right? and thats the POLICE CHIEF saying that...seriously.

the only times i've ever "technically" blown through a red light is on streets that the speed limit is 55 and you are at the point where the light turns yellow and you think - I either have to slam on my breaks to stop just in time, or hurry it up and make it through just in time.

and sometimes, that light turns red just as im passing under.

I've also done the "slam on the breaks thing" and nearly wound up in the intersection too...which is just as bad.

But this is why when the light turns green, I always do a double check just make sure someone isnt still coming and didnt quite see the light had changed...or thought they could still make it.

I've avoided a handful of accidents this way...

Yeah, tell us again how red light cameras stop this activity?

It doesn't matter. Most of these people have a "It will never happen to me attitude".

@Nosferatu - I'll tell you, here:

_fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

Note the final conclusion: "Even though the positive effects on angle crashes of RLC systems is partially offset by negative effects related to increases in rear end crashes, there is still a modest to moderate economic benefit of between $39,000 and $50,000 per treated site year, depending on consideration of only injury crashes or including PDO crashes, and whether the statistically non-significant shift to slightly more severe angle crashes remaining after treatment is, in fact, real."

The economic benefit talked about is the saved cost of the crashes, not the benefit to the enforcing jursidiction.

The cops should sit at the red lights and ticket those blatently running the red lights. They'd catch a bunch of red light runners in my town. Instead they'd rather sit on a near deserted road and look for speeders. I'm guessing there's less effort (nap time) in looking for speeders on light traffic roads.

Airpuppy - so, putting cameras in every individual's house should cut down on homicides too, right?

Isnt being DRUNK more the cause of the accident?

And anyone who is intoxicated is not going to respond to any campaign that NJ has. I hope her insurance company pays those innocently involved and then cancels her

I lived in Jersey for three years before moving to NC. The crazy thing about Jersey is that when the light turned green for you, you needed to wait for five cars running the red light before you entered the intersection. Too many people are in a hurry. For what reason??

For the safety of others, "Do not get drunk and then drive!", it is cheaper to call a cab. On another note: those cities that have red light cameras on the traffic lights, need to also place a count down clock on them. The count down clock gives the driver an idea as to when the light is going to change. Some third world country don't use cameras, they use count down clock. Our cities need to use traffic light count down clocks. There is too much stress in avoiding a ticket, just trying to hurry up in crossing a traffic light, before it changes. Right now everyone takes a guest as to when the light changes, and the cities traffic managers know this. It could be that they help create accidents, so they can generate revenue for the cities.

Am I the only one distressed by the fact that most of the time the drunkard that causes these accidents in the first place barely gets injured, but if others are involved, they usually end up dead? You'd think they'd be the one that takes the worst damage, yet this person smashed over a guard rail, took a light pole down, and didn't seem to get all that hurt, yet if they hit another driver, they'd probably have to pick the victim's gray matter off the ground with a shovel. What the frell?

They usually wind up the least injured because they're travelling faster - I can't remember all the terms for it, but two equally sized vehicles colliding - whichever one is moving faster has more energy to transfer to the other vehicle.

The count down clocks are awesome - I can't remember where I saw them, but they're actually there for pedestrians. Still, if you're two blocks away and you see the countdown thing on the crosswalk at 15 seconds - you know you're probably not going to make it. I've seen them in plenty of downtowns in America, it's not just a 3rd world thing.

We've got count down clocks in my hometown of Englewood, CO. However, I see them more on smaller streets rather than the major streets. It's a little bass ackwards if you ask me.

The city of Aurora is removing their red light cameras because it hasn't done a thing to reduce accidents, in fact their numbers have skyrocketed since they were put in. My guess? People speed up trying to avoid the camera, but are so blinded they don't see anything else.

A couple of years back the police in the Phoenix area had one of those check point campaigns and they stopped drivers early in the morning on their way to work.

1 our of 6 was impaired either by alcohol or drugs of some type - either prescription or illegal.

Not necessarily impaired enough to be arrested. Many were, but many were either still suffering the effects of the night before or had just started getting their fix for the day.

I read once that they sell more beer than pop and milk combined.

It says something about our workplaces that they are so stressful that people have to drink / pop pills to endure the day.

Real alcoholics go to bed with enough in their system and stomach that they wake up drunk. The liver of an alcoholic becomes damaged and can only break down 1/3 to 1/2 drink per hour. A 160 pound person with a 0.20 percent alcohol level (very drunk) has the equivalent of 8.5 drinks (0.6 ounces of pure alcohol per drink). A normal person can metabolize about 0.018 BAC per hour. Thus it would take a typical person almoust 7 hours to go from 0.20 BAC to just intoxicated at 0.08 BAC and that doesn't include the stomach contents.

This video was furnished by the vendor responsible for the traffic light cameras. These people are bald faced liars. They use one single accident that shows a driver running a red light and ignore the accidents caused by the sudden changes to the traffic light patterns?

I've lived in NJ all my life (65 years). In all that time, I've never seen the traffic lights change from amber to red in less than 1 second as they do now. So what happens now is that NJ drivers try to avoid being trapped into getting a ticket and everyone jams on their brakes as soon as they see the amber light. Not to mention that the red lights stay longer now than they ever did before, far longer than they are green. This, in a state, with the most congested roads per square mile.

New Jerseyans want these damn cameras gone because we sit in traffic longer than anyone else in the US today. Not because the roads are jammed. Because most New Jerseyans must commute to get to their jobs. So, when these turds who operate these traffic light patterns start playing games with them and turning the reds longer and greens shorter, how won't that add additional time to your commute?

Now...the real reason for the sudden spate in people getting tickets for running red lights? The red light cameras are trapping people turning right legally on red because they didn't stop at the red light they are legally allowed to turn on for longer than 8 seconds.

But, what is really the most dangerous thing about these red light cameras is what these vendors hide from everyone...they use the license plates numbers to help the auto insurers in NJ to earn higher profits. How? Simple. They match the license plate numbers to the information they receive from the Motor Vehicle Commission. If you've got a few points already on your license, so much the better. Your points are upped and up goes the car insurance, the court costs and the surcharges.

How is it possible that New Jersey is suddenly a haven for criminals just trying to get to work every day? Profit...that's how. The only people pushing to keep these traffic light cameras are the jerks who profit most from them.

They tried the Photo Cop idea in MN and it didn't fly because they would end up sending the owner of the car a ticket when they often times weren't even the driver of it. The stoplight cameras went away because you need to ticket the driver, not the vehicle/s owner.

ewent

Don't run red lights and your insurance won't go up. Your just complaining because the cameras catch people now.

Also the amount of time a light is red is directly proportionate to the amount of time that the other side is green. So they are not just screwing around with the traffic lights.

They use one single accident that shows a driver running a red light and ignore the accidents caused by the sudden changes to the traffic light patterns?

There was a study done on this. Specifically the reduction of right-angle crashes to the increase of rear-end crashes regarding cost. To be blunt, accidents are not caused by changes in traffic light patterns; they are caused by inattentive and unsafe drivers. Know the difference.

_fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

I've lived in NJ all my life (65 years). In all that time, I've never seen the traffic lights change from amber to red in less than 1 second as they do now. So what happens now is that NJ drivers try to avoid being trapped into getting a ticket and everyone jams on their brakes as soon as they see the amber light.

Please note that the length of an amber light is a function of the speed limit. If you feel that the light is so short that it is unsafe, you are almost certainly going far faster than you should be. It's also basic physics- going twice as fast makes it four times harder to come to a full stop. Again, traffic light patterns assume you are going the posted speed limit.

Now...the real reason for the sudden spate in people getting tickets for running red lights? The red light cameras are trapping people turning right legally on red because they didn't stop at the red light they are legally allowed to turn on for longer than 8 seconds.

You must treat a red light the same as you would a stop sign. There is no law that sets a limit on how long you must be stopped. If you disagree, point me to the law that states this to prove me wrong. Again, there is no 8 second rule or any second rule. However, a rolling stop does not count. You must actually stop.

I am from New Jersey as well and I can assure you that such things like RLC's would be completely unnecessary if people were as responsible and safe on the road as they should be. As you know, that's not the case. Yes, traffic sucks in NJ like anywhere else, but that's no excuse to justify aggressive driving and unsafe driving.

There are standarized yellow light times; however, cities are frequently found in violation of those safty standards.

Usually when that happens, the Courts order them to refund all the tickets issues at the defective lights.

So, if there really are 1 second yellows, why don't you file the class action, and get the named plantiff bonus?

I've seen a number of posts that imply the driver was female, but gender is not mentioned in the article. The caption below the video uses the adjective "his" so my assumption is that the driver was male.

@Pat

Since the article said the 29 year old driver's name is Elizabeth, isn't that a hint as to gender?

Actually the article says the woman is from Elizabeth, NJ, not that the name of the person is Elizabeth.

I read in another place that it is a guy. But yes as Lamont said, Elizabeth is the name of the town the person is from.

The driver was a man.m

The picture that appeared on NJ.com with the original story looked as if it was a female and the misconception started there.

Thank you John, I as thinking the same thing. Drunks don't think about the laws.

Since most of the "red light runnings" ive seen (and im talking about the ones that come quite a bit of time after the light has turned, not the ones that under just as the light turns red or a few seconds after) were in the daytime, and I suspect not by drunk drivers. Distracted drivers, or just drivers not paying attention - off in lala-land.

The red light camera's dont stop people from running red lights, but they sure as heck prove who was in the wrong...and that helps us take a long step TOWARD personal accountability, wouldnt you say?

It's really hard to say "officer, it's not true...my light was green, theirs was red"...and if they were the only two witnesses to the accident, who do you believe?

personal accountability is all well and good, but when someone is going to get in real trouble for the bad choices they made...9 out of 10 people will do whatever they can to avoid being held accountable.

i'll take big brother any day over hoping that someone will just own up to their failures.

Jessica,

It is a sad world we live in when people cant admit when they are in the wrong. I dont know about you, but I own up to my mistakes and accept the consequences for my actions. Regardless of the seriousness. I dont need a red light camera for me to do that. And I am sure you dont either. We could be the exception I guess.

It's more an advertisement for using seat belts than red light cameras. The male driver of the car walked away from the accident unhurt. There's one other very serious consideration. Since red light cameras are all mechanically operated and computerized, they can fail. This is the real argument we in NJ have with these cameras. The vendors who operate them do not regularly inspect nor calibrate them for accuracy. Then, they actually have the raisins to deny they are not working properly? How is trapping drivers into getting a ticket they don't deserve legal?

How about pop-up 'severe tire damage' strips at major intersections, hooked to the light timing? have signs, advertizments announcing it, so noone can claim ignorance.

Run a red light? New set of tires. Instant justice.

Red light cameras are not installed just to STOP people from running red lights. They also CATCH people doing it, which can lead to fines or worse. A car runs a red light, a pedestrian is killed, the driver keeps going, and the camera has recorded the plate number. That's a GOOD thing.

armurray - how in your head did you ever think or believe they were DESIGNED to stop them?

and are you actively searching out the stats, or just waiting for someone to hand them to you thereby you can declare you have finally seen them?

If you haven't seen any statistics about red light running and camera --- YOU'VE NOT READ A NEWSPAPER OR WATCHED TV NEWS IN YEARS.

Every town in the Phoenix area can supply plenty of stats for you about how red light cameras have cut down on the number of red light runners.

True, drunks don't worry about fines and losing their license ( often they don't have one anyway ). But many many sober people run red lights because they are in a hurry to get to work cause they are running late.

A big azz fine usually teaches them to allow more time for their morning commute or where ever they are going.

Red light camera DO give people the idea that it is not a good idea to run the red lights.

These big brother devices are sold as "safety devices." They try to convince us it's not just a scheme to make money for the city they're in. They lie.

Here you go armurray. Pull your head out.

_.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

Jessica-1170252

I never suggested that a red light camera actually stops them. Now if only it could put up an instant barrier...

Nikolaus20,

I can agree with you on this one, but is there a single case where this has happened? I did a search and didn't find one. Seems like a lot of money for a maybe...

TheAirdog

Did you actually read your post? It says that the number of rear end crashes increased more than the number of right angle crashes. Also, it says nothing about reduction of injuries or deaths due to red light cameras.

2 seconds after it turned red?

that would imply everyone else waiting on their green left BEFORE it turned green.

there's a delay you know, once one turns red before the other turns green.

sounds like everyone was at fault.

Police officers cost money.

Salaries and cost of cars for them to drive and cost of operating the vehicles.

People try to claim that only a live officer should be able to give tickets but they won't vote the taxes to pay for the officers.

Red light cameras and speed cameras have many advantages.

They can't be bribed.

They don't care how big the lady's chest is or how well she flirts.

They don't take vacations.

They don't get salaries or pensions.

They never sleep.

All of which are reasons why people who don't think the laws should apply to them don't like the cameras.

If a speed camera takes your picture -- you can't hand it your license with a $100 bill wrapped around it and make the problem go away.

It also violates the right to be confronted by your accuser.

Jessica....The road that three cars were crossing was a six lane divided highway. The car that ran the red light was coming from the right, and the car in our right hand lane almost made it through the intersection, all six lanes. It got hit in the right rear side panel and spun around. The van in the middle got t-boned (with a baby in the back seat). It had crossed 4 lanes and was in the 5th lane when it got hit. It was struck so hard that it was knocked into may car in the left lane and knocked it over another whole lane (onto the divider and turn lane coming the other way). So yes, from the time we got our green light I'd say it was two seconds. As hard as she hit everybody I don't see that there was any evidence of braking. I can assure you that our light turned green before we went into the intersection.

nosferatu-499026

So, if a camera catches a thief breaking into your house (no other witnesses or evidence) then they should go free because the only evidence is a picture?

Part of my previous post didn't get posted. No idea why. It did not post as it was written.

No, racing to see it before it was chopped down.

You know, it wouldn't surprise me.

The announcment wasn't for intelligent people who already try not to get themselves killed by running red lights, it's for the idiots who still endanger themselves and others.

I didn't flip because it was t-boned, it flipped because it was pushed onto the barrier that has an inclined slope that allowed the car to slide up into the light pole before it then tumbled in the air and landed on its side thus rolling after landing. Reporters need to learn to look at the news before they write about it, otherwise they continue to sound like idiots.

do you have any idea how much it would cost to plant a cop at every interesection 24/hrs a day? not just salary, but pensions, health care costs, ect...?

reality check - this is likely far more cost effective, and I doubt the police are making a lot more money on this than they are spending.

and then you'll cry about the POLICE STATE we are now under...

Jessie -

So, in your world, since there's the potential for a crime to be committed in every house in the state, all houses should have cameras also.

Are you sure you're not Dick Cheney in disguise?

Yes, true but not necessarily. It's more of an issue of private companies making money through the use of these cameras that they lobby heavily to sell. Crime has become a commodity from which a profit can be made. Companies have been back-dating inspection reports in NJ after they don't inspect the camera's timing/calibration all year long. The yellow-lights are being timed to encourage more violators. Thus, the cards are being stacked against drivers, who are being punished for not having Superman's reaction time. A cost-effective solution can be as simple as placing a cop car with 2% tinted windows on the corner of the intersection, whether or not a cop is actually in it.

Also, it's not right to be splitting the red-light fines with private companies that are located out-of-state. Law enforcement-related penalties and fines should be used intrastate for the benefit of a states' citizens and courts. Of course, there are the people you write of that are criminals who don't want cameras. But there are some issues with red-light cameras that are fundamental to our democracy.

Like one in four men I can't see red or green

Especially after a case of beer.

Color blindness isn't an excuse. The red and green are ALWAYS in the same location.

Red is ALWAYS on top? Never seen a sideways stoplight, eh?

Yes, and then the red is always left. Nice try though.

As I said, beer was the problem here, not color blindness.

Thanks, I was away for a bit.

"The standard is the red light above the green, with yellow between. When sideways, the arrangement depends on the rule of the road. In right-lane countries, the green light is on the right, and in left-lane countries, the left."

Source: h t t p: // en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light

Your pathetic attempt at humor in response to the post about color blindness, and now this, indicates you don't know what you are talking about.

The joke about color blindness was in fact funny, in a sarcastic way, and what is it about THIS post that you find so offensive, or not 100% completely true?

No, it doesn't.

In response to Jimee the wise.

I'm trying to figure out what it is he didn't like. The joke, ok if he wants to take it personal. But this one, hmmm.

I think he took a break to look up the definition of sarcasm.

LOL!!