Traffic Enforcement Cameras

[Garris]

New Jersey to me is the capital of the worst turn signal improper usage and the capital of using their turn signals the most. Im not anal retentive on people NOT using turn signals but IF YOUR gonna use them, use them properly!

It's funny you mention New Jersey. That's the only place I've driven where people start to slowly drift into the left lane about 40-60 ft before they are going to make a left turn...

I had more episodes than I would have liked near Red Bank, NJ where there would be a car coming at me which would slowly drift into my lane, seemingly heading right for me and I'd scream "What the F%#$ is he doing!?!?" before the car would make a sharp left turn just before I'd otherwise hit him...

Don't get me started on the jug handles there...

At least we don't have those traffic nightmares in RI!

- Garris

[runawayjim]

i don't understand the lack of turn signals here (or as a lot of the locals like to call them, directionals). it's just annoynig. sitting at a red light ready to go and after it turns green, the guy in front of you turns on his left turn signal... in most cases, the oncoming car might have let him go, but he put his signal on too late so they don't and you get stuck through the whole light... not that it's ever happened to me...

i've heard it referred to as the rhode island slide... pulling out into traffic so you can block oncoming cars and make your turn. however, in most situations, it's necessary. while dangerous, on some of the streets where people park right up to the corner (stupidly), you can't see cars coming in either direction, so you need to creep out. in doing so, you end up blocking traffic. i had this happen to me once, i was nearly blocking traffic and the people going the direction i awnted to go were about to stop, but the a****le that was coming the other way (where i was blocking traffic, or so i thought), decided to swerve around me (even though he had plenty of time to see me and stop). the rest of the cars behind him followed doing the same thing... the worst (or best, depending on how you look at it) example of the "RI slide" that i saw was actually in NH, manchester to be exact. some guy was making a left turn. traffic on that side of the road was backed up at a light. i was not. he pulled out in front of me and blocked 2 LANES OF TRAFFIC!!! i had to drive in the small shoulder to get around the moron. and he sat there for about 3 minutes until the light turned green!!

and now onto pedestrians... i have no problem with people who walk or cross the street, or even jay walk. but don't jay walk when there's a lot of traffic (unless the light's red and no one's moving or coming). there's people who have no problem walking slowly across the street, while jay walking. i see this on smith street in smith hill all the time! they do it like 10 feet from a cross walk. although the walk lights don't work on many of these intersections so i can understand why they do it... but don't slowly walk as you stare down the cars!

[DrStink]

Red Bank, NJ

"But I'm not supposed to *be* here today!"

"What? Like the back of a volkswagen?"

"What's a Nubian?"

One spring break eons ago, MrsStink and I actually made a roadtrip to Red Bank just so we could go to Jay & Bob's Secret Stash and visit the swingset and diner from Chasing Amy. And of course, the Quickstop. I even have a RST video card in a shoebox somewhere.

[KBagley]

Let's not talk about turn signals (which, for New Englanders not understanding that reference, is the stalk coming out from the steering column you move up or down to signal left or right turns)...

- Garris

I think everyone knows where it is, they just forget to top off the blinker fluid so they will work...

My definition of the RI Slide or RI Block, is when a car making a left turn pulls just far enough to the right to block everyone behind them from passing on the shoulder while they sit there waiting for oncoming traffic to open up so they can make their left turn.

[runawayjim]

I think everyone knows where it is, they just forget to top off the blinker fluid so they will work...

My definition of the RI Slide or RI Block, is when a car making a left turn pulls just far enough to the right to block everyone behind them from passing on the shoulder while they sit there waiting for oncoming traffic to open up so they can make their left turn.

you know... i've seen more people turn left from the right side of the road here than i have ever seen before... why do so many people drive like idiots here? it's not like they drive particularly crazy or scary, it's that they just do stupid things like that...

[Jerseyman4]

you know... i've seen more people turn left from the right side of the road here than i have ever seen before...

Thats common in the south. You'd have to be on crack to do that in NJ

I watch myself when i drive over the right passing a left turning vehicle because it is illegal to drive over a solid white line (driving on the shoulder). As long as there are no cops near by and/or theres traffic behind me, i wont hesistate to drive over it. Anytime a cop is near me, i stop and wait for the car to turn.

Anytime you have broken white lines or no paint markings and as long as your on the highway right-of-way, it is legal to pass on teh right. Just dont try it south of Virginia, im too chicken to find out if that type of driving is acceptable. If you dont see a left turn lane, dont try it.

[runawayjim]

Thats common in the south. You'd have to be on crack to do that in NJ

I watch myself when i drive over the right passing a left turning vehicle because it is illegal to drive over a solid white line (driving on the shoulder). As long as there are no cops near by and/or theres traffic behind me, i wont hesistate to drive over it. Anytime a cop is near me, i stop and wait for the car to turn.

Anytime you have broken white lines or no paint markings and as long as your on the highway right-of-way, it is legal to pass on teh right. Just dont try it south of Virginia, im too chicken to find out if that type of driving is acceptable. If you dont see a left turn lane, dont try it.

i think cops up here would lay on the horn if i sat and waited, even with a solid white line... everyone knows that's for passing left turning cars.

[KBagley]

I learned to drive in Maine... my memory from Driver Ed up there was that it is legal to pass on the right if the shoulder is paved and the vehicle being passed has signaled a left turn. Of course most of the shoulders up there are NOT paved... I'd never been told anything about not crossing solid white shoulder lines, I thought they were just to help you see where the side of the road was on rainy nights with poor visibility so you didnt end up in the ditch, which is what they were most useful for up there!

[Jerseyman4]

i think cops up here would lay on the horn if i sat and waited, even with a solid white line... everyone knows that's for passing left turning cars.

Based on only if there is a solid white line to my right indicating the shoulder,

I dont care if the cop blares his/her horn at me and/or pulls me over, ill wait until the car turns. What will they write me a ticket for, impeding traffic? Ill go to court and show the judge with the drivers manual that the cop was wrong for even bothering me in the first place. I will not break the law infront of a cop because he is in a hurry and/or he/she is ignorant of the law. They break enough laws infront of us, setting the motorists around them poor examples.

I can only speak for NJ on this:

See the full law

N.J.S. 39:4-85. Passing to left when overtaking; passing when in lines; signalling to pass; passing upon right

The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right as provided in this section only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.

Where it is bolded, the right shoulder is not a main traveled portion of the roadway.

[DavidSegal]

i worry that dean and atwells is a classic example of a poorly-engineered intersection, where red-light cameras wouldn't do much. and a spot where these cameras could create a subtle incentive not to fix the problem.

there are definitely more of these coming -- the law we passed caps it at 25 intersections at any one time.

[runawayjim]

i worry that dean and atwells is a classic example of a poorly-engineered intersection, where red-light cameras wouldn't do much. and a spot where these cameras could create a subtle incentive not to fix the problem.

there are definitely more of these coming -- the law we passed caps it at 25 intersections at any one time.

that intersection is just plain awful. the lights on dean st should alternate, one direction gets a green and then the other gets one while the first is red. and there should be left turn signals for those turning left onto dean towards pleasant valley pkwy.

the only thing i don't get at all about these cameras is how they work... take the cameras at chalkstone and oakland/raymond. they're both on oakland/raymond aiming each direction there (north and south). if you want to get every possible way of running the red light at the intersection, does that mean you need 4 cameras? if that's the case, that means that the camera on eaton at huxley isn't in the most ideal location. here's why... the most common people to run that light are PC students (the only people i've seen run it in fact). and they generally run it going down huxley. rather than going down eaton. i'd like to see a demonstration of how the cameras work... anywhere on the web i can find one?

[f1rehead]

More fuel for the fire:

Anne Arundel County, Maryland red light cameras increase accidents 25-41 percent, but generate $2.85 million in revenue.

Georgia red light cameras are raising cash, accident rates, and the number of injuries.

Red-light cameras produce wrecks, then results (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

When I lived in the DC area a few years ago, I remember a study of the RLCs there that concluded that the real way to reduce accidents at an intersection was to increase the amount of time the light was yellow. Of course the city doesn't make an money that way... .

[jencoleslaw]

the boyfriend tells me that they stopped using rlc in fairfax county VA some time ago. He was in traffic court one day (on a related traffic violation) and the judge prefaced all pleas by saying "all you have to do to beat a red light camera ticket is say "i was not driving my car at that time." " which everyone did and he threw out each ticket. this was last year. Maybe they've come up with ways to make them stick. :-) or that judge just didn't believe in the rlc and this was his own way of doing a little "disobedience" on them...?

[f1rehead]

Hate to reply to my own post, but here's a link to the yellow light timing study:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/rlcreport.asp

[runawayjim]

the boyfriend tells me that they stopped using rlc in fairfax county VA some time ago. He was in traffic court one day (on a related traffic violation) and the judge prefaced all pleas by saying "all you have to do to beat a red light camera ticket is say "i was not driving my car at that time." " which everyone did and he threw out each ticket. this was last year. Maybe they've come up with ways to make them stick. :-) or that judge just didn't believe in the rlc and this was his own way of doing a little "disobedience" on them...?

i know that if i ever get that sort of ticket, i'll be sure to fight the ticket and ask them to prove that it was me driving the vehicle at the time. i'd like to see the legislation that was passed allowing this just so i know the exact language used behind this. i know it wouldn't affect my license or insurance and it wouldn't count as a moving violation, but i don't want to pay $75 if they aren't sure it's me driving the car.

someone earlier had said that in their state, you get a $25 or $50 ticket and you can't fight it.

[Cotuit]

i'll be sure to fight the ticket and ask them to prove that it was me driving the vehicle at the time.

I'm not sure you'd be able to use that as an out, and if you could, I'd advocate closing that hole. If you register a car, you should be responible for it. If you don't want other people getting tickets while driving your car, don't let other people drive it. Short of it being stolen, I believe an owner should be liable for moving violations committed with their own vehicle.

[runawayjim]

I'm not sure you'd be able to use that as an out, and if you could, I'd advocate closing that hole. If you register a car, you should be responible for it. If you don't want other people getting tickets while driving your car, don't let other people drive it. Short of it being stolen, I believe an owner should be liable for moving violations committed with their own vehicle.

so you're saying that if i had kids and my wife and i have our cars and our kids use them on occasion that i'm responsible for my own car even though my kid is listed as a driver of it? i think not.

i thought you said you were all about civil liberties. i think this is a pretty important civil liberties issue. i shouldn't be punished by the law for something my kid did to break the law, especially if my kid is 18. basically this is saying that someone can use your car, but if they break the law with it, you're the one who broke the law, not the driver. that's not how the law works. it's saying to parents "don't let you kids use your car, you're legally responsible for their actions when they're behind the wheel, even if they have a legal driver's license."

OR

me and my wife only need 1 car. obviously we can't jointly register it. so the one who doesn't register it is driving it and breaks the law with his/her driver's license. the one who registered it is legally responsible for their lax attitude when it comes to the law.

[Garris]

The same news largely as above, nicely encapsulated in a post on the car enthusiast blog site Autoblog.com:

Anne Arundel County in Maryland has been running five red light cameras for five years, during which period they raised a fat $2.85 million in ticket revenue. Unfortunately, a comparison of accident statistics shows that the cameras have increased the rate of accidents.

Immediately after installation, the cameras sparked a 40-percent increase in rear-end collisions, and never looked back, with five-year increases in accident rates far exceeding a 10-percent increase in traffic.

Unfortunately, this is hardly an isolated phenomenon. TheNewspaper.com reports similar results in the state of Georgia, where the city of Duluth's one and only camera is forecast to generate a whopping $1 million next year, at the cost of a 21-percent increase in accidents. A study by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution showed red light cameras were linked to an increase in accidents, injuries and revenues across the state, although there is early indication that the rate of serious accidents in intersections is falling.

Critics charge that cities are at best trading one kind of accident for another, and that the proliferation of traffic cameras is really just a money generator, while advocates maintain that they encourage safer driving.

Glad to see our government is out working for us!

- Garris

[Cotuit]

If your child or spouse can't obey the law when they drive your car, you should not allow them to drive it. The car is registered to you, you are responsible for it, don't like it? Walk.

From a civil liberties prospective, I'm much more concerned that the technology can actually deterimine which car is running the light and make the correct determination that it did indeed run it. If that technoligy is sound, then my civil liberties concerns go away.

[Cotuit]

The same news largely as above, nicely encapsulated in a post on the car enthusiast blog site Autoblog.com:

Anne Arundel County in Maryland has been running five red light cameras for five years, during which period they raised a fat $2.85 million in ticket revenue. Unfortunately, a comparison of accident statistics shows that the cameras have increased the rate of accidents.

Immediately after installation, the cameras sparked a 40-percent increase in rear-end collisions, and never looked back, with five-year increases in accident rates far exceeding a 10-percent increase in traffic.

Unfortunately, this is hardly an isolated phenomenon. TheNewspaper.com reports similar results in the state of Georgia, where the city of Duluth's one and only camera is forecast to generate a whopping $1 million next year, at the cost of a 21-percent increase in accidents. A study by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution showed red light cameras were linked to an increase in accidents, injuries and revenues across the state, although there is early indication that the rate of serious accidents in intersections is falling.

Critics charge that cities are at best trading one kind of accident for another, and that the proliferation of traffic cameras is really just a money generator, while advocates maintain that they encourage safer driving.

Glad to see our government is out working for us!

Camera or no, the facts don't change, one is required to stop at a red light. If people can't slow their fvcking cars down and obey basic traffic laws their licenses should be revoked. That will serve to reduce the accident rate.

[runawayjim]

If your child or spouse can't obey the law when they drive your car, you should not allow them to drive it. The car is registered to you, you are responsible for it, don't like it? Walk.

so the whole innocent until proven guilty idea goes right out the window... car owners are supposed to assume that anyone who may drive them will break the law with them now? the first offense goes against me, not them. that's one offense too many. if someone gets injurred in an apartment building because the maintenance was not kept up, the owner(s) are responsible. that's right, there can be more than one owner of a building or piece of land. but when it comes to cars, there's only one registered owner. if i'm held responsible for everyone that drives my car, i should be able to add them as registered owners, so that i can then hold all owners of the vehicle responsible.

i usually agree with your opinions, but this one is definitely off...

it's easy to say "walk" when you don't own a car.

the cameras are still a major civil liberties issue no matter what you think about cars and the people who own them.

[runawayjim]

Camera or no, the facts don't change, one is required to stop at a red light. If people can't slow their fvcking cars down and obey basic traffic laws their licenses should be revoked. That will serve to reduce the accident rate.

did you read the other articles about the main cause of these accidents? the yellow lights aren't long enough. i don't care if you're a driver or a pedestrian or what, the facts don't change. there's more accidents at these lights because people will slam the brakes when the light turns yellow now not wanting to get stopped. you are NOT required to slow down to stop if you're near the intersection just as the light turns yellow. if the yellow lights allowed time for cars unable to safely stop at red lights to continue through the intersection, there would be no issue. that's just not the case, so you get people slamming their brakes to avoid a ticket.

[Cotuit]

so the whole innocent until proven guilty idea goes right out the window... car owners are supposed to assume that anyone who may drive them will break the law with them now? the first offense goes against me, not them. that's one offense too many. if someone gets injurred in an apartment building because the maintenance was not kept up, the owner(s) are responsible. that's right, there can be more than one owner of a building or piece of land. but when it comes to cars, there's only one registered owner. if i'm held responsible for everyone that drives my car, i should be able to add them as registered owners, so that i can then hold all owners of the vehicle responsible.

i usually agree with your opinions, but this one is definitely off...

it's easy to say "walk" when you don't own a car.

the cameras are still a major civil liberties issue no matter what you think about cars and the people who own them.

Car owners can assume whatever they want about the people they allow to drive thier cars. They should know that they are liable for the fines imposed if another operator disobeys the laws. If you think more than one person should be allowed on a registration, talk to your General Assembly member.

It may be easy for me to tell someone to walk, but driving is not a right. There are many rules and regulations involved, if you do not care for those rules, you can opt not to participate. Just as I am not fond of the cigarette tax, I could opt not to smoke.

did you read the other articles about the main cause of these accidents? the yellow lights aren't long enough. i don't care if you're a driver or a pedestrian or what, the facts don't change. there's more accidents at these lights because people will slam the brakes when the light turns yellow now not wanting to get stopped. you are NOT required to slow down to stop if you're near the intersection just as the light turns yellow. if the yellow lights allowed time for cars unable to safely stop at red lights to continue through the intersection, there would be no issue. that's just not the case, so you get people slamming their brakes to avoid a ticket.

People should be approching an intersection at a speed that will allow them to slow and stop when a light turns yellow. There should be no need for anyone to slam on their brakes when a light turns yellow, they should not be driving that fast to begin with. Plus, the person who rear-ends them should not be following that close at a speed that does not allow them to stop in time to avoid a collission. It is not the camera's fault, it is the driver's fault.

[runawayjim]

Car owners can assume whatever they want about the people they allow to drive thier cars. They should know that they are liable for the fines imposed if another operator disobeys the laws. If you think more than one person should be allowed on a registration, talk to your General Assembly member.

It may be easy for me to tell someone to walk, but driving is not a right. There are many rules and regulations involved, if you do not care for those rules, you can opt not to participate. Just as I am not fond of the cigarette tax, I could opt not to smoke.

People should be approching an intersection at a speed that will allow them to slow and stop when a light turns yellow. There should be no need for anyone to slam on their brakes when a light turns yellow, they should not be driving that fast to begin with. Plus, the person who rear-ends them should not be following that close at a speed that does not allow them to stop in time to avoid a collission. It is not the camera's fault, it is the driver's fault.

at 25 mph, the posted speed limit on all the roads in question, if you are near the light when it turns yellow, stopping to a complete stop is the equivalent of slamming the brakes.

i agree on following too close.

while driving may not be a right, it is my right to know that i will not be held responsible for someone else's actions. my priviledges should not be affected by something someone else did. that's what these cameras allow for.

i am all for better enforcement of traffic laws. the cameras are not a good way to enforce the laws. i don't give a crap if some guy is sitting behind a desk with coffee and donuts "carefully" looking at pictures to determine if the person broke the law or not, that's not real enforcement. if they want people to obey the laws, they need cops on the road enforcing the laws.

[Cotuit]

at 25 mph, the posted speed limit on all the roads in question, if you are near the light when it turns yellow, stopping to a complete stop is the equivalent of slamming the brakes.

You shouldn't be doing the speed limit when going through a light, you should slow when approaching the intersection. Everyone knows that green lights eventually turn yellow, there's no excuse not to be prepared for that eventuality.

if they want people to obey the laws, they need cops on the road enforcing the laws.

Is everyone willing to pay the tax hike that would be required to station officers at these intersections? I would, I'm all for more officers on the streets, but I think most would oppose the expense.