are possible, including point‑based triggers or aggregated automated tickets that lead to device installation for repeat offenders.
Advocates also criticized the state's High Injury Network (HIN) as too limited: witnesses said New Jersey lists 147 priority miles out of roughly 39,000 state road miles, which they said understates the geographic scope of dangerous roadways and could constrain how federal and state safety funds are allocated.
No bills were taken up for a vote at the hearing; advocates asked legislators to prioritize drafting text and clarifying accountability and privacy safeguards for automated enforcement infrastructure.