I like the countdown timer,very similar to the timers that count down to when the light will change from green for pedistrians.

And that makes it ok to do?

I highly doubt you were hit from behind because of the camera. More than likely you were hit from behind because the person behind you was driving like an a$$ hat. I was hit from behind once at a light that had no camera, who's to blame there?

My son hesitated because he heard a siren,[in front of Ocean First Bank. ] There was a school bus along side him on the left. And an ambulance on the left of the bus. So as the light was changing,that slight pause to give right of way to a possible emergency vehicle,my son was already in the intersection,and he received a ticket. The yellow needs more time and a timer should be installed!!! These cameras only add confusion ,and stress,to our already over stressed lives..

I read that list, and honestly a good majority of those are bogus claims. Slows down emergency personnel response time? I think speed monitoring GPS would have the same effect, which is already in all cars. Double Jeopardy? If you speed through one stretch of highway and are pulled over by a police officer and are ticketed, then speed away down the road 15 minutes later being stopped and ticketed again for speeding thats not double jeopardy thats you continuing to drive like an idiot... (double jeopardy would be, lets say you run the red light camera which issues you a summons, AND a police officer issues you a summons for the exact same infraction.. THAT you can not do) And no motor vehicle infractions in NJ have ever been considered a CRIME (with the exception of DUI.. in NJ it is a quasi-criminal offense).... I can go on but you get the drift.

IMO the rolling stop is worse than the speeding violation. I'd rather see people fined for not coming to a complete stop for a R.O.R than worring about them speeding.

As I explained above it's not only common here in Brick but all over the state,people think that they can beat you to the punch by not stopping for the red light,or they decide too late when they want to make their R.O.R cutting people off who have been waiting for a signal to change to green.

I've lost count how many times I've been at a traffic signal waiting for a green light, the light changes to green and some yahoo decides he/she isn't stopping and just goes while I'm in the middle of the intersection because they don't want to wait.

BTW, there are states that issue speeding tickets from a stationary camera,I'm not sure what the allowance is to where it signals for a ticket to be issued,I've heard it's 6mph and above the posted speed limit.

so do you have a problem w/ the anti theft devices that are on items in stores? people who are caught shoplifting by these devices are usually arrested and have to appear in court and pay court costs,I don't see a difference.

I dont think you know what entrapment is.

Reply to Clamdigger. Those shoplifting devices don't always work properly! I have twice come home with hangtags that the store clerks did not disconnect from the articles. They did not send off any alarm either! In the one instance I brought the handbag back to the store. Several weeks had passed since the purchase and I could not locate the receipt. I was treated like a common criminal by the store clerk and had to reason with the store manager. So much of this technology is faulty.

@KC;

well it's a good thing that each and every instance in which a summons is to be issued it is suppose to be reviewed by officers working at the police dept and (IIRC) the person receiving the summons can go online and watch (because it is a video tape) why a summons is being issued.

is everything perfect human or not? NO, but neither is getting a ticket by a cop out on the road either just because you may have changed lanes w/o using a directional or a similar offense just because ....

@FJLa for Congress;

"...when you're trapped in an intersection...then sits through until the light turns red, leaving you IN the intersection"

IIRC, this was taught in drivers ed, you don't block an intersection...even though we are probably all guilty of it. Once a driver gets to that white line painted on the road at a traffic signal, they have to decide is it worth the risk of getting stuck in the middle of the intersection. Do't forget,if you are paying attention while driving, you should be a little extra careful around the traffic signals that have the cameras.

But again, all video are suppose to be reviewed at the local police dept before any tickets are to be issued.

I am referring to being blocked by those who enter on a red left arrow - then you enter the intersection to make your left turn, and cannot complete it - or, worse, you enter behind the car in front of you, and HE's blocked by someone else's discourtesy.

If we all follow the rules of the road, (to which, as noted above, you are correct), this should never come up - but have you NEVER been trapped by someone else's idiocy? Truly, never?

I dont really think making longer yellows will change much, However the time both lights are red (after one light turn reds and before next direction turns green) could be increased. This would decrease the likely hood of someone who DID run the red light would still be in the intersection when cars begin to enter it.

Also, if you are already in the intersection when the light turns red, you will not be issued a ticket. Clamdigger is right

Thank you, John...that was my point...Hey, never heard from you...you don't remember me? Wanted your input on bay restoration.

Again, you will not be issued a summons for running the red light if you are already in the intersection when it begins to cycle.

last week (wed or thurs) about 5pm i was heading to pkwy N. while i was on Van Zile i had a little red car in front of me the whole way. the little red car was erratic w/ it's speed, first it was at the speed limit (35) then 10 below then 10 above. when we get to the traffic signal at Burnt Tavern the car skids to a stop for the red signal then on the green light putt putt putts along until the traffic signal at Burnt Tavern and Lanes Mill rd where the light turns Red. I'm in the right lane headed toward the pkwy,the litle red car is next to me in the left. the far traffic signal at the pkwy entrance turns green and the little red car floors it,tires are spinning (from light rain) and the driver just blows through the still red traffic signal we are stopped at,cars are still going through the intersection traveling on Lanes Mill and this car just zooms through like something you'd see in a movie. I was amazed the litle red car didn't get creamed from either direction. part of me was hoping there was going to be an accident just so i could tell the responding officers how this all happened. it was probably close to 10 seconds before my light turned green from the time the car ran the red. these are the kind of people that are out there driving...clueless.

Resident: Are you telling us that going back to driver's ed will allow us to predict the exact second that a light will change to yellow and then red? And that will reduce rear end collisions? Get real! Read the articles posted by Bret Middaugh which give actual data. There is a period during which a driver has only moments to decide to proceed or stop that no amount of additional driver training will account for. It is only natural that some people panic as they get close to an intersection and the light changes, so they slam on the brakes. That increases the risk of a rear end collision. Of course, if people didn't tailgate, that problem would be minimized. Until I see some realistic data, I am hard pressed to be convinced that the cameras make an intersection safer. So until then, I am forced to conclude it's all about the money.

Sal, all of these types of accidents occur regularly at intersections regardless of the camera's. Being rear ended because you stopped is the fault of the other driver. Even if you are driving down the road and SLAM on your brakes because of a child entering the roadway or an animal, if someone rear ends you it is THEIR fault. You are taught to leave enough room to stop safely (a car length every 10mph) That number isnt just arbitrary it takes into account average car weight plus reaction time to stop. It has nothing to do with the cameras and everything to do with the speed and driving behaviors of people on the road.

Hollowman: I agree with you that the car following must keep a distance sufficient to stop if the preceding car has to make a panic stop. But tailgating seems to be a way of life everywhere. The point I was trying to make is there is a zone in which a "go, no go" decision has to be made. It's like playing musical chairs and waiting for the music to stop. If I had gone through the changing light, I probably wouldn’t have gotten a ticket (no camera, nor police), nor would I have been hit and suffered the damage to my car. But by trying to comply with the law, the accident occurred. As I recall, you're in law enforcement. Why isn't there a greater emphasis on going after the tailgating drivers. I know it's more time consuming for law enforcement people to do, but aren't most accidents rear enders?

it isnt anymore time consuming than writing any other ticket and it is in fact, as you stated, so common it would be very easy to write all day. Personally, and I only speak for myself but I'm sure my feelings are shared by others in law enforcement, the problem is this: Tailgating is a 5 point ticket. Thats HUGE. RECKLESS is only a 4 point ticket, Passing a school bus is the only other 5 pointer I can think of off the top of my head. Passing a school bus is nearly 99.9% always intentional, where as, IMHO tailgating can simply be negligent (not paying attention). I personally dont like writing someone a 5 point ticket unless they TRULY deserve it. Tailgating as they weave thru traffic, race other cars, speed, etc etc. Someone who tailgates through an intersection in order to make the light... while perhaps careless driving... I dont think warrants a 5 point tailgating ticket. Again thats just my opinion and I am allowed a certain level of discretion here. What people need to realize, and I dont think they do, is that yes most accidents are rear end "fender benders." On the standard accident report, NJ-TR1, there are boxes that ask for each driver's actions prior to the collision. If you were following to close, that box will be checked, usually with driver inattention or one other infraction. This being checked will almost certainly place you at fault with your insurance REGARDLESS if a ticket was issued. The fact of the matter is, most people just dont care.

Brett, I believe the concept of the camera's preventing accidents is based upon the idea of presence as a deterrence, which is an arguable fact. They do generate money that much is obvious but I don't think you can simply say definitively that the camera's in no way at all reduce aggressive driving behavior. Like you stated before some people are just going to speed/run lights no matter what and getting a ticket sometimes is not a deterrence at all but I believe for a lot of people it is. NHTSA is researching the Intersection Crash Avoidance-Violation warning system or ICAV which gives in vehicle cues to drivers warning them of potential on coming violations. Its promising.

For anyone interested in a study of red light violations performed by NHTSA (a non-biased agency as opposed to a study done by someone strongly against the cameras) here is a link http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2006/810580.pdf

"The cameras are designed to be money generators, not prevent accidents, because of course, they can only show what happens after someone runs a light. The purpose of traffic control is to ensure motorist safety. Which the cameras do not help ensure."

Best response....well done.

John, thanks for the link. It certainly sheds some light on the issue and tends to show that it's about the money, not safety.