NJ Red Light - Safety or Revenue Generator - You judge

 

NJ has long cited safety as their reason for installing Red Light cameras. Read this report on just ONE camera in Newark and you be the judge ---

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/newarks_red_light_c...

Can't judge based on this article

DaveR849 wrote:

NJ has long cited safety as their reason for installing Red Light cameras. Read this report on just ONE camera in Newark and you be the judge ---

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/newarks_red_light_c...

The article did not ask for a judgment nor did it make one, although the quote from the National Motorist's Association makes the claim that the cameras are for revenue reasons. The article itself details a situation that involves a safety consideration.

Consider the person who is the focus of the article. The picture in the envelope showed his 1995 Lumina clearly beneath a red light. There was a "No Right on Red" sign - but he says he did not notice it. So, he ALSO might not have noticed a pedestrian about to cross the street when he made the illegal right turn. Who knows?

This article can not - by itself - be considered as evidence of a money grab. This instance was a clear violation of law.

Sound bite

I have to agree with jgermann. Although Red Light cameras as a whole have been deployed by cities in an effort to find creative ways to generate more revenue. One artice detailing one or a handful of incidents isn't proof of anything. It is much like hearing a sound bite out of context. The only use those things have is for political fodder.

Ticket $

I've noticed these articles continually quote the amount of money going into the state's/city's coffers based on the total amount of tickets issued, not on the amount actually paid, which from what I've seen seems to be around 30%. No wonder government budgets are so messed up, basing them on imaginary income.

Revenue Generator

Since the cameras are here to stay, I think the cameras should be set to take a picture a few seconds after the light has turned red. That way it is more definite that the driver is running a red light.

they do

tke1 wrote:

Since the cameras are here to stay, I think the cameras should be set to take a picture a few seconds after the light has turned red. That way it is more definite that the driver is running a red light.

Many of the cameras capture a continuous stream of video with the infractions marked. You may get a still picture, but there is a video recording to back up that frame grab.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Both?

DaveR849 wrote:

NJ has long cited safety as their reason for installing Red Light cameras. Read this report on just ONE camera in Newark and you be the judge ---

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/newarks_red_light_c...

Why can't they be for both--revenue and safety?

--
Tuckahoe Mike - Nuvi 3490LMT, Nuvi 260W, iPhone X, Mazda MX-5 Nav

Changing My Mind

I have been opposed to red light cameras for the fact they wreak of big brother and their purpose is for revenue enhancement. However, over the last three weeks, I have witnessed several blatant incidents of a total disregard for red lights. Two incidents in just the past four days. The latest happened today while I was bicycling. The light had been red for quite some time and a car coming from the opposite direction never stopped or even slowed. Plowed on through the intersection as if there wasn't a light.

The funny thing is I never really noticed this happening around my area but either I am more sensitive or the violators have been moving to my area. Either way, I often wait up to five seconds after I get a green light to take my time to check out the intersection. In the past, I would go the moment a green appeared. Lately I expect to be broadsided by red light runner well after the light has turned red for his/her direction.

--
I support the right to keep and arm bears.

and the clown

Aardvark wrote:

I have been opposed to red light cameras for the fact they wreak of big brother and their purpose is for revenue enhancement. However, over the last three weeks, I have witnessed several blatant incidents of a total disregard for red lights. Two incidents in just the past four days. The latest happened today while I was bicycling. The light had been red for quite some time and a car coming from the opposite direction never stopped or even slowed. Plowed on through the intersection as if there wasn't a light.

And the clown that blatantly ran that red light will be one of those that complain loudly the cameras are for revenue enhancement only because there was no police officer there to haul him off to jail for reckless endangerment.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

This article said

BobMAZ wrote:

I've noticed these articles continually quote the amount of money going into the state's/city's coffers based on the total amount of tickets issued, not on the amount actually paid, which from what I've seen seems to be around 30%. No wonder government budgets are so messed up, basing them on imaginary income.

This article said:
"Between Dec. 17 and the end of April, the city fined 20,769 drivers with running red lights and other moving violations. More than 12,000 motorists had paid their fines by the end of April. The city’s cut was $492,802."

Percentage paid in this article is over 57% and one might imagine that more of the already issued fines will be paid.

Were you referring to some other article?

If it's about safety, and

If it's about safety, and not revenue, why don't they donate the profit, I mean fines, to a charity? Or better yet, use the money to increase traffic safety.

Are they not doing that

twix wrote:

If it's about safety, and not revenue, why don't they donate the profit, I mean fines, to a charity? Or better yet, use the money to increase traffic safety.

If safety has improved, then is that not the result?

If they gave the funds to a charity, would taxes have to increase as a result?

There is a great article in

There is a great article in the Orange County Register dated June 22 but for some reason I can't seem to find the article on the website. Titled Not Black and White. A recent court decision might have dealt a serious blow to red-light citations in the county but law enforcement agencies don't rule out the cameras yet...On an appeal of a 2008 red light ticket, appellate panel of Orange County Superior Court Judges recently ruled that photos and video submitted by police were inadmissible as evidence.

--
NickJr Nuvi 3597LMT

It hasn't been proven that

It hasn't been proven that safety has improved.

The way I worded it is because in Illinois, where I live, they use that excuse to install cameras. Yet, safety has not improved at those intersections. However, financially, the cities have benefited greatly because of the revenue generated. Which can easily be proven.

Proof?

twix wrote:

It hasn't been proven that safety has improved.

The way I worded it is because in Illinois, where I live, they use that excuse to install cameras. Yet, safety has not improved at those intersections. However, financially, the cities have benefited greatly because of the revenue generated. Which can easily be proven.

Not that I'm a proponent of cameras, but I do like to have statements backed up with some evidence of their truth. Do you have any proof to the claim that "safety" has not improved? Of course, "it will depend on what your meaning of is is."

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Santa Ana to add Red Light Cameras

--
NickJr Nuvi 3597LMT

You need to send me notes when you find things.

These reports need to be emailed to Miss POI so that they get in the update.

I do my research on Monday and Tuesday each week and I don't search the forums for links that have been posted.

Miss POI

Safety or Revenue

Safety or revenue, does it really matter? Red light cameras bring a new awareness to intersections. Law abiding citizens do not pay, only those breaking the law have to pay. I'm all for enhancing our city and state revenue at the expense of law breakers. I'm also in favor of less, and more damaging, t-bones even if it means a few more rear enders. Insurance institue studies have shown over and over again that t-bones cause way more property damage and personal injury than rear enders.

Research and Update

Sorry for any confusion. These locations have been previously sent to you inclusion in the database. All of them currently appear.

I was just submitting the article to show the amount of revenue these 5-cameras have been generating.

Articles abound about RLC

In response to Box Car

Articles abound about RLC intersections not being any safer after cameras are installed. I'll give you this link to another thread on this board to see one of the examples of intersections not becoming safer.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/29241

EDIT

Now I challenge you to show me an article proving that RLCs have increased safety.

How can you choose one

How can you choose one accident over another? All accidents should be avoided.

EDIT

I meant to quote Hurlbutt.

Just another reason . . .

Just another reason to avoid Newark. smile

No claims

twix wrote:

In response to Box Car

Articles abound about RLC intersections not being any safer after cameras are installed. I'll give you this link to another thread on this board to see one of the examples of intersections not becoming safer.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/29241

EDIT

Now I challenge you to show me an article proving that RLCs have increased safety.

Sorry, I made no claims so therefore I don't have to provide a source.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

You made no claims, however,

You made no claims, however, you were arguing to the contrary, were you not? What was the whole is is thing? That sounds pretty argumentative to me. So if you're going to argue, you gotta back your arguments up.

Redlight cameras cannot

Redlight cameras cannot prevent an accident, they cannot prevent someone from running a redlight, physically impossible. Like a previous poster wrote, they observed a car running a redlight several seconds after it turned red. They may make some people more aware of certain intersections, those who drive through them on a regular basis and knows there is a RLC present. Doesn't do anything for someone out of town or someone not paying attention (and yes there are those who don't, even you sometimes)who may run a redlight. The RLC will not prevent that.

--
OK.....so where the heck am I?

Let me quote

twix wrote:

You made no claims, however, you were arguing to the contrary, were you not? What was the whole is is thing? That sounds pretty argumentative to me. So if you're going to argue, you gotta back your arguments up.

Let me quote from your same article you use to support your argument.

WEST PALM BEACH — Rear-end collisions more than doubled and accidents increased overall in the first 70 days of red-light cameras in West Palm Beach compared to the same period of 2009, traffic records reviewed by The Palm Beach Post show.

In the name of boosting safety, not revenues, West Palm Beach issued 2,675 camera fines worth a third of a million dollars in March alone.

But at the three city intersections from Feb. 21, when fines began, through May 1, The Post found:

--Rear-end collisions increased to five from two. Rear-end accidents sometimes go up with cameras because anxious drivers are more likely to stop abruptly.

--Overall accidents increased to seven from six.

--The only injury in either period came under cameras, in a rear-end crash in March 2010. The injury was "non-incapacitating," according to records supplied by cities and compiled in Palm Beach County's accident database.

City officials did not dispute the data but said it was too soon to draw meaningful conclusions.

"A larger sample size is needed to make any determinations about the program's effect on accidents," said city spokesman Peter Robbins.

Your conclusion that the cameras cause accidents based on data gathered over such a short period of time in a limited area has the same affect of drawing a conclusion that air travel is unsafe. By limiting the period to one in which in which a crash taking a large number of lives occurred and then compared to the same period the same period in another year ago when no crashes occurred. In this instance, the period was from a 70 day period immediately before and during the camera operation and a period when there were no cameras installed.

Sounds like a good comparison, but it fails as the control period, the one a year ago, had no similar disruptive influence on traffic patterns. If the comparison had been to an intersection (or in this case three intersections) where no traffic control devices had been installed and now had devices over the same period and traffic flow was included in the measurements, then the comparison would have probably been a better indication of a short term spike. Let's see what happens over the course of a year. Studies by the University of Virginia, among others have shown there is an initial spike in minor accidents but the overall trend is a reduction in accidents, losses and claims.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Here is one

twix wrote:

Now I challenge you to show me an article proving that RLCs have increased safety.

http://www.iihs.org/laws/testimony/pdf/testimony_slo_092507_...

multiple statements include:

Injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent after camera enforce-ment began in Oxnard in 1997. Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely asso-ciated with red light running — were reduced by 32 percent, and front-into-side crashes involv-ing injuries were reduced by 68 percent.

An Institute review of the international literature provides further evidence that red light cameras can significantly reduce violations and related injury crashes.6 A detailed assessment of camera effectiveness indicates that red light camera enforcement reduces violations by an estimated 40-50 percent and reduces injury crashes by 25-30 percent

A 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera pro-grams in seven communities (El Cajon, San Diego, and San Francisco, California; Howard County, Montgomery County, and Baltimore, Maryland; and Charlotte, North Carolina).7 The study found that right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions in-creased by 15 percent. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe and more costly than the additional rear-end crashes that can occur, the study found a positive societal benefit of more than $14 million. The authors concluded that the in-crease in rear-end crash frequency did not offset the societal benefit resulting from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras.

I'm not basing my opinion,

I'm not basing my opinion, or "conclusion" on that one article. That was one example that I gave you since you asked. If you'd like to see more, feel free to search this board, or google. There's a wealth of information on the trend that RLCs do not increase safety.

party like it's 2007!!!

jgermann wrote:
twix wrote:

Now I challenge you to show me an article proving that RLCs have increased safety.

http://www.iihs.org/laws/testimony/pdf/testimony_slo_092507_...

multiple statements include:

Injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent after camera enforce-ment began in Oxnard in 1997. Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely asso-ciated with red light running — were reduced by 32 percent, and front-into-side crashes involv-ing injuries were reduced by 68 percent.

An Institute review of the international literature provides further evidence that red light cameras can significantly reduce violations and related injury crashes.6 A detailed assessment of camera effectiveness indicates that red light camera enforcement reduces violations by an estimated 40-50 percent and reduces injury crashes by 25-30 percent

A 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera pro-grams in seven communities (El Cajon, San Diego, and San Francisco, California; Howard County, Montgomery County, and Baltimore, Maryland; and Charlotte, North Carolina).7 The study found that right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions in-creased by 15 percent. Because the types of crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe and more costly than the additional rear-end crashes that can occur, the study found a positive societal benefit of more than $14 million. The authors concluded that the in-crease in rear-end crash frequency did not offset the societal benefit resulting from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras.

Can you find something a little more current? Nothing wrong with what it's saying, but something from 2007 is a bit dated.

Here's another

twix wrote:

Now I challenge you to show me an article proving that RLCs have increased safety.

....

Can you find something a little more current? Nothing wrong with what it's saying, but something from 2007 is a bit dated.

http://www.chattanooga.gov/LegislativeTour.pdf

etc.

jgermann wrote:
twix wrote:

Now I challenge you to show me an article proving that RLCs have increased safety.

....

Can you find something a little more current? Nothing wrong with what it's saying, but something from 2007 is a bit dated.

http://www.chattanooga.gov/LegislativeTour.pdf

It looks like those are speed cameras. Correct me if I'm wrong. They do have them set up at some intersections, but they're measuring speed. The Red Light Cameras I'm referring to are the ones that record people going through red lights.

I do like that this particular city uses the money to increase traffic safety. That's what it should be going toward.

Don't be fooled by the pictures

The city f Chattanooga has speed camera, red-light cameras as well as several mobile vans that take pictures.