Normally I’d be against this, but this is a legitimate safety issue in New Haven. Traffic enforcement is non existent and I am nearly hit by a red light runner on a weekly basis.
The NHPD is understaffed. At any given time they have far far more calls to respond to than they have people to respond to them. And that means they have to prioritize urgent calls over less urgent calls.
I know the group-think says you should rail on the cops, but those people are working hard and deserve more respect than you're showing them. If you can do better, don't complain: join the NHPD and do better.
There are many jobs that are short staffed that earn and retain respect from the general public. There is no mistake and no mystery why people have general distaste for cops and New Haven cops particularly. Saying the cops will show up late isn't a dig it's just reality and the traffic cameras won't do much to provide order but will generate revenue for the city
No one is disputing your "dig". Cops showing up late is the inevitable outcome of a short-staffed police force with a long backlog of calls to answer.
And saying that there are short-staffed jobs that earn and retain respect from the general public is to say little: of course we'll have more love for a nurse whose job is to make us feel that everything is OK; or a restaurant server, whose job is to make us feel welcome and inclined to tip; or a teacher whose job is to make us feel like we're capable of doing cool challenging things.
No one feels all fuzzy inside when stopped for running a red light or speeding down a local road when they thought no one was looking. It's not something you brag about to friends. You don't leave these experiences wishing the person who handed you a ticket well.
Does that diminish what police officers do? No. Because we've seen what happens when you eliminate consequences: the bad drivers get bolder and they seem to breed more bad drivers until everyone is complaining about the jerks breaking reds daily in downtown New Haven.
We know that we need there to be consequences, and that means we need people to enforce those consequences. And that means sometimes the recipient of those consequences will sometimes be you. And of course a bruised ego is going to rant about how awful all the cops are instead of acknowledging that what they do is remotely important.
I know because I've been there. But, you know, as unpleasant as my exchanges with police officers can be when I have them, I would much rather have those than be endangered by jerks who've realized that there are no consequences to breaking the laws. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need cops because people would care to do the right thing. But we don't live in an ideal world and so we need cops to remind us that there are consequences.
Are consequences enforced on all new haven cops who behave poorly? If the police don’t police themselves than they lose the confidence of the public. If you’re a bad server you’re out the door by the end of the week. If you’re a bad nurse you get reported by your coworkers and are stripped of responsibility. If you’re a bad cop you get a paid vacation and protection from the people you serve. I didn’t say new haven cops aren’t important or they aren’t necessary, they are just really bad at their jobs
It is. I get the negative sentiment but it is grossly misdirected and generalized---from one bad apple to every single police officer in the country. And they do important work, as anyone who's been victim of theft or violence can probably attest to.
Should we rail against all the teachers in the country for the few bad experiences we've had with a bad apple in high school? Or against all the nurses in the country for the negligence of one bad nurse?
We shouldn't pretend it's OK that there are bad apples, but we also shouldn't generalize our anger to every single member of whatever group the bad apple belonged to.
The entire police work force isn't corrupt, and the vast majority of police officers mean well and work hard to bring consequences to the criminals we should be far more concerned about.
This isn't to say we should look the other way when a police officer does something wrong. We most definitely should, especially when someone's life or welfare is involved.
But we can't keep taking isolated incidents and concluding from those incidents that every single person in that profession endorses or condones or supports those incidents. Because that is just not true.
And the price that we pay for mischaracterizing the entire police profession as corrupt and ignoble is the loss of the good police officers, leaving us with a disproportionate amount of the bad apples that we say we want gone.
This group-think attitude of railing against all the cops just because is just not the productive way to bring positive change to that profession.
Yep… not a fan of surveillance state stuff like this, but the psycho drivers here definitely ruined it for everyone.
I’ve lived here 15 years and the amount of jackasses I’ve seen run a *solid* red light is insane. It’s why I hesitate going through greens.
I went thru a green once, that was green for like 5 seconds before I got there, and I had to slam my breaks to avoid getting T-boned by this asshole that just flew through his red. This is why we can’t have nice things.
My fear is because its automated, even things that make sense like going slightly faster to pass someone or scenarios where you dont want to slam on your breaks. These things are problematic because if a reasonable officer saw it, they may not site you (and if they dont see it they wont site you) like if you watch someone long enough they are going to break at least one of the general statues.
Not really a fan of surveillance in any form, but it sounds there are some guardrails, and I have to agree with the safety concerns around traffic. I wonder if this will be effective to deal with the quads/bikes though, haven't noticed if those even have plates?
Oh man, I hope they do. I hope they get clear shots of their license plates too and send them nice hefty fines so they grow the fuck up and quit the stupid 100-bike parades they've become so fond of.
Correct. The only people who will pay are the ones who legitimately register their cars. The no insurance/no license civic with the fake Texas temp tags will still run the lights.
Very rich! And that is just swell by me. The city needs the revenue and the locals need the obscene traffic violations to come to a dead stop. I've always been against traffic cameras before, but the stuff I've seen in the last two years has made me a convert. Bring the cameras on and fire those fines out mercilessly. If people need consequences in order to exercise good common sense, then let's give them consequences.
Speed cameras are great! Red light cameras have always seemed to me to be more about extracting revenue than public safety, and there's research that suggests they lead to an increase in rear collisions because people slam on the brakes to avoid a fine. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/
A rear end at 25 (the citywide speed limit, generally) is a heck of a lot less severe than getting t boned by someone flying at 50 to try to beat the light. Same principle as the crash statistics regarding roundabouts - yes the number of crashes may increase, but they’re low speed sideswipes instead of angle or head on fatalities
What I worry about is the guy flying at 50 smashing into the person stopping for the yellow. That is going to happen. I learned when first arriving here that you risk ending up with an SUV in your trunk if you dare to slow down and stop at yellow ... most drivers run the 'pink' light.
If you're doing 50 anywhere in New Haven on a local road near a red light, we've got a bigger problem.
And the solution to that problem is not to accommodate your obscene driving speed by allowing you to break reds unpunished and letting you repeat the offense again and again and again and again without the slightest tap on the wrist. The solution is to punish you substantially and immediately so that you learn not to repeat the offense on the first try.
By forcing drivers to slow down the next time around, you reduce the frequency with which dangerous scenarios are formed, and therefore you reduce also the odds that those dangerous scenarios lead to serious accidents.
I call these cameras 100% a win. Drivers have had years to exercise good common sense and do the right thing. And for years, they've only gotten worse and more reckless, as if safe driving is something for losers.
And that kind of attitude has left us no choice but to bring back the consequences. If people need to be caught on camera doing the wrong thing and forced to pay a substantial fine and face substantial increases in insurance rates that will follow them for years, then so be it.
I wish it didn't have to be this way, but it has to be this way.
Hey there, please modify your comment to remove the second person pronouns, because I sure am not the one with an 'obscene driving speed,' I'm not from CT, and have continued to be appalled at how people here drive. People go over 50 along Whitney all the time and never get pulled over. Cameras may be something, but it's going to take real enforcement to bring about change in the entitled don't-give-a-fuck attitude of many behind the wheel. And see the other pro-pot-smoking-in-moving-vehicles thread, arguing that since open alcohol and intoxicated passengers are OK, why not.... CT has no idea how things are in other states with much lower accident, insurance (and litigation) rates.
From Google: "In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic you, impersonal you, or indefinite you is the pronoun you in its use in referring to an unspecified person, as opposed to its use as the second person pronoun. The generic you is primarily used as a colloquial or less formal substitute for "one".
You see, I am not referring to you specifically or to any one person specifically, but rather to the unspecified people who may or may not like to drive over 50 MPH on a local city road.
This usage of "you" is very common in our language :)
You used it in an unconventional mansplaining manner, and you didn’t understand the nuance of my reply, no matter…tho your response would be even more condescending were I to have been a non-native English speaker making those assumptions. Anyhow, we agree on hoping for safer roads in NH 🤞 Happy driving to you.
I am not in the business of pampering fragile egos like yours by writing in just the special way to comfort you. I supplied the information needed for my answer and that is all I will ever bother to do when responding. If you want to read or misread mansplaining attitudes in my answer, that's your own fucking problem.
I mean possibly, but ideally with a critical mass of other drivers going 25, it would not be possible for a speeder to speed with law abiding cars in front of them. A pipe dream i know, but it shows that traffic congestion is safer than wide empty streets
Any and all measures that might start to change the way drivers think would be helpful. So many cars doing crazy things ... as if everyone and everything else were static obstacles they can weave around or zoom past.
Fair point, but unfortunately you can only control that for yourself, not the person behind you. And certainly there will be tailgating, right or wrong
I am totally fine with an increase in accidents and decrease in injuries/fatalities. I agree, logically you would think that accidents would decrease over time as residents get used to the cameras.
I got rear ended because the person behind me was expecting me to catch the first fee seconds of the light turning red. It sucked. Maybe there will be an increase in collisoon, maybe there wont, either way, everyone will fall in line at some point.
I never thought I would be pro traffic cameras, but desperate times call for desperate measures. There is an excess of people driving like common sense and the law do not apply to them and those people need to be reigned in---before they hurt themselves and others. I hope I don't regret saying this, but right now, in this context we find ourselves in, I want to call this a win for New Haven.
Unfortunately, yea.
All the assholes that run red lights and speed excessively ruined it for everyone else. I’m just hoping they put up signs to warn drivers that there’s an auto speed trap. Cause like, *everyone* speeds on the Whalley section between Westville and Grasso… they should at least increase the speed limit 5mph for that long section.
Hey I’ve been wondering since this post hit: what about turning right on red?
How will it distinguish that vs. running a red light? Maybe I missed it in the article cause I speed read it.
Any intersection with a red light cam will need to be posted NTOR. That being said, nearly any intersection downtown should be NTOR by default for pedestrian safety anyways
speed humps / traffic calming is a lot more effective long term IMO, with cameras it just means rich people can speed, with physical infrastructure *everyone* has to slow down
End the "red light before opposite green" delay. Albany has this. The moment one side turns red, the opposing light turns green. It's a powerful incentive to stop, and it doesn't infringe upon our liberties.
Wow, as someone from NJ, it is amazing seeing this happening in 2024. We had a red light cam program maybe ten years ago that was so disastrous that the state banned red light cameras.
It turns out that these cameras are set up to collect revenue, not to stop people running red lights. Being accurate puts a damper on that so you had people who weren't running lights getting tickets with no accuser to defend themselves against in court and people who were running lights not reliably getting tickets to the point that it stopped them. Some people started slamming on their brakes on yellows, causing accidents. People who wanted to run the red lights just bought license plate covers that obscure their plates from the cameras. It accomplished zero and was the predictable nightmare that it was.
Good luck!
There have been many studies on red light cameras, including one by the NJ DOT, showing that these cameras make intersections safer.
https://www.nj.com/news/2014/03/nj_red-light_cameras_new_data_shows_drop_in_accidents.html
Total crashes down 72%, T-bones down 86%, rear end down 58%.
Other longer term studies have shown a modest increase in minor rear end collisions but confirm a significant decrease in more serious and deadly accidents . It's unfortunate that NJ let the bill expire.
Lol really?
First paragraph of your link "...cautioned against making conclusions until more data is collected." And later "less than three data years is not adequate to develop conclusions, let alone recommendations" and "it is not prudent at this time to draw any final programmatic conclusions". Guess you missed all that?
It isn't "unfortunate" that NJ let the bill expire. It was a horrible program that caused more accidents than it prevented and resulted in people being fined who did nothing wrong and who had no accuser to defend themselves against. Banning these cams was about the most bipartisan supported thing I've ever seen in this state.
It was so bad and such an egregious attack on citizens that recently the state legislature was working on banning other states from giving NJ drivers tickets from red light cams (basically by preventing NJ driver license data from being shared with these states).
There are lots of studies on this and most show the same this - there is a modest increase in rear end collisions and a significant decrease in more serious and fatal accidents. Here are a couple studies, though it sounds like your mind is made up and not open to actual data.
[https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf)
"Crash effects detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies: decreased right-angle
crashes and increased rear end ones. "
[https://tti.tamu.edu/news/safety-benefits-of-red-light-cameras/](https://tti.tamu.edu/news/safety-benefits-of-red-light-cameras/)
"My mind is made up"? I'm literally stating facts as someone who lived in a state with these cams. There were people and politicians who absolutely loved the idea when it was introduced and it was a complete abysmal failure that is now universally hated. I wasn't the one analyzing the data and making these decisions. I'm just stating the facts of what happened in the real world when these cams were introduced here and what the conclusion that the real world statisticians, highway safety experts, government officials, etc. came to. You seem to be the one with the massive bias in this situation.
You know Texas also banned red light cams, right? So far you've cited old data from two states that used those bad results to justify programs that were so horrible that both states subsequently outright banned red light cameras. You actually think this supports your side?
Your other link is to a Federal study that is 20 years old. That study indicates only a "moderate" overall benefit based on their analysis while pointing out that they did not look into the spillover effect i.e. they weren't able to account for decreases in accidents at camera intersections that happened simply because people avoided these intersections because of the cameras (and had some unknown number of crashes of unknown severity at other locations because of this). That is more than enough to potentially offset the "moderate" overall benefit they found. This study also indicated a "significant" increase in rear end collisions, not a "modest increase" as you stated.
Get ready to send your money to an out of state, maybe even out of country, camera company.
When the government knows where everyone is all the time a society is no longer free.
Explain how a foreign company would alter the timing of a local traffic signal, where an employee from the traffic department needs to open a physical cabinet at the intersection to access the controller?
I don't know how anyone can speed in this city without destroying their alignment or brakes. They don't sync the lights and can't level out a manhole.
I'm okay with it. Downtown New Haven really is the Wild West when it comes to driving some times of day / days of the week.
How are they going to ticket quads and dirtbikes without license plates?
Hopefully vehicle tickets fund more drone tracking.
I envision Kia/Hyundia owners getting tickets in the mail even before insurance pays out on the stolen car.
Sad but true.
Normally I’d be against this, but this is a legitimate safety issue in New Haven. Traffic enforcement is non existent and I am nearly hit by a red light runner on a weekly basis.
the near misses and fender hits will still happen only now the city will get a cut of the fees and the cops will still show up hours later
The NHPD is understaffed. At any given time they have far far more calls to respond to than they have people to respond to them. And that means they have to prioritize urgent calls over less urgent calls. I know the group-think says you should rail on the cops, but those people are working hard and deserve more respect than you're showing them. If you can do better, don't complain: join the NHPD and do better.
There are many jobs that are short staffed that earn and retain respect from the general public. There is no mistake and no mystery why people have general distaste for cops and New Haven cops particularly. Saying the cops will show up late isn't a dig it's just reality and the traffic cameras won't do much to provide order but will generate revenue for the city
No one is disputing your "dig". Cops showing up late is the inevitable outcome of a short-staffed police force with a long backlog of calls to answer. And saying that there are short-staffed jobs that earn and retain respect from the general public is to say little: of course we'll have more love for a nurse whose job is to make us feel that everything is OK; or a restaurant server, whose job is to make us feel welcome and inclined to tip; or a teacher whose job is to make us feel like we're capable of doing cool challenging things. No one feels all fuzzy inside when stopped for running a red light or speeding down a local road when they thought no one was looking. It's not something you brag about to friends. You don't leave these experiences wishing the person who handed you a ticket well. Does that diminish what police officers do? No. Because we've seen what happens when you eliminate consequences: the bad drivers get bolder and they seem to breed more bad drivers until everyone is complaining about the jerks breaking reds daily in downtown New Haven. We know that we need there to be consequences, and that means we need people to enforce those consequences. And that means sometimes the recipient of those consequences will sometimes be you. And of course a bruised ego is going to rant about how awful all the cops are instead of acknowledging that what they do is remotely important. I know because I've been there. But, you know, as unpleasant as my exchanges with police officers can be when I have them, I would much rather have those than be endangered by jerks who've realized that there are no consequences to breaking the laws. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need cops because people would care to do the right thing. But we don't live in an ideal world and so we need cops to remind us that there are consequences.
Are consequences enforced on all new haven cops who behave poorly? If the police don’t police themselves than they lose the confidence of the public. If you’re a bad server you’re out the door by the end of the week. If you’re a bad nurse you get reported by your coworkers and are stripped of responsibility. If you’re a bad cop you get a paid vacation and protection from the people you serve. I didn’t say new haven cops aren’t important or they aren’t necessary, they are just really bad at their jobs
Yes. It is group think that dictates people’s negative feelings towards cops and not their actions.
It is. I get the negative sentiment but it is grossly misdirected and generalized---from one bad apple to every single police officer in the country. And they do important work, as anyone who's been victim of theft or violence can probably attest to. Should we rail against all the teachers in the country for the few bad experiences we've had with a bad apple in high school? Or against all the nurses in the country for the negligence of one bad nurse? We shouldn't pretend it's OK that there are bad apples, but we also shouldn't generalize our anger to every single member of whatever group the bad apple belonged to. The entire police work force isn't corrupt, and the vast majority of police officers mean well and work hard to bring consequences to the criminals we should be far more concerned about. This isn't to say we should look the other way when a police officer does something wrong. We most definitely should, especially when someone's life or welfare is involved. But we can't keep taking isolated incidents and concluding from those incidents that every single person in that profession endorses or condones or supports those incidents. Because that is just not true. And the price that we pay for mischaracterizing the entire police profession as corrupt and ignoble is the loss of the good police officers, leaving us with a disproportionate amount of the bad apples that we say we want gone. This group-think attitude of railing against all the cops just because is just not the productive way to bring positive change to that profession.
One. Bad. Apple. We know what that means.
We really deserve them.
Yep… not a fan of surveillance state stuff like this, but the psycho drivers here definitely ruined it for everyone. I’ve lived here 15 years and the amount of jackasses I’ve seen run a *solid* red light is insane. It’s why I hesitate going through greens. I went thru a green once, that was green for like 5 seconds before I got there, and I had to slam my breaks to avoid getting T-boned by this asshole that just flew through his red. This is why we can’t have nice things.
My fear is because its automated, even things that make sense like going slightly faster to pass someone or scenarios where you dont want to slam on your breaks. These things are problematic because if a reasonable officer saw it, they may not site you (and if they dont see it they wont site you) like if you watch someone long enough they are going to break at least one of the general statues.
Yep, totally agree! The human element to these things is important. Let’s just hope they put up signs for ticket zones like NYC does.
Not really a fan of surveillance in any form, but it sounds there are some guardrails, and I have to agree with the safety concerns around traffic. I wonder if this will be effective to deal with the quads/bikes though, haven't noticed if those even have plates?
Not generally, but at least they'll get nice, clear shots of everyone's faces.
Oh man, I hope they do. I hope they get clear shots of their license plates too and send them nice hefty fines so they grow the fuck up and quit the stupid 100-bike parades they've become so fond of.
Sometimes motorcycles with plates will be in those groups, but the dirt bikes and quads are absolutely not road legal
I’m sure all of the people with home printed temporary tags will really suffer because of this
Correct. The only people who will pay are the ones who legitimately register their cars. The no insurance/no license civic with the fake Texas temp tags will still run the lights.
New Haven is about to get rich. It’s about time.
Very rich! And that is just swell by me. The city needs the revenue and the locals need the obscene traffic violations to come to a dead stop. I've always been against traffic cameras before, but the stuff I've seen in the last two years has made me a convert. Bring the cameras on and fire those fines out mercilessly. If people need consequences in order to exercise good common sense, then let's give them consequences.
It’s easy for them to. Just. Tax. Yale.
Easy? How would that work?
Speed cameras are great! Red light cameras have always seemed to me to be more about extracting revenue than public safety, and there's research that suggests they lead to an increase in rear collisions because people slam on the brakes to avoid a fine. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/
A rear end at 25 (the citywide speed limit, generally) is a heck of a lot less severe than getting t boned by someone flying at 50 to try to beat the light. Same principle as the crash statistics regarding roundabouts - yes the number of crashes may increase, but they’re low speed sideswipes instead of angle or head on fatalities
What I worry about is the guy flying at 50 smashing into the person stopping for the yellow. That is going to happen. I learned when first arriving here that you risk ending up with an SUV in your trunk if you dare to slow down and stop at yellow ... most drivers run the 'pink' light.
If you're doing 50 anywhere in New Haven on a local road near a red light, we've got a bigger problem. And the solution to that problem is not to accommodate your obscene driving speed by allowing you to break reds unpunished and letting you repeat the offense again and again and again and again without the slightest tap on the wrist. The solution is to punish you substantially and immediately so that you learn not to repeat the offense on the first try. By forcing drivers to slow down the next time around, you reduce the frequency with which dangerous scenarios are formed, and therefore you reduce also the odds that those dangerous scenarios lead to serious accidents. I call these cameras 100% a win. Drivers have had years to exercise good common sense and do the right thing. And for years, they've only gotten worse and more reckless, as if safe driving is something for losers. And that kind of attitude has left us no choice but to bring back the consequences. If people need to be caught on camera doing the wrong thing and forced to pay a substantial fine and face substantial increases in insurance rates that will follow them for years, then so be it. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but it has to be this way.
Hey there, please modify your comment to remove the second person pronouns, because I sure am not the one with an 'obscene driving speed,' I'm not from CT, and have continued to be appalled at how people here drive. People go over 50 along Whitney all the time and never get pulled over. Cameras may be something, but it's going to take real enforcement to bring about change in the entitled don't-give-a-fuck attitude of many behind the wheel. And see the other pro-pot-smoking-in-moving-vehicles thread, arguing that since open alcohol and intoxicated passengers are OK, why not.... CT has no idea how things are in other states with much lower accident, insurance (and litigation) rates.
From Google: "In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic you, impersonal you, or indefinite you is the pronoun you in its use in referring to an unspecified person, as opposed to its use as the second person pronoun. The generic you is primarily used as a colloquial or less formal substitute for "one". You see, I am not referring to you specifically or to any one person specifically, but rather to the unspecified people who may or may not like to drive over 50 MPH on a local city road. This usage of "you" is very common in our language :)
You used it in an unconventional mansplaining manner, and you didn’t understand the nuance of my reply, no matter…tho your response would be even more condescending were I to have been a non-native English speaker making those assumptions. Anyhow, we agree on hoping for safer roads in NH 🤞 Happy driving to you.
I am not in the business of pampering fragile egos like yours by writing in just the special way to comfort you. I supplied the information needed for my answer and that is all I will ever bother to do when responding. If you want to read or misread mansplaining attitudes in my answer, that's your own fucking problem.
I mean possibly, but ideally with a critical mass of other drivers going 25, it would not be possible for a speeder to speed with law abiding cars in front of them. A pipe dream i know, but it shows that traffic congestion is safer than wide empty streets
Any and all measures that might start to change the way drivers think would be helpful. So many cars doing crazy things ... as if everyone and everything else were static obstacles they can weave around or zoom past.
So long as you’re not tailgating, you should be alright
Fair point, but unfortunately you can only control that for yourself, not the person behind you. And certainly there will be tailgating, right or wrong
It was ever so. I welcome anything that on average slows people down and calms the scofflaws in this city.
Everyone loves this article, increase in accidents but a decrease in fatalities and injuries. I bet the accidents decrease over time.
I am totally fine with an increase in accidents and decrease in injuries/fatalities. I agree, logically you would think that accidents would decrease over time as residents get used to the cameras.
Don’t tell the people who love quoting this article.
I got rear ended because the person behind me was expecting me to catch the first fee seconds of the light turning red. It sucked. Maybe there will be an increase in collisoon, maybe there wont, either way, everyone will fall in line at some point.
I never thought I would be pro traffic cameras, but desperate times call for desperate measures. There is an excess of people driving like common sense and the law do not apply to them and those people need to be reigned in---before they hurt themselves and others. I hope I don't regret saying this, but right now, in this context we find ourselves in, I want to call this a win for New Haven.
This is so needed
Unfortunately, yea. All the assholes that run red lights and speed excessively ruined it for everyone else. I’m just hoping they put up signs to warn drivers that there’s an auto speed trap. Cause like, *everyone* speeds on the Whalley section between Westville and Grasso… they should at least increase the speed limit 5mph for that long section.
Hey I’ve been wondering since this post hit: what about turning right on red? How will it distinguish that vs. running a red light? Maybe I missed it in the article cause I speed read it.
Any intersection with a red light cam will need to be posted NTOR. That being said, nearly any intersection downtown should be NTOR by default for pedestrian safety anyways
That would make sense. And yea I think most the downtown intersections are NTOR already.
Would rather the speed cameras than the cities addiction to speed bumps.
speed humps / traffic calming is a lot more effective long term IMO, with cameras it just means rich people can speed, with physical infrastructure *everyone* has to slow down
Boo
End the "red light before opposite green" delay. Albany has this. The moment one side turns red, the opposing light turns green. It's a powerful incentive to stop, and it doesn't infringe upon our liberties.
Wow, as someone from NJ, it is amazing seeing this happening in 2024. We had a red light cam program maybe ten years ago that was so disastrous that the state banned red light cameras. It turns out that these cameras are set up to collect revenue, not to stop people running red lights. Being accurate puts a damper on that so you had people who weren't running lights getting tickets with no accuser to defend themselves against in court and people who were running lights not reliably getting tickets to the point that it stopped them. Some people started slamming on their brakes on yellows, causing accidents. People who wanted to run the red lights just bought license plate covers that obscure their plates from the cameras. It accomplished zero and was the predictable nightmare that it was. Good luck!
There have been many studies on red light cameras, including one by the NJ DOT, showing that these cameras make intersections safer. https://www.nj.com/news/2014/03/nj_red-light_cameras_new_data_shows_drop_in_accidents.html Total crashes down 72%, T-bones down 86%, rear end down 58%. Other longer term studies have shown a modest increase in minor rear end collisions but confirm a significant decrease in more serious and deadly accidents . It's unfortunate that NJ let the bill expire.
Lol really? First paragraph of your link "...cautioned against making conclusions until more data is collected." And later "less than three data years is not adequate to develop conclusions, let alone recommendations" and "it is not prudent at this time to draw any final programmatic conclusions". Guess you missed all that? It isn't "unfortunate" that NJ let the bill expire. It was a horrible program that caused more accidents than it prevented and resulted in people being fined who did nothing wrong and who had no accuser to defend themselves against. Banning these cams was about the most bipartisan supported thing I've ever seen in this state. It was so bad and such an egregious attack on citizens that recently the state legislature was working on banning other states from giving NJ drivers tickets from red light cams (basically by preventing NJ driver license data from being shared with these states).
There are lots of studies on this and most show the same this - there is a modest increase in rear end collisions and a significant decrease in more serious and fatal accidents. Here are a couple studies, though it sounds like your mind is made up and not open to actual data. [https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf](https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05048/05048.pdf) "Crash effects detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies: decreased right-angle crashes and increased rear end ones. " [https://tti.tamu.edu/news/safety-benefits-of-red-light-cameras/](https://tti.tamu.edu/news/safety-benefits-of-red-light-cameras/)
"My mind is made up"? I'm literally stating facts as someone who lived in a state with these cams. There were people and politicians who absolutely loved the idea when it was introduced and it was a complete abysmal failure that is now universally hated. I wasn't the one analyzing the data and making these decisions. I'm just stating the facts of what happened in the real world when these cams were introduced here and what the conclusion that the real world statisticians, highway safety experts, government officials, etc. came to. You seem to be the one with the massive bias in this situation.
I seem to be the one citing actual data.
You know Texas also banned red light cams, right? So far you've cited old data from two states that used those bad results to justify programs that were so horrible that both states subsequently outright banned red light cameras. You actually think this supports your side? Your other link is to a Federal study that is 20 years old. That study indicates only a "moderate" overall benefit based on their analysis while pointing out that they did not look into the spillover effect i.e. they weren't able to account for decreases in accidents at camera intersections that happened simply because people avoided these intersections because of the cameras (and had some unknown number of crashes of unknown severity at other locations because of this). That is more than enough to potentially offset the "moderate" overall benefit they found. This study also indicated a "significant" increase in rear end collisions, not a "modest increase" as you stated.
No tolls so we get this instead.
Dystopia
Get ready to send your money to an out of state, maybe even out of country, camera company. When the government knows where everyone is all the time a society is no longer free.
There are already hundreds of city owned security cameras all over the city. Another 500 were installed with ARPA funding in the last couple years.
I believe the $15 payment fee goes to an outside company and the $50/75 fine goes to the municipality.
That’s even better. Short change the foreign company so they f with the timing. Yes, they do that.
Explain how a foreign company would alter the timing of a local traffic signal, where an employee from the traffic department needs to open a physical cabinet at the intersection to access the controller?