If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(South Jersey Courier-Post)   Red light cameras have brought New Jersey a 20% increase in rear-end collisions and an additional $1 million in property damage per intersection   (courierpostonline.com) divider line 42
    More: Asinine, New Jersey, red light cameras, seat, prices, South Jersey, Gloucester Township  
•       •       •

7185 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Nov 2012 at 1:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-27 01:25:22 PM  
5 votes:
Sadly, red light cameras are a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Sure, we can all agree that running red lights is bad, but it's nowhere near an epidemic and a vast, vast majority of drivers stop for red lights. When it happens, something awful may result, but it's also like saying that sometimes airplanes crash, so we should outlaw airplanes. Statistically, red-light running is a non-event.

However, it is BIG money and a cause the public will blindly get behind. Never mind that it changes the dynamics of accidents around the light and that they are specifically designed to cause MORE people to run red lights (and thus drive up revenue).

It's a money grab, pure and simple. There are no statistics in favor of red light cameras except those the companies supply to municipalities telling them about the money they can collect from them.
2012-11-27 01:21:11 PM  
4 votes:
So.... people shouldn't follow too closely?

Problem solved.

(You shouldn't run red lights... it's dangerous)
2012-11-27 01:58:42 PM  
3 votes:

bostonbd: Kanemano: Gig103: I had to do an emergency stop from 50mph because the yellow at a particular intersection isn't long enough

Yellow light means S L O W D O W N.

Yes it does. Slowdown =/= stop though. Also, when most red light camera's are installed, the duration of the yellow light is reduced to increase revinue from the camera. People who have driven for a while are accustomed to a standard timing of a yellow light. When this is reduced, it leads to more 'red light running' and thus more tickets and more sudden stops. More sudden stops leads to more rear end collisions.


Again, you should be prepared for the car in front of you to come to a sudden stop at all times - that means maintaining a safe following distance AT ALL TIMES. Why is this so farking difficult to understand?
2012-11-27 01:34:42 PM  
3 votes:
Perhaps you shouldn't speed and tailgate people. Typically, if one follows traffic laws, the risk of an accident is minimal.
2012-11-27 01:29:04 PM  
3 votes:
Anyone who is surprised, raise your hand... so I can slap you.

I have personally witnessed this phenomena since the red light cameras have been installed in my area. Hell, I feel a quick twinge of anxiety every time a light goes yellow just before I cross the line, and I have above average driving and riding capabilities thanks to race experience. I can comprehend, from a psychological point of view, why average joe or jane stomps the brakes and skids to a stop - because they aren't good at what they're doing and can't judge whether they'll cross that line before the light goes red. Then the person who is following too close behind or having a lapse of concentration slams into them, causing thousands in injuries and property damage over the scare provided by a $150 ticket.

The fundamental flaw with the logic behind red light cameras is that they generate revenue when the drivers are unsafe and generate none when the drivers do what they should; this is a similar logical error to the for-profit (privatised) prisons, which make more money when more criminals exist.

The correct way to make the roads safer is through stricter licensing requirements and more driver training, NOT punishing silly mistakes like crossing the line .10 seconds too late. The dangerous red light runners are the ones who blow it after the light has gone red and t-bone the cars that are already moving in the other lanes, not the ones that get the majority of the tickets; the guys who cross the line long before the other lights go green.
2012-11-27 10:55:38 AM  
3 votes:
No, the real question is how many countless lives have actually been saved by this. Consider this scenario:

Bobby Ericson, 9, is playing in his yard. He kicks the softball and runs out into the street to retrieve it. What he doesn't know is that Douglas Macavoy, 34, is speeding up the residential street, which has a 25-mile-per-hour limit, at 43 miles per hour. Mr. Macavoy is going that fast because he just finished running the red light at the previous intersection, which had started turning yellow even as he approached it. However, seeing no camera on the pole, he floored the accelerator and ran the light. Now, as he rounds the Pete's Plumbing van parked on the curve, he's shocked to find little sandy-haired Bobby crouching in the street right in front of him. And, splat, just like that, two lives are irreparably destroyed -- Bobby is paralyzed from the neck down for the rest of his life. Mr. Macavoy is in jail. His wife leaves him after a few months after starting an affair with his probation officer. She takes his children. Despondent, alone, he attempts to take his own life by jumping out a window in a ramshackle motel, but he lands on a pedestrian and breaks her neck. Now he's in jail again, only for murder this time. And all he can think on those long nights as he's gripped in Bubba's sweaty embrace is: If only I had stopped for that light. If only there had been a camera, I would have stopped for that life.

Would you seriously, subby, weigh a little bit of property damage, a bent fender, against these two shattered lives. What's one million dollars when compared to infinite suffering and shattered lives? Next time, remember Mr. Macavoy's sad tale before you post.
2012-11-27 02:56:23 PM  
2 votes:

ShamanGator: Sure doesn't say much for the over all level of driving skills in New jersey. If your to close for the car in front of you to stop at a red light then you my friend are driving like an idiot.


If you have the prescribed "safe" distance between you and the car in front of you (two seconds, plus 1 second for every 10 miles over 30) then in any heavy traffic area in NJ you will be continually cut off.
2012-11-27 02:16:15 PM  
2 votes:

gunther_bumpass: Again, you should be prepared for the car in front of you to come to a sudden stop at all times - that means maintaining a safe following distance AT ALL TIMES. Why is this so farking difficult to understand?


You can talk all day about how people should drive, but until you deal with how people actually do drive, you aren't dealing with reality.
2012-11-27 02:14:36 PM  
2 votes:
Know how to fix rear end collisions? Stop tailgating and pay attention to where you're going.

If the car in front of you slams on his brakes and you hit him, it is 100% entirely your own fault.
2012-11-27 01:31:53 PM  
2 votes:
If the yellow light times are set to proper standards the lights don't make enough money to pay for themselves and have to be scrapped.
2012-11-27 01:29:54 PM  
2 votes:

Jument: Putting aside the issue of whether or not cameras are good, people who slam on their brakes and cause a collision because of red light cameras ARE FARKING IDIOTS.

Do you really think risking the destruction of your car and your health is worth it to avoid a petty ticket? Grow a brain, morans.


It should not even be a problem. If you travel at the legally allotted sleep limit and pay attention you should never be put in a position to have to choose from slamming on the breaks and having the person behind you ram into you or run a red light.

You can also easily avoid a rear-end collision in which you are the potential rear-ended by following at a safe distance and paying attention. If the person in front of you slams on the breaks at a yellow light because they weren't paying attention, it shouldn't be a problem for you since you should already started to apply the breaks to make a safe stop at the up coming red.
2012-11-27 01:26:03 PM  
2 votes:

Drakin020: Increase in rear collision because people are driving to fast, but how many seriously accidents have been reduced? (T-bones, etc)

No no that would hint at the red light cameras working, and we can't have that here on Fark.


None. Literally none. We're only considering drivers who are coherent enough to realize there's a camera, right? It doesn't deter people from running it after 2 seconds after the light turns red, as the cameras stop taking pictures around that time. Those who run the light under 2 seconds after it turns red don't t-bone cars, as they haven't had enough time to get that far into it. Satisfied? No reasonable person proposes that red light cameras have literally any effect on t-bone accidents.
2012-11-27 01:18:22 PM  
2 votes:
Increase in rear collision because people are driving to fast, but how many seriously accidents have been reduced? (T-bones, etc)

No no that would hint at the red light cameras working, and we can't have that here on Fark.
2012-11-27 11:29:44 AM  
2 votes:
Replace them all with roundabouts!

//runs
2012-11-27 10:47:47 AM  
2 votes:
But collisions are paid for by drivers and insurance companies, while government gets that sweet camera loot.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-27 10:00:48 AM  
2 votes:
The next question is, are the new statistics accurate or trimmed to make the cameras look better? Among the techniques used previously: only report accidents with both cars over the stop bar (eliminating approach accidents), only report accidents coded as "red light running," lie, apply inapplicable corrections (like taking a list of injury accidents and throwing out rear-enders because they don't usually cause injury).
2012-11-28 10:05:40 PM  
1 votes:

Baloo Uriza: Most people interpret it as "I'm an impatient douche."


Says the one holding up everyone behind them because they are a self-important douche.
2012-11-28 12:43:02 AM  
1 votes:
The headline seems to falsely accuse the red light cameras for the increase in rear-end collisions when the fault clearly is with people following too closely.
2012-11-27 10:02:41 PM  
1 votes:
Getting rear ended at low speed is safer then being T-boned at high speed.

/keep farking that chicken
//while drinking a coffee, eating and texting.
2012-11-27 09:58:44 PM  
1 votes:

Job Creator: Chevello: Jument: Putting aside the issue of whether or not cameras are good, people who slam on their brakes follow too closely and cause a collision because of red light cameras ARE FARKING IDIOTS.

Do you really think risking the destruction of your car and your health is worth it to avoid a petty ticket just to pretend you are drafting? Grow a brain, morans.

What you meant to say.

Oh look, I think we found the farkstick that pulls into the left lane of an expressway at 50mph because he is a frustrated traffic cop.

/What I meant to say


Um, nope but thanks for playing. I think we have a few lovely parting gifts for you. How about a nice aggressive driving ticket and a personal injury lawsuit? Ohh, and let's not forget the wonderful increase in insurance rates because everyone knows that in almost all circumstances, a rearend accident is the fault of the rear car. Have fun out there but remember, not everyone knows the length of every yellow they are approaching.

\new to this "trolling" thing. How'm I doing?
2012-11-27 09:14:52 PM  
1 votes:
I recently got a ticket from a red light camera. I actually don't mind...they sent pictures and a video that showed I clearly ran the light even though at the time I thought it was still yellow. If a cop had pulled me over I'd have been pissed. I have no complaint that I was ticketed for running the light and I'm glad it doesn't go on my record.
2012-11-27 07:05:58 PM  
1 votes:

Baloo Uriza: Sounds like New Jersey has a problem with drivers not using appropriate following distances.


Sounds like you have never driven in an area where using the "proper" following distances makes it impossible to merge, nor can you maintain it without being cut off.
2012-11-27 05:52:38 PM  
1 votes:

SurelyShirley: Live in the boondocks, go the speed limit, keep safe distance and pay attention to what's going on on the road, and you won't rear end anyone.


FTFY

It is impossible to "keep safe distance" when other cars keep merging into it. It is called "bumper to bumper traffic" for a reason.
2012-11-27 04:06:59 PM  
1 votes:

Jument: Putting aside the issue of whether or not cameras are good, people who slam on their brakes and cause a collision because of red light cameras ARE FARKING IDIOTS.

Do you really think risking the destruction of your car and your health is worth it to avoid a petty ticket? Grow a brain, morans.


Do you really think that putting a camera that issues false tickets, and doesn't improve safety at an intersection is worth your constituencies health? Just so the local government can get a bit more money from the people while filling the pockets of some corporation, at the expense of our health?
2012-11-27 03:59:48 PM  
1 votes:

Some 'Splainin' To Do: gunther_bumpass: Again, you should be prepared for the car in front of you to come to a sudden stop at all times - that means maintaining a safe following distance AT ALL TIMES. Why is this so farking difficult to understand?

You can talk all day about how people should drive, but until you deal with how people actually do drive, you aren't dealing with reality.


Get bent, buttplug. I've been driving for 25 years - most of that in heavy city commute conditions. You know how many times
I've rear-ended someone? Once. When I was 16, and I learned my lesson with a steering wheel jammed into my larynx. It's really very simple - get your head out of your ass and you'll hit fewer things.
2012-11-27 03:46:06 PM  
1 votes:

ShamanGator: Of course we cant be honest about these things, like blaming the morons who run the lights in the first place. With out them we would not need the cameras.


You're mistaken. We don't need the cameras for any reason.
2012-11-27 03:20:15 PM  
1 votes:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: bostonbd: Kanemano: Gig103: I had to do an emergency stop from 50mph because the yellow at a particular intersection isn't long enough

Yellow light means S L O W D O W N.

Yes it does. Slowdown =/= stop though. Also, when most red light camera's are installed, the duration of the yellow light is reduced to increase revinue from the camera. People who have driven for a while are accustomed to a standard timing of a yellow light. When this is reduced, it leads to more 'red light running' and thus more tickets and more sudden stops. More sudden stops leads to more rear end collisions.

Most? Really? You're just pulling shiat out of your ass at this point.


Actually, he's totally correct. Red light systems are typically owned and operated by private companies like Lockheed-Martin. There's a profit-sharing scheme in place and the yellow lights are definitely shortened to increase the chances of a red light violation. They also expand the zone that counts as "intersection" so there are times when stopping completely, but still being within this zone will trigger the camera and generate a ticket. In Lockheed-Martin's case, if the city reduces the yellow light to 1.5 seconds, then the city's share of the ticket revenue is 50%. If they do not reduce it and keep it at a much safer (and recommended) 4 seconds, then the city's share plummets to 10%. Obviously, this is a money making scheme in every way, and shortened yellow lights are designed to increase the number of red light violations even in circumstances where ordinarily there would be no safety issues.

What's worse, in many contracts the city has to PAY Lockheed for intersections where the cameras are installed that are UNDER PERFORMING. That is, if they don't write a certain number of tickets each month, then the city pays a fine to Lockheed. How to ensure you write the requisite number of tickets? Change the rules of course.

How do I know? I have a family member who works at Lockheed on the marketing team that sells the systems to municipalities. Everyone at Lockheed Martin knows it's a scam, and his marketing materials designed for Lockheed to use when selling the system to cities use the words "profit" and "revenue" more than the word "safety" by about a 6:1 ratio. But in brochures designed and distributed (by Lockheed, of course) for the police to hand out to citizens, the word "safety" is used exclusively and the word "profit" doesn't appear at all.

Rigged? You be the judge.
2012-11-27 02:53:40 PM  
1 votes:
Yea, see the corrupt red light cameras are a byproduct of the no-new-taxes-no-matter-what attitude in this country. We can't raise taxes to reflect increasing costs so instead it costs $100 to license your dog and you have red light cameras everywhere.

/$213 to register my car in NYC for 2 years
2012-11-27 02:30:21 PM  
1 votes:

Snarfangel: But collisions are paid for by drivers and insurance companies, while government gets splits that sweet camera loot with the private camera contractor.


FTFY

/hates red-light cams
2012-11-27 02:29:58 PM  
1 votes:

Some 'Splainin' To Do: gunther_bumpass: Again, you should be prepared for the car in front of you to come to a sudden stop at all times - that means maintaining a safe following distance AT ALL TIMES. Why is this so farking difficult to understand?

You can talk all day about how people should drive, but until you deal with how people actually do drive, you aren't dealing with reality.


So much this. There is a vast difference between driving defensively and driving like a jack-hole that causes wrecks to occur. You cannot drive like someone is always going to completely slam on their brakes. You know what happens when you do that? You leave just enough a gap and are going just slow enough that the guy behind or next to you decides to pass you real quick and cut in front of you causing a huge accident. Driving the speed limit? Lol now that too is funny. If the guy behind you is going faster than you and you can safely get over a lane, let them pass.
2012-11-27 02:29:15 PM  
1 votes:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Most? Really? You're just pulling shiat out of your ass at this point.


Yes, most. 63 out of 85 traffic lights in NJ were shown to not be correctly calibrated to meet the state law. 74% seems like most to me.

Link
2012-11-27 02:17:20 PM  
1 votes:

Jument: Putting aside the issue of whether or not cameras are good, people who slam on their brakes and cause a collision because of red light cameras ARE FARKING IDIOTS.

Do you really think risking the destruction of your car and your health is worth it to avoid a petty ticket? Grow a brain, morans.


The guy slamming on his brakes isn't causing the collision; the asshole tailgating him is.
2012-11-27 02:01:16 PM  
1 votes:

Hrist: I've personally witnessed countless numbers of people lock their brakes up the instant the light turns yellow


Anybody who does that, I believe some would based on my mom's driving, is an idiot and should not be driving.

Maybe they should install a visible timer showing the number of seconds the yellow light will last. If they're truly interested in public safety that should be no problem. All revenue should go to driver education programs and not into general town/state coffers. Problem solved.
2012-11-27 01:47:29 PM  
1 votes:

moothemagiccow: DubyaHater: Perhaps you shouldn't speed and tailgate people. Typically, if one follows traffic laws, the risk of an accident is minimal.

The yellow light duration is reduced and people are either terrified of running the red or anxious to make the light on green and yellow. The combination is not good. They're also inexplicably slow in moving forward on the green, but that's normal.


I don't think you understood what he was saying so I'll repeat it: "you shouldn't speed and tailgate people. Typically, if one follows traffic laws, the risk of an accident is minimal."
2012-11-27 01:33:56 PM  
1 votes:
Rear ends typically aren't fatal. 90 degree crashes (the kind that result from red light running) typically are.
2012-11-27 01:31:50 PM  
1 votes:
Sure doesn't say much for the over all level of driving skills in New jersey. If your to close for the car in front of you to stop at a red light then you my friend are driving like an idiot.

Of course we cant be honest about these things, like blaming the morons who run the lights in the first place. With out them we would not need the cameras. And any one who rear ends a car stopping for a light should not be driving in the first place.
2012-11-27 01:22:22 PM  
1 votes:
Putting aside the issue of whether or not cameras are good, people who slam on their brakes and cause a collision because of red light cameras ARE FARKING IDIOTS.

Do you really think risking the destruction of your car and your health is worth it to avoid a petty ticket? Grow a brain, morans.
2012-11-27 01:21:37 PM  
1 votes:

Snarfangel: But collisions are paid for by drivers and insurance companies, while government gets that sweet camera loot.


Except rear-end collisions (which tend to be low speed) are up massively and total collisions (including T-bone crashes, the ones that tend to be high speed) are down so there is only a very slight climb in total collisions. Fewer bad crashes, slightly more less minor collisions.

I'll bet you any money the number of people hospitalised has fallen.
2012-11-27 01:21:37 PM  
1 votes:

Snarfangel: But collisions are paid for by drivers and insurance companies, while government gets that sweet camera loot.


Follow the money, it leads you to the answer almost every time.
2012-11-27 12:34:10 PM  
1 votes:

tallguywithglasseson: Replace them all with roundabouts!

//runs


Works for me. There are several still in use near here (Along NY6 and the Palisades Pkwy) I remember the ones in Wayne on Route 23 too. They worked amazingly well considering that they were full of NJ drivers.

They'd work even better if driver education and training in the USA wasn't such a farking joke.
2012-11-27 11:47:40 AM  
1 votes:

tallguywithglasseson: Replace them all with roundabouts!

//runs


I love roundabouts.

That is all.
2012-11-27 10:48:15 AM  
1 votes:
Only problem is the rear ends and the property damage is all private while the revenue generated is all going to the guberment. There is no incentive for the guberment to change.


guberment
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report