Red light scamera petition

[leahcim 680]

Help put an end to this unconscionable big-government, safety-sacrificing scam:

http://www.change.org/petitions/new-jersey-department-of-transportation-end-the-red-light-camera-program-in-nj

 

Sorry if this was already posted.

[Scott204 1]

How about you just dont run a red light and you wont have to worry about it.

[Melgamatic 66]

How about you just dont run a red light and you wont have to worry about it.

 

Red light cameras aren't really designed to catch people running red lights, which might seem strange.

 

Typically, a red light camera increases accidents at an intersection between 300% and 500%, as people jam on their brakes inappropriately at the first sign of yellow.

 

There is also the issue that yellow lights at these intersections are typically lighted 50% of the time required by NTSB standards; the installation of red light cameras is usually accompanied by re-timing in order to increase revenues.

 

Finally, probably the worst part is that red light cameras are not run by towns, cities or counties, but by private firms that take a large percentage of the revenue and give the rest to the town.

 

There has never been a study that proved red light cameras did anything but significantly decrease traffic safety.  Even the "Insurance Institute for Highway Safety" (which is an industry organization promoting profitability of insurance firms, and usually opposed to motorists' interests) has found that red light cameras are a danger to  society.

[leahcim 680]

There are problems with the yellow light timings being too short for the speed on the road they are placed--often these are never calibrated or certified.  If you are in the intersection for any reason for even a few hundredths of a second you can be ticketed.  And most of the right-turn-on-red tickets are issued if you do not stop for a certain amount of time--typically 3-5 seconds, but traffic law states that you must only come to a complete stop before a right-turn-on-red.  The 3-5 second requirement is a total fabrication.

 

I totally agree with not running red lights.  Problem is the cameras do not provably enhance safety, and may even cause more accidents because people will slam on the brakes at every yellow light.  The only purpose is revenue stream.

[TooBigToFit 2]

Not only will people slam their brakes at the first sign of a yellow (or even in anticipation of a yellow), they'll also refuse to turn on red.

 

They're dangerous, and they make our already bad traffic even worse.

[RubberBullets 65]

How about you just dont run a red light and you wont have to worry about it.

How about the towns do something more proactive with the money than feed their undying thirst for more revenue and then we'll talk about compromise. If I inappropriately ran a red I would pay a fine, but not under the guise of safety, and strictly benefiting the township to squander away as found money.

[10X 3,296]

Signed.

[Scott204 1]

I love these posts, there is so much misinformation out there spread by the media its nuts. I can personally speak for bricks cameras. 1 they have decreased serious injury and property damage crashes by 60% with the addition of 1 extra rear end crash from prior to installation. 2. Yellow times are set by standards that basically say for every 10 mph of speed you get one second of amber, so 40mph you get 4 seconds 50 you get 5. You get the picture. The cameras have been fought countless times in court wouldn't people be winning if towns cut the time short? Yes they would hence why no one wins based on that arguement. Bricks cameras are .5 to 1 full second longer than they need to be. 3. A right on red is only issued if the vehicle DOES NOT stop there is no 3-5 second rule, because once again people would go to court and have the tickets dissmissed. I cant argue the fact that an outside firm does run and maintain the system but they make a very small percentage of the fine.

[raz-0 1,259]

How about you just dont run a red light and you wont have to worry about it.

How about you tell me what the required stopping time to make a legal right on red is?

 

Hint it's different in different municipalities, and it isn't consistent nor usually does it remain what it was once the cameras are installed.

 

I've met few to no people who deliberately run a hard red.

[Scott204 1]

How about you tell me what the required stopping time to make a legal right on red is?

 

Hint it's different in different municipalities, and it isn't consistent nor usually does it remain what it was once the cameras are installed.

 

I've met few to no people who deliberately run a hard red.

There is no set time a stop is a stop. I have also met many people who were so sure they stopped until they watched the video of them going through

[Greydaddy 2]

"they'll also refuse to turn on red." It's optional not mandatory.

[johnott 5]

I also dislike red light cameras for many of the reasons cited here, but to clarify the rules regarding yellow lights...  "A motorist must stop: When a yellow light follows a green light, a motorist must stop before entering the intersection, unless yellow appears when the vehicle is too close to stop safely." -NJ Drivers Manual page 70-71.

 

You are not supposed to proceed through an intersection on a yellow light unless it is unsafe to stop. If you can stop safely you are supposed to stop at all yellow lights (that follow green).

 

Now, coming to a complete stop is a different story. IMO... you have made a stop when you cease all forward or rearward movement. Once you have stopped you are not to proceed unless it is safe to do so. So if you stop for a fraction of a second it could be argued that it is not enough time for a person to properly evaluate whether it is safe to proceed. 

[RubberBullets 65]

I didnt necessarily mind the concept but dont for one second tell me the idea was born in the efforts of increased motorist safety. Revenue first, and perceived driver safety second. Its a revenue generating ploy and towns were licking their chops to get in on the action. The more they defend their position the more I want to paul bunyan that "bad driver tax" on rt 70.

 

Disclaimer: ive never received a red light ticket. I dont like someone cashing in on trying to convince me that the sky is green and the grass is blue.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545

 

 

[Shocker 150]

My main issue with these red light cams is the majority of the money from tickets goes to the contractor running the system. So it's (A) not a big money maker for the localities, although admittedly they expend almost no effort for that little bit of money; and (B) it's a conflict of interest when the red light cam operators can adjust or influence the adjustment of the yellow light timing.

 

And if the cameras eliminate 5 T-bone collisions but add 10 rear-end collisions is that a net gain? Or -2/+20?

[jm1827 284]

Signed

[Melgamatic 66]

I love these posts, there is so much misinformation out there spread by the media its nuts.

 

I don't know who is feeding you this misinformation, but study after study by actual researchers show that red light cameras always decrease traffic safety.

 

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies

[Scott204 1]

My main issue with these red light cams is the majority of the money from tickets goes to the contractor running the system. So it's (A) not a big money maker for the localities, although admittedly they expend almost no effort for that little bit of money; and (B) it's a conflict of interest when the red light cam operators can adjust or influence the adjustment of the yellow light timing.

 

And if the cameras eliminate 5 T-bone collisions but add 10 rear-end collisions is that a net gain? Or -2/+20?

 

You obviously did not read my post above., yellow times can not be adjusted, otherwise people would challenge them in court and win.

[Scott204 1]

I don't know who is feeding you this misinformation, but study after study by actual researchers show that red light cameras always decrease traffic safety.

 

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies

 

If research is skewed to show an increase that is what it will show, I can only speak for Brick's cameras and research shows that it has increased traffic safety. But I will agree to disagree, because I can see where this is going, no one likes them. Like I said before don't run a red light and you never have to worry about them.

[Shocker 150]

You obviously did not read my post above., yellow times can not be adjusted, otherwise people would challenge them in court and win.

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/nj_red-light_cameras_ensnaring_motorists_with_quick_yellow_lights_lawmaker_says.html

 

People HAVE challenged them, and they DO win. But that doesn't help the people that just pay the ticket because they don't have the resources to fight.

[Duppie 73]

I believe any altruistic leanings attached to red light cameras has long been abandoned for the windfall in revenue. Study after study has found that the risks far outweigh the benefits yet they persists simply because they generate so much money, basically a sin tax if you will.

I have already witnessed the next logical step in Scandinavia which is speed cameras and before Scott204 implores me to stop speeding perhaps we should ask where does it end.

[ryan_j 0]

Not only will people slam their brakes at the first sign of a yellow (or even in anticipation of a yellow), they'll also refuse to turn on red.

 

They're dangerous, and they make our already bad traffic even worse.

 

For that reason alone I say keep the red light cameras. Turn right on red is a big problem because people don't even STOP when the light is red around here. They just go balls to the wall to make it before I reach the intersection, meaning I usually have to brake and THIS could cause an accident. 

 

I've never gotten a red light ticket and I always make sure I can stop at a light if it turns red. This means being prepared to stop at a "stale green" light. Only once has my car been rear ended and this was in a construction zone from a driver who was paying more attention to her cell phone than the road. 

[ryan_j 0]

I believe any altruistic leanings attached to red light cameras has long been abandoned for the windfall in revenue. Study after study has found that the risks far outweigh the benefits yet they persists simply because they generate so much money, basically a sin tax if you will.

I have already witnessed the next logical step in Scandinavia which is speed cameras and before Scott204 implores me to stop speeding perhaps we should ask where does it end.

 

In Europe they're going further than that, proposing to put speed governors in your car that read the speed limit signs or get speed info wirelessly and then apply the brake when you exceed the speed limit. Older cars won't be safe from this, they are going to mandate retrofits as well.

[Handyman 5,682]

If research is skewed to show an increase that is what it will show, I can only speak for Brick's cameras and research shows that it has increased traffic safety. But I will agree to disagree, because I can see where this is going, no one likes them. Like I said before don't run a red light and you never have to worry about them.

 

These cameras will not make a distinction between someone who runs a light 5 seconds after it turns red and someone who:

 

-Stops two inches over the stop line.

-Is trying to make a left turn and is sitting in the intersection waiting for opposing traffic to pass when the light turns red.

-Does not come to a complete stop for some unannounced, non-posted time duration that some municipality has arbitrarily decided is appropriate before turning right on red.

 

Other issues:

-Numerous cameras in north NJ were found to be uncertified and to have timing errors. People who had been issued tickets for ~$80 were issued refunds... of $8

-In this country, we used to have a right to face our accuser. In many cases that does not appear to happen in these cases.

-In cases involving this technology, there appears to be a presumption of guilt, rather than innocence. It is assumed by the courts tat the technology is sufficiently advanced tat there is no way it can make a mistake. And even when it does and it is admitted there is a problem, you receive a 10% refund.

-Once law enforcement is used not to uphold the law but as a revenue stream for the government, we have a problem.

 

The only people that can logically favor these things either have a very simplistic world view (like the governor, sadly) or are lining their pockets from this system. If you think this is a good idea, how about placing a cellular GPS device in every vehicle which automatically generates a speeding ticket every time the driver goes over the limit? The technology is readily available, it would generate a tremendous amount of revenue, and it would makes driving safer.

[Duppie 73]

In Europe they're going further than that, proposing to put speed governors in your car that read the speed limit signs or get speed info wirelessly and then apply the brake when you exceed the speed limit. Older cars won't be safe from this, they are going to mandate retrofits as well.

I've read that article and the technology exists but it's going to be a hard sell in the near future however entirely possible eventually starting in "nanny" countries like Norway,Denmark and The UK.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

If research is skewed to show an increase that is what it will show, I can only speak for Brick's cameras and research shows that it has increased traffic safety. But I will agree to disagree, because I can see where this is going, no one likes them. Like I said before don't run a red light and you never have to worry about them.

What a great argument. "Your research could be skewed which is why you are getting those results but my research is good because it aligns with my confirmation bias and now I'm leaving because I don't want to hear any further arguments or facts that support the opposition".

 

Furthermore, I hardly doubt Brick, in and of itself, is a representative sample of all red light cameras in use through the state or country.

[rauchman 3]

How about you just dont run a red light and you wont have to worry about it.

How about the government get out of the Big Brother business.  I like that idea much better!

[Arbelest 29]

Glassboro's Red light cameras were timed incorrectly and they had to give back a lot of money due to that. Also from what I have heard T-bone crashes at these intersections have gone down but rear-end collisions have gone up..  Trade off one for another? Not really worth it in my opinion.

[Scott204 1]

What a great argument. "Your research could be skewed which is why you are getting those results but my research is good because it aligns with my confirmation bias and now I'm leaving because I don't want to hear any further arguments or facts that support the opposition".

 

Furthermore, I hardly doubt Brick, in and of itself, is a representative sample of all red light cameras in use through the state or country.

Go to NJDOT website the results of the cameras are there.

 

Like them or not I sincerely doubt they are going anywhere.

[Duppie 73]

Go to NJDOT website the results of the cameras are there.

 

Like them or not I sincerely doubt they are going anywhere.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree.....they are definitely here to stay but not because of some ill defined concept of saving lives.

[djg0770 481]

How about you tell me what the required stopping time to make a legal right on red is?

 

Hint it's different in different municipalities, and it isn't consistent nor usually does it remain what it was once the cameras are installed.

 

I've met few to no people who deliberately run a hard red.

 

This - two tix in Newark due to right on red.  So, my solution?  I don't turn right on red in Newark.