New Jersey Drivers In Favor Of Red Light Cameras, Survey Finds

NEWARK, NJ (WCBS 880) — New Jersey drivers not only favor red light cameras, but say they make them better drivers.

A survey done in New Jersey by The National Coalition for Safer Roads found that 77-percent of registered voters favor red light cameras.

LISTEN: WCBS 880’s Levon Putney reports:

“Cameras change people’s driving behavior,” said coalition president David Kelly. “Fifty-six percent of the people told us that the cameras change their driving behavior and as a traffic safety professional, that’s all you ask for. You want people to stop doing something that’s dangerous.”

Kelly says as the state is now deciding whether to add more towns to the red light cameras pilot program, he hopes driver’s thoughts outlined in this survey are taken into account.

More from Levon Putney

One Comment

  1. Henry says:

    OK, most of us already understand that polls always favor whoever commissions them. So, who paid for this poll? .If you look on the NCSR website, it says that they are supported by ATS, the red light camera company.

    Consider ATS:

    In May, ATS suspended one of their VPs, Bill Kroske, after he was exposed posing as a resident of towns where he had been posting online comments. Source: Everett (WA) Herald (heraldnet dot com), put Kroske in the search box.

    VP Kroske was just one of ATS’ men. Another is Mark Rosenker, former chair of the NTSB, now with the NCSR. Based on his service with the NTSB, Rosenker was granted guest columns in papers nationwide, in which he mentioned his connection with NCSR but not its support by ATS. [Early in his career he did electronic monitoring for the Campaign to Re-Elect Pres. Nixon. CRP did the Watergate break-in, after which many of the conspirators went to prison, and Nixon resigned.]

    [In the delicious irony department:: Also in May, ATS fired another of their men, Senior VP Michael Lenza, and filed suit against him for (allegedly) “diverting opportunities away from ATS” while working for ATS.]

    ATS is behind many “citizen supported” websites. Source: bancams dot com, put “stupid” in the search box.

    So, who is behind ATS? In Sept. 2008, Goldman-Sachs bought 1/3 of ATS for $58 million, a couple weeks after Warren Buffet (Geico) invested $5 billion in G-S. Coincidence?

    These guys clearly deserve to have what they say, and their polls, taken with a grain of salt.

  2. Steven says:

    Red light and speed cameras do make intersections more dangerous as people slam on the brakes. If I see the camera and I know I’m over the speed limit or I could run the red…I do slam on my brakes. The person behind me might hit…Does it make sense to have these cameras? I know in Maryland there are several speed cameras and it is common place to see cars screech their tires from stopping quickly and almost cause accidents.

  3. Robert says:

    OMT- These red light cameras cost $4000 each per month….at first they probably make a lot of money…and then as people become aware of them the revenue must decline….Once the taxpayers realize what the cost is…I’ll bet that 77% figure will drop.

  4. JL says:

    Another reason why not to go NJ.

  5. mkk says:

    My father was killed, KILLED by someone who ran a red light. If you don’t want to pay the fines then DON’T run red lights! It’s not a revenue raiser if people obey traffic laws. Furthermore, the red light camera manufacturers do not set the timing of the light city traffic engineers do.

    1. Red Light Cameras Are Criminals says:

      Sorry your father was killed but red light cameras are a tragedy for mankind. Its not form of stealing from the government but in the name of safety.

    2. Michael Resnick says:

      My condolences on the loss of your father.

      The problem with red light cameras is that they don’t do the job of preventing people from running red lights.
      Most of the time the people that run red lights are unaware that there are cameras until they receive a ticket a few weeks later. There is no immediate feedback to alter the drivers’ actions.

      If the goal is safety and reducing accidents, injuries and deaths then a better solution is to increase the length of the yellow light (as was pointed out by someone else).
      Also just post very large, very visible signs announcing the presence of red light cameras – the cameras themselves are optional.

      By the way, while traffic engineers should be the ones setting the length of the yellow light at intersections, this is not always the case.
      I’ve come across a number of stories where the company providing the red light camera systems is the same company processing the citations and is therefore the profiting from shortened yellow lights.
      There were a number of cases where intersections with red light cameras were identified with shortened yellow lights.
      Whether the town or the company did it is immaterial.
      The red light cameras are just money makers and not safety devices.

      A little googling will provide lots of unbiased corroboration for the above facts.

  6. Michael Resnick says:

    The article is nothing more than a press release of The National Coalition for Safer Roads. This organization is funded by and supported by American Traffic Solutions.
    ATS is the company that sells, operates and profits from the red light cameras. They are also the organization that receives a piece of each “fine” collected.
    Can you say conflict of interest.

    What a surprise that the alleged survey indicates that everybody loves the red light cameras.
    Talk about the fox watching the hen house.

    Do you know anyone in their right mind that wants to see red light cameras installed?
    I for one would like to see the questions that were actually asked on this supposed survey.

    If it’s about safety then why have numerous towns across the nation removed these red light cameras?

    Why does NJ have to conduct a five year study to determine the efficacy of these cameras.
    Couldn’t they just study the results from all the other towns across the country that have installed (and removed) these cameras?

    With ATS supporting these studies it makes sense to me to follow the money.

    CBS, are you up to the task?
    How about some investigative journalism instead of just rehashing press releases.

    1. Steve C. says:

      See this Asbury Park Press story for a more balanced picture and asnwers to some of your questions.

  7. Paranoid NJ says:

    Of course they like it, because NJ people stop at yellow lights………the most overly-cautious, paranoid people on the face of the earth…….they enjoy their police and their police-driven gestapo state…….have fun policing each other and living in paranoid suburbia!

  8. AnnonUSA says:

    Red light Cameras are all about REVENUE. Not Safety.

    Although the practice has been largely stopped now, originally when Red Light Cameras were installed the Yellow time of the light was decreased by a few seconds. Enabling higher PROFITS.

    Safety studies have repeatedly shown, that a simple 2 second increase in Yellow time would eliminate almost all Red Light running. And provide better safety for motorists. But no profit for the camera companies and the local coffers….

    1. walter says:

      It’s about time someone realized this. I had to take video shots to prove this to the prosecutor which prompted the judge to have the timing changed back to normal settings.

  9. littlestar says:

    Sounds like this poll was conducted by the same people who put together the gay marriage poll in NYS…..

  10. Lt says:

    The poll was probably conducted on 80-90 year olds who have nothing better to do than take polls, and now also need a reminder device to make them stop at the RED light.

  11. Big Nard says:

    NJ wanna be like New York.

  12. gjk says:

    Hmm, let me think, the Coalition for safer roads did the survey, and who, do you think, they asked? How about they ask the people leaving the department of motor vehicles after they’ve paid a fine?

    Have you noticed more skid marks at light intersections? That’s from the people who slam on their breakis rather than catch a fine.

  13. joady_b says:

    Most towns, cities and the State are broke and in debt up to their eye balls. They need the money . . go for it.

    1. AnnonUSA says:

      So you are for Taxation hidden as fines? You are for the people that already pay way too much being fleeced to support spendthrift politicians?

      Stupid comment.

  14. Kurt says:

    That’s because they are idiots. Red light cameras only make intersections increasingly dangerous. It is nothing but a governmental money-grab!

    1. Kurt says:

      One more thing, this article is misleading. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the people want the cameras. Way to spin it!

      1. Dan says:

        How do they make intersections more dangerous?

      2. scott feingoldstein says:

        And this is why Dan shouldn’t drive folks

    2. Robert says:

      You’re right..I almost got creamed twice at red light intersections when the vehicle assumed I would speed up to beat the light…the last time was really close…I’m lucky to be alive.
      OMT- the idea that this is for safety is NONSENSE..if that is so…why did Linden remove the “Countdown” device and replace it with a flashing hand? Because it’s about making MONEY.

      1. littlestar says:

        You are right Dude ! The Police dept. in NYC is ” in favor ” of installing the same hardware for speeders, OR speed cameras. Why ? So there will be somethin$ there when they ask for a raise !

      2. rational mind says:

        NJ people drive like 90 year old ladies….unless they are asian, then they are just plain dumb drivers

Comments are closed.

More From CBS New York

Get Our Morning Briefs

Watch & Listen LIVE