Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It
January 8th, 2008 Posted in Red-Light Cameras
The NMA has been contending that red-light cameras (RLCs) are a detriment to motorist safety for many years.
People, both in the media and in the general public, often dismiss this claim as opinion, suggest that there isn’t enough data available yet, ask why we support people who run red lights (we don’t), or write off the organization as being biased.
The only way to combat this is through hard facts and independent research. Luckily, we have both.
We reiterate our challenge: If it’s not about the money, then prove it.
No community has accepted, which shouldn’t be surprising considering the facts.
Here are five independent studies that demonstrate the failure of red-light cameras as a safety measure:
1) A Long Term Study of Red-Light Cameras and Accidents
David Andreassen
Australian Road Research Board
February, 1995
This study examined the long term effect on accident-types of red-light cameras at 41 signalized intersections in Melbourne, Australia. The cameras were installed in 1984, and reported accidents for the period 1979 to 1989 were used in the detailed analysis.
Quotes from the study:
“The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.”
“There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure.”
2) The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Photo-Red Enforcement) on Crashes in Virginia
Virginia Transportation Research Council
June 2007
The Virginia Transportation Research Council released a report expanding upon earlier research into the safety effects of red light cameras in Virginia. Despite showing an increase in crashes, this study was instrumental in the return of red-light cameras to the state of Virginia. With a proven negative safety impact, the clear incentive to bring back the cameras was money.
Quotes from the study:
“After cameras were installed, rear-end crashes increased for the entire six-jurisdiction study area… After controlling for time and traffic volume at each intersection, rear-end crash rates increased by an average of 27% for the entire study area.”
“After cameras were installed, total crashes increased.”
“The impact of cameras on injury severity is too close to call.”
“Based only on the study results presented herein and without referencing other studies, the study did not show a definitive safety benefit associated with camera installation with regard to all crash types, all crash severities, and all crash jurisdictions.”
3) The Red-Light Running Crisis: Is It Intentional?
Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
May 2001
This report was prepared by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s staff. It looks at the problems of red-light cameras and how to really deal with traffic-light violations.
Quoted from the study:
“And one should ask the question, if there’s a problem with an intersection, why don’t safety engineers in the field just go out and fix the timing?
In fact, before red light cameras arrived in the United States, that’s exactly what our regulations instructed them to do. If too many people enter on red at an intersection, engineers were supposed to lengthen its yellow time. But in the year that red light cameras first started collecting millions in revenue on our shores, those entrusted with developing our traffic safety regulations dropped the requirement to fix signal timing, instructing engineers to “use enforcement” instead.
Indeed, according to the Federal Highway Administration, these problem intersections serve as a great location to hold a press conference. The agency offers a script for local officials to exploit a tragically mistimed intersection to call for the installation of additional red light cameras and tout their safety benefits.
But none of the reports that are supposed to tell us that red light cameras are responsible safety benefits actually say that. First, they dismiss increases in rear-end collisions associated with red light cameras as “non-significant,” despite evidence to the contrary. Second, they do not actually look at red light intersection accidents. The latest accident study in Oxnard, California, for example, only documents accident reductions “associated with”—not caused by— red light cameras. Although that statement has little scientific value, it does have great marketing appeal if you don’t look too closely.
Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man. Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he was a top transportation official in New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction in the country to install red light cameras. In other words, the father of the red light camera in America is the same individual offering the “objective” testimony that they are effective.
A similar conflict of interest affects those entrusted with writing safety regulations for our traffic lights. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is actively involved in lobbying for, and even drafting legislation to implement, red light cameras. They are closely tied to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which in turn is funded by companies that stand to profit handsomely any time points are assessed to a driver’s license.
In short, the only documented benefit to red light cameras is to the pocketbook of local governments who use the devices to collect millions in revenue.”
4) Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red-Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas
Mark Burkey, Ph.D. & Kofi Obeng, Ph.D.
North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University
July 2004
A study prepared by the North Carolina A&T State University’s Urban Transit Institute for the United States Department of Transportation.
Quoted from the study:
“Using a large data set, including 26 months before the introduction of RLCs, we analyze reported accidents occurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period, for a total of 17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression models, we find that:
The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.”
5) Evaluation of the Red-Light-Camera-Enforcement Pilot Project
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
December 2003
This report from Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Transportation’s concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage and fatal and injury rear-end collisions. The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. However, a closer look at the data found in this government-sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group (page 21).
In fact, the non-camera intersections fared better than the camera intersections in every accident category.
Quoted from the study:
“Exhibit 2 indicates the red light running treatments have:
* Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions; and
* Contributed to a 49.9 per cent increase in property damage only rear-end collisions.The rear-end collision results are similar to findings in other red light camera studies.”
This is by no means an exhaustive list. You can find more studies on the NMA website here: Photo Enforcement Studies.
Other Related Articles
Here is another disturbing red light news story…
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/13/1cz13photo213156-red-light-runners-caught-red-hand/?metro
1. There is a Federal Dept. of Transportation law that ALL yellow lights must have a minimum 3 second duration. This duration INCREASES with higher speed limits posted on the street where a red light and a camera is located, and also increases depending on the grade of the road. A traffic light on a steep hill road SHOULD have a longer yellow light than one on a level road given the same posted speed limit.
2. In New York City the city speed limit is 30 MPH and ALL yellow lights on level roads should have a MINIMUM 3 second duration.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN ALL RED LIGHT CAMERA LOCATIONS.
Perhaps this is due to a faulty timing mechanism, BUT MOST LIKELY the yellow lights have been rigged to a less than 3 sec. duration to cause more drivers to run thru a red light, and get their photo taken by the camera. The city makes A LOT of money that way along with the private contractor who installs and operates the camera.
3. Next time you get a red light camera fine in the mail, go to the intersection, use your cell phone’s stopwatch function and TIME THE YELLOW LIGHT. Do that about 5-10 times and average the results. ALL the timings, as well as their average, should be MORE than 3.0 seconds.
IF NOT, that’s an illegal yellow light and NYC is essentially ROBBING YOU.
4. There is a 100% chance that even if you document this and go in for a hearing YOU WILL STILL BE FOUND GUILTY AND HAVE TO PAY because the city will CLAIM that AT THE TIME the photo was taken the light was operating properly.
5. NOW if you REALLY want to defend yourself against an illegal yellow light, OR YOU SIMPLY WANT TO THROW A MONKEY WRENCH into the system: FILE A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST – FOIL -with the New York City Dept. of Transportation requesting ALL maintenance records and light timing adjustments and benchmark tests and any other defect corrections done to that light for the period of time that you are interested in. The longer your request the more NYC DOT will have to dig and chances are you’ll get some data to help in your defense (an unusually high # of repairs in the X number of months before you got your photo taken, for instance). Now, IF there is a record that the light timings were adjusted soon after your photo was taken, you have a very good case of a defective light and possibly avoiding the fine.
NOW, IF EVERYONE WHO GOT A PHOTO AND A FINE DID THIS it would cost the city much more than the fine. Complying with LOTS OF FOIL requests is time consuming and requires a lot of manpower.
File your FOIL request with the:
Litigation Support
New York City Dept. of Transportation
55 Water Street
New York, NY 10041
6. This is really the only way to defend yourself against being robbed by the city and its red light camera contractors.
7. TRAFFIC ENGINEER studies have shown that increasing the yellow light duration by just half a second above its minimum causes a DRAMATIC DECREASE IN RED LIGHT RUNNING to the point in many cases of making the installation, maintenance, and operation of these cameras uneconomic.
A simple google search will provide a wealth of information on yellow light duration and its ILLEGAL manipulation by cities and contractors across the USA to entrap motorists and raise revenue.
RED LIGHT CAMERAS ARE REALLY A REVENUE SCAM CONSIDERING THAT IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT LENGTHENING THE YELLOW LIGHT DURATION DRAMATICALLY REDUCES RED LIGHT RUNNING AND IS THEREFORE MUCH SAFER FOR ALL INVOLVED.
WRITE TO YOUR STATE LEGISLATOR AND DEMAND A LAW INCREASING YELLOW LIGHT TIME DURATION. REVENUE SCAMS BY NEW YORK CITY AND OTHER CITIES WILL STOP THEN.
[...] studies that prove his point. you don’t have to take his word, either. you can google or bing it. Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents, USF Study [...]
Joey writes: {Now if only I could get red light runner’s to stop running red light’s
the same way.}
Don’t worry about it. Red light running is much overblown compared to its real occurrence. Remember, red light cameras are about revenue, not traffic safety.
“What do you have to do with intelligence?
Exactly. Nothing.
End of story.”
LOL
I got under someones skin.
Now if only I could get red light runner’s to stop running red light’s
the same way.
Any idea’s?
So do straght-jackets and frontal lobotomies.
What do they have to do with red light running?
Exactly. Nothing.
Just another red light runner upset about the government being forced into do something about all the red light running.
Your not a red light runner Demos?
Then why worry about the camera’s?
He said that red light cameras save lives. So do straight jackets. So does enforced behavior modification medication. Cameras are electronic equipment. Electronic equipment is subject to failure or malfunction. Even if I don’t run a red light, the camera can still go off during a malfunction and then I’m facing a ticket.
Equipment is assumed to be functional unless discovery shows otherwise. To fight a court case costs hundreds or thousands of dollars in subpoenas, discovery, and representation for introduction of evidence to fight the ticket.
What do you have to do with intelligence?
Exactly. Nothing.
End of story.
Red light cameras will save lives. End of story
“Red light cameras will save lives. End of story”
Red light cameras will save the city’s budget, err I mean save lives, uh it’s that simple. End of story, because I said so. Ignore all those studies, they’re just scientific mumbo jumbo bent to tell the story that anyone can plainly see is the truth. Rather, I mean, pay no attention to the facts, they’re just a bunch of numbers and stuff that show that accidents increase with the installation of cameras. Umm, listen- just listen to what I state as the truth, and BELIEVE.
“A closer look at the data found in this government-sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent INCREASE in fatal and injury collisions compared to a DECREASE of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group (page 21). In fact, the non-camera intersections fared better than the camera intersections in every accident category. The report’s overall accident conclusions would have appeared significantly worse had the camera-free intersections been excluded from the final results.”
This is from http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/288.asp
I had a hard time finding anything that said overall injuries were increased (or decreased). Of course rear-end collisions will increase, but hopefully more serious side collisions and pedestrian injuries/deaths will decrease. I’ll take 10 rear end collisions over getting T-boned. Show me that data…
THANKS!! That’s what I’ve been saying. Rear-endings are minor price for a reduction in T-bone crashes. T-bones destroy lives (maims if don’t kill).
Plus, rear-endings should subside as people learn to not expect the car ahead to fudge past caution light – and people tune in to brake lights.
The benefit will be exponential.
Somebody wrote something on here, and he needs to be corrected for it. “I know you can use stats to prove pretty much any point you might want to make.” This is wrong! You CANNOT use statistics to PROVE anything, as statistics are based on probability. This is a common misconception, and when taking statistics, the first thing the professor said when giving the first lesson was, “Statistics prove nothing.”
Now to the point of the argument. I am very much against the usage of these cameras. Some studies have shown that they increase the likelihood of getting rear-ended, because people do indeed tend to slam on the brakes when they know they may be photographed. It would also bother me knowing that Uncle Sam was watching every move I made. I do not intentionally run red lights, but it does happen very occasionally if I misjudge it when it is changing from yellow to red. That’s probably how they catch most people, and it isn’t fair, unless they’re running these red lights on purpose. I am sure glad that I live in Ulster County New York where there are no cameras (to my knowledge), and NOT New York City.
ThE problem is that more people are jamming on the brakes to avoid getting near a light turning red w/ camera.. they need to lessen the fines if they are going to use a red light camera… I got a ticket in NYC (where i live and drive safely) because I went through a red light at 4:20AM.. there was no one in sight on the road(driving) or walking..
also, get the damn sensors in the road working better..there are places where 10-20 cars are waiting at a red light and NO One is coming through the intersection..
[...] Forget it. I know you can use stats to prove pretty much any point you might want to make, but this item I found to be fairly interesting. There are five studies quoted, but the conclusions from a [...]
Red light cams are a cash cow for cities. They are expensive to acquire and expensive to run. They reduced the yellow time to fix more tickets, not only in North America but in Europe too.
In Italy there are investigations pending about reducing the yellow time in some cities, which is more dangerous for everybody. There is less time for pedestrians and more speed for the cars, and it is logic that can be dangerous for both.
Red light cams are like the taxes they come to stay. Politicians love them and if they run a red light they can fix the tickets.
the people of the usa need to raise and speak out as one start a petetion and send it to the president and say you want change.remove this camera system from our roads or change the laws so cities can’t use this tool for profit reduce the fine to a first warnig offense; second offense 20.00 when they see that they can’t make money it will stop.
“The real problem isn’t the camera’s or the intersections.”
But it does make me wonder. If there were accidents with no cameras, and the accidents doubled with the cameras, what will be the result of MORE cameras? Of course, correlation does not equal causality, but it would be good to determine just what IS happening than the mayor blindly (defensively) maintaining the status quo.
You did state something that I agree with. I, too, have seen drivers behind me that have switched lanes to run the red light, long after I’d come to an easy stop.
And one thing I really like about red light cameras is that I don’t have some cop claiming that I ran a red light when it was green or yellow before I entered the intersection, yellow while I was in the intersection, and still yellow after I passed through the intersection. Even if it HAD turned red before I completed the intersection, so what? The red light cameras only activate when you enter the intersection on a red light. (The sensor is before the stop line.)
Mike I hope they add more camera’s.
The real problem isn’t the camera’s or the intersections.
It’s the driver’s who don’t want to be bothered with doing as required, which is yellow light. Slow down. Prepare to stop.
Red light. STOP.
If only red light runner’s would learn that.
So, accidents have doubled at intersections where red-light cameras have been installed, but the mayor insists that accidents would have increased even MORE if the cameras hadn’t been installed. If the cameras aren’t responsible for the increase, then WHAT is? Seems the mayor can’t answer that one, even with cameras to record it. Don’t you just love the logic of politicians?
An article from the 12/31/2008 Houston Chronicle:
Houston study fuels debate over red-light cameras
07:46 PM CST on Wednesday, December 31, 2008
The Associated Press
HOUSTON – A study of red-light cameras installed in Houston showed that traffic accidents doubled at those intersections in the first year after they were put in.
Houston Mayor Bill White defended use of the cameras, which he has favored, saying they prevented even more traffic wrecks. Critics, however, responded that the city-financed study supports their contention that the cameras are more about generating revenue than making streets safer.
Violators photographed running red lights at the 50 intersections monitored by cameras get $75 tickets in the mail. Since September 2006, the cameras have led to at least 387,000 citations and generated more than $20 million in revenue.
“There is no scientific, documented proof that collisions are reduced with the red-light camera program,” said Mike Sullivan, a Houston City Council member who opposes the cameras. “I’ve maintained all along that the program was flawed.”
White said a 40 percent reduction in citations in October compared with the same month a year ago is “proof in the pudding” that drivers are heeding the cameras.
“Our goal is to reduce the number of people who are running red lights,” he said in Tuesday’s online edition of the Houston Chronicle.
“Collisions are going up all over the city,” said Bob Stein, a Rice University political science professor and one of the report’s authors. “But red-light cameras have held back that increase at approaches where they have been installed.”
The mayor and the study’s authors are recommending more cameras at some intersections for additional research but acknowledged comprehensive citywide vehicle crash data are not available.
Stein also acknowledged Houston police figures show the accident rate is down since 2004 but said that data are unreliable, because police don’t file reports on every crash.
Researchers plan to look at insurance industry data to bolster their findings. Those results are expected sometime next summer.
[...] Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit __________________ Libertarians: Trying to get people to mind their own business since 1971. The Freedom Files [...]
Get the Blinder to make your car invisible to LIDAR.
Unreadable by the camera I understand.
BUT it must be able to be read by human eye’s.
If human eye’s can read it so can the camera’s.
In all the years I have reading about these tricks to avoid either red light or speed camera’s or radar-lidar detection.
When tested by independent source’s, not the manufacture’s tests, not one have ever proven to effectively work.
I have been reading about these device’s for 30+ years looking for something that truly works beside making somebody some money for nothing.
Not even when the painted a car with the same radar absorbing material used on stealth aircraft.
While some products do get you a little closer to the detection device before being detected nothing got you close enough to avoid getting caught.
That’s the whole idea – make the plate unreadable.
Black?
That would make reading your plate an impossibility.
Maybe your referring to a black border around the license plate?
I have been using a black license plate cover for 15 years and have never been stopped by police.
Jeff on Dec 24, 2008
The black plastic plate covers are not worthless.
A black plastic plate cover is illegal.
The license plate must be visible and not blocked by a black plate cover.
The black plastic plate covers are not worthless.
Steven D,
I see you aren’t aware that those license plate sprays DO NOT work.
Not only has Myth Busters proved they don’t but so has a few Car magazine’s.
The plastic plate cover’s are also worthless.
Same thing with radar absorbing paint.
OUCH very expensive!
Special radar absorbing car bra’s only helped a little and expensive.
Make sure you have enough funds available relying on your spray. :-)
Red light cameras are not designed to reduce the road toll, but increase revenue.
You should think things through before you call somebody else a moron so you don’t expose yourself as one.
The phase when all lights are red (which has NOTHING to do with the length of the yellow) allows cars that have legally entered the intersection just before the light turns red to clear the intersection before the light for the cross street turns green. If the all-red phase lasts a second or two longer, it allows the jerks who blast through after the light has turned red to clear the intersection as well. There’s no reason you couldn’t also put up cameras to catch the violators and punish them appropriately, but that in itself will have no immediate impact on safety.
The deadliest accidents are caused by someone blowing through the red light in the middle of the cycle because they didn’t see it, and there’s nothing signal timing or red-light cameras can do to prevent those.
The red light cameras.
Society today is so messed up.
What stupid things Greg?
I hate those stupid things
“By Jeff in St. Louis on Oct 10, 2008
I was going to write a post called “Niel Hopper is a Moron” but I figured “why bother.” The failure to use any sort of reasoning speaks for itself.”
What failure?
The fact that lengthening the yellow light will not cut down on red light running?
I know that intersection very well.
It’s true what was written.
Even with “ALL” lanes getting a red signal the red light runner’s still crashed into innocent driver’s.
STOP getting upset over the camera’s.
Start getting upset becasue of the red light runner’s have brought camera’s onto all of us.
Not the people who stop for red light’s.
But the one’s who don’t!
I was going to write a post called “Niel Hopper is a Moron” but I figured “why bother.” The failure to use any sort of reasoning speaks for itself.
[...] of the RLC [red light cameras] at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection [...]
im doin a perssuavive essay on traffic lights u got info that will help me out?
“By Neil Hopper on Jan 9, 2008
If an intersection has a lot of collisions caused by drivers running red lights, just lengthen the all-red phase. Costs nothing, solves the problem. Red light cameras do nothing to solve the problem, they just generate revenue.”
Nope. Not true.
If it was all about revenue then they would lower speed limits 5 or 10 mph.
Shorten the yellow to 2 seconds.
As for all red phasing.
Nope doesn’t work.
In Suffolk County NY their was an intersection that made the top 10 for accidents.
The brain dead created the problem.
2 lanes east. 2 lanes west.
Separate light controlled left turn lanes.
The north south lanes ran separately.
No traffic ever crossed each other on the green and ALL lanes had a red light at the same time until traffic cleared.
The brain dead red light runner’s still caused horrific accident’s anyway.
Their is going to be one way to curtail these red light runner’s.
Camera’s and steep fines.
I have seen red light runner’s drive through red lights as much as 20 seconds after the light has turned red.
I’ve had them drive around me while stopping for a red light that was red even before I reached the painted white line and they were BEHIND ME!
You don’t like the camera’s?
Don’t blame the government.
Blame all the red light runner’s out there.
Excuse’s about short yellow’s. LOL
Blameing the timing of light’s. LOL
Big brother watching? LOL
Brain dead stupid driver’s. Yep.
there is an easy way to cut accidents. If you are approaching an intersection on yellow light AND there is a car in front of you, STOP. Period. For me, this is simply common sense: green means “go”, yellow means “stop or go, last chance”, red means “stop”. I always stop on yellow. If someone rear-ends me, well, they are responsible and they will be charged a nice repair bill from me.
[...] Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It [...]
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/08/11/daily52.html
So it is reported today that Redflex, an operator of traffic camera and enforcement products has been using an illegal radar device to catch speeders. This device which is not approved to operate and is not licensed has most likely caught 10’s of thousands of people speeding – every one of these tickets – would not presumably be under question and those which were paid – should be entitle to be refunded.
How could a company and the contracting authorities make such a serious oversight. Your city may have given a contract to a company to use illegal equipment to catch you doing illegal things (speeding)
If you were issued a ticket by Redflex ….. send it back for a refund
Hi, this is Mark Saxenmeyer from FOX News Chicago. I am a Special Projects Reporter interested in doing a story on red-light cameras and if they are effective or ethical. If you have more information on the topic and live in or near Illinois, please e-mail me at mark.saxenmeyer@foxchicago.com. Thanks!
[...] + Motorists.org: Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents Tags: 2003 acura cl, 2008 subaru wrx, body shapes, constituencies, defending champion, fastlane blog, h power, hurdle, last two months, mg tf, minisite, mustang images, natives, rear pillar, sixteen days, substantial changes, tongues, uncertainty, vintage motorcycle, wine country, years resolutions Tagged as: 2003 acura cl, 2008 subaru wrx, body shapes, constituencies, defending champion, fastlane blog, h power, hurdle, last two months, mg tf, minisite, mustang images, natives, rear pillar, sixteen days, substantial changes, tongues, uncertainty, vintage motorcycle, wine country, years resolutions [...]
Even if they do increase, whose fault is it? It is the people who are trying to run through the intersection, who are apparently riding the bumper of the one in front of them. I say let them wreck themselves silly – over time people will get the message. I’d rather the people running the red light, or trying to, hit each other instead of slamming into me as I try to go on MY green light. At least this keeps the wrecks focused on the people breaking the law instead of those who aren’t.
if cameras are increasing the accidents…i cant imagine that it would do nothing more than inforce people who run red lights..and now those same idiots are looking to see if there is a camera there….i think your study is accurate..all the more reason the accidents need to be proven by video tape from that intersection…..
I would suggest they have the yellow caution light count down like say flash 5 4 3 2 1 then change to Red so drivers won’t have to guess how fast the light is going to turn red. You would know after 3 you should be slowing down to stopping.
[...] Posted by ro.sniper To you two, read this. Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It You should take into consideration the level of congestion, if they put a red light on ever [...]
[...] Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It [...]
In lieu of all the opinions associated with red light cams, I can say this.. After more then 20 years as a paramedic, and affiliated fire rescue person, I can surely back the benefit of making people responsible for slowing, and even stopping when appropriate.
I can personally attest to the greater risk of side impact, side impact while turning, and head on collisions versus rear end collisions ‘reportedly’ increased from having cameras installed. I have personally witnessed far more people in my life trying to sneak by the light, as opposed to attempting to stop appropriately. And if you are trying to justify disregarding traffic regulations so you ‘might’ avoid getting rear ended, why aren’t you watching your rear view, and your distance, and your speed more closely. These are cheap excuses.
[...] • Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It [...]
I live in the Dallas area and these red light cameras are popping up everywhere. It’s a trap. Yellow lights are being shortened to generate revenue. The private companies managing these for the cities are making huge profits! It’s not about safety.
I recently read that the new speed cameras in Australia were wrongfully ticketing city buses and cars. After thousands of victims, Victoria Police decided to remove all red light and speed cameras.
Until the municipalities see the flaws in these systems, we need to do something to protect ourselves. I’ve purchased a spray that blocks the cameras flash and it’s given me a sense of relief.
http://www.phantomplate.com/affiliatewiz/aw.aspx?A=3482&Task=Click
[...] and heroin in the ’90s, a new addiction is sweeping the streets – red light cameras. Although studies have shown that red light cameras actually increase accidents, municipalities can’t seem to stop hitting the pipe. Speaking to a group of investment [...]
More evidence that RLCs are about the money:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_columns/robot_revenuing_shots_were_fired_column
[...] Five studies have proven that red light cameras increase accidents. Stockton, CA’s own data comes to the same conclusion, yet they want to add more. Even the local newspaper supports more red light cameras despite acknowledging the increase in accidents. Fuzzy logic. [...]
In response to E. Meyers… lay off the peace pipe.
Red light cameras can help communities enforce traffic laws by automatically photographing vehicles whose drivers run red lights. A red light camera system is connected to the traffic signal and to sensors that monitor traffic flow at the crosswalk or stop line. The system continuously monitors the traffic signal, and the camera itself is triggered by any vehicle entering the intersection above a preset minimum speed and following a specified time after the signal has turned red. Violations occurring within the first 2/10ths of a second after the signal changes to red generally aren’t recorded because of technical limitations of the recording equipment. In addition, many red light camera programs provide motorists with grace periods of up to 1/2 second. Depending on the particular technology in use, a series of photographs and/or video images show the red light violator prior to entering the intersection on a red signal, as well as the vehicle’s progression through the intersection. Cameras record the date, time of day, time elapsed since the beginning of the red signal, and vehicle speed. Tickets typically are sent by mail to owners of violating vehicles, based on review of photographic evidence.
The vast majority of accidents that cause serious injury would rarely occur at redlights simply because at least one of the vehicles is moving slowly. The only way a serious t-bone accident could occur is if someone ran a redlight without realizing the light was red, just plowing through the intersection. RLCs will not stop that problem. The driver simply is not paying attention. To prevent more accidents and make red light intersection safer, simply lengthen the yellow light and increase the time all lights are red. There really is no safety issue in a couple of cars getting to avoid sitting for 3+ minutes at an intersection by squeezing the time alloted for green. Most of the time I have observed “redlight running” is when someone at the beginning or close to the front of a line pays no attention or does not move smartly once the light has changed resulting in only a few (or one) cars being able to clear the intersection. Through frustration, some others may go ahead when the light has become yellow. No harm, really, unless there is a really short all red so there is a danger of an accident. With really large intersections I’ve seen it impossible to actually clear the intersection without it turning red event though you enter the intersection with the light GREEN! Think about the reason for the laws in the first place, people. Red lights exist to allow people to get a turn to travel the direction they need to go when traffic is so heavy it is impossible for them to make a turn. The safety issue is and always was secondary. Since study after study proves RLCs decrease safety and prevent the smooth flow of traffic, it really can only be about the money. As far as traffic engineer studies… please, don’t waste the money. It is easier and more efficient to tinker with the yellow light length and all red time until no more intentional light running occurs. Most folks want to obey the rules. Don’t make it impossible to do so. I can’t believe so many folks with what one would think passes for intelligence cannot see the patently obvious. It’s the $.
[...] Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It | National Motorists Association Blog (tags: research red lights accidents motorists camera government law legal safety traffic) [...]
I just don’t believe that the cameras increase danger on the roads. I used to live in Las Vegas where they have the red light cameras & it’s caught not only traffic violaters but also caught kidnappers in the act!
I believe these reports are biased.
I read through this article. Say what you want about these studies on redlight cams. But I’d rather be rear ended that t-boned at an intersection. At least my chance for injury is significantly decreased. Look at the big picture here, not just an aspect.
The studies showing an increase in accidents is expected. People are still in the don’t stop mode of thinking. After the RLCs have been up awhile, people will be conditioned to stop. That is the end result we are seeking. If we all learn to follow the rules and obey traffic lights, the accident rate will decrease with time. Not to mention we will all be alot safer. Stop whining and obey the laws. Period.
I can believe that rear-enders increase due to rlc`s—-just reasonable. (The same for property damage.) I CAN NOT believe that DEATHS and extremely serious injury rates don`t decrease….ie. A T-Boner versus a tail-ender.
It is clear to ME that in our city at least, the RLC’s were installed, and the lights carefully TIMED, to make the MOST possible red light citations at those locations. I timed it myself; the yellow light phase is a full 2 seconds shorter at the RLC sites than at the other intersections lacking the RLCs. In at least one notorious example, the yellow light is so short that you cannot POSSIBLY clear the intersection even if you are IN it when the lights turn…!!! The yellow light phase is designed to allow traffic traveling at the speed limit to clear the intersection before the light changes to red; shortening this interval is DANGEROUS. What possible conclusion is there other than that the yellow light phase was SHORTENED to make more people trying to clear the intersection exit it while the light is red, incurring a fine? And who knows HOW many of those rear end collisions are caused by people traveling at a normal rate of speed who had to slam on their brakes as the light went from green to yellow to red without enough time for them to react? who knows how many injuries this has caused? do the municipalities care, as long as the sites generate enough revenue? This is a BAD idea, and it costs money and lives. It is reprehensible to me that the ‘expert’ that all these studies cite just happens to be the dayum developer. Give me a break!!
These RLCs exist for one reason and one only: they make the cities money. I find it inexcusable that those placed in a position of public trust are willing to install a system that blatantly increases the already-significant dangers of accidents at intersections just to generate revenue. Talk about barbaric!
[...] little gem on Reddit yesterday. It’s a release by the National Motorists Association (NMA) touting the results of recent studies which suggest that red light cameras actually increase the num… It’s not surprising that the NMA would support such findings. Their agenda includes a lot of [...]
[...] + Motorists.org: Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents [...]
You poor blind fools. So many sheep running, silently into the abyss so oil companies get richer.
I drove taxi @ nite on/off for forty years. What would I know? I know this it’s all a set up from the big cars that burn more gas to long lights, that burn more gas. Traffic jams waste energy but make profit.
Thens theres predatory insurance companies and their proxy’s the courts and cops, all feeding at the trough of moving from point A to point B.
SOLUTION; Cut 30 secs. to a minute off every traffic signal in America. Oil crisis evaporates. Keep moving. Stopping and starting is bad. Use traffic ciruclations like in N.J. After rush hour lights are changed to blinking, stop if you need to. Impliment rules that say if it’s safe because no other car is close enough to collide with rolling stops are o.k.
But were like the monkey with his hand in the jar. Trapped by our own greed. HA ha ha ha ah……ha ha ha….!!!!
If an intersection has a lot of collisions caused by drivers running red lights, just lengthen the all-red phase. Costs nothing, solves the problem. Red light cameras do nothing to solve the problem, they just generate revenue.
I am a Supervisor of Traffic Signals for the City of Toronto and work from time to time with our RLC group. From day one I have not supported the idea of red light cameras and on two occasions have turned down an opportunity to temporarily manage the RLC group.
To begin with, there was never any statistical evidence to support the claim that red light running was on the rise. As anyone in Traffic Operations will know, when analyzing collision data or traffic data you need to review several years worth of data in order to determine trends. Once you have data you can then start to make comparison’s on a year-to-year basis. When RLC were first proposed in Toronto, they went out and did counts at some signlized intersections and low and behold they found drivers running the red lights. This should not come as any surprise. Over the past 30 years I have performed many 8 hour intersection turning movement counts and it is not unusual to see drivers sail right through a red display and not even realize it until they are up the street about 200 feet (that’s when they hit the brakes, look in the rearview mirror and say” Did I just drive through the red?). Drivers have always run red lights. What has never been proven is the frequency of red light running geting worse. Part of the problem is traffic studies do not exist from 20 years ago to show how many drivers ran the red.
So a bunch of traffic engineers (who have probably never counted traffic at an intersection) concluded from one study that a problem existed. Combine that with a technology that works, companies wanting to sell the product and traffic engineers wanting to keep up with the Jones (other engineers) it was relatively easy to sell the politicians and public that a RLC program would reduce safety and not cost anything because the ticket revenue generated would pay to run the program.
In Toronto, the reality was that ticket revenue fell short of operating costs and I believe in the end it has been seen as more of a revenue generating device – that is why the Provincial government supported the expansion. Since the Province did not want to give the cities more money they said “Ok, we will let you install RLC so you can make your own money”.
I could go on forever but here are a few interesting points.
Toronto originally installed 40 RLC sites and rotated 10 cameras around through each site. Just so happened that we 40 poliical Wards and each Ward got a camera – funny how each Ward happen to have a”problem” location.
40 sites, 10 cameras – that means in one year a camera should be at one site for 3 months in total. I have experienced two instances where a site did not have a camera in operation for over a year because the site generated few tickets and the cameras were left at other sites where they generated more tickets.
Urban myth – a RLC installation covers all approach lanes to the intersecion – NO!. In Toronto a RLC only covers two lanes on one approach to the intersection. We have several locations were 3 lanes approach but only 2 lanes are covered by the RLC. How was it determined that red light running was not a problem in the 3rd lane or any of the other approach lanes to the intersection?
When the fist RLC were being installed, at one location, due to excessive underground utilites, the RLC could not be installed on the selected approach. Solution – “just put it on another approach – as long as the intersection has a RLC who cares”.
All the above quickly lead me to believe that RLC’s are not a safety device, they are cash cows.
Well we can blame accidents on so many factors, this is just one.
[...] Melican over at radioball.net, watching the meeting from home, just sent us a link to the study referenced by Ronal Madnick about accidents going up at traffic camera intersections. “The [...]
[...] be without the cameras. On the surface, this would seem to be a paradoxical argument. However, on the NMA blog today is a post linking to 5 studies, all of which appear to support the NMA’…. As someone who has been nabbed multiple times by red-light and speeding cameras, I would [...]
In my city in the USA, some intersections you enter with a green light on and leave with a red light turning on.
Of course it is for revenue and screw the safety.
@brett – so if your community were to install RLC’s, with out asking you and your neighbors, all around the major intersections near where you live you would be ok with the statistically proven increase in accidents in your area? as an new father I don’t think I would. Sure people speed now and do all of the other stuff you mentioned but I would rather not be in an area where the community leader chose to increase the chances of putting me and my child at risk for an accident just so they could make some more money. along with the sence of entitlement you mention I see more and more entities (communities, businesses and organizations) putting profit$ over the common good for the individual. I am in my early 30’s.
John Hunter writes:
{What actions do you suggest? If safety is important i would guess reducing accidents is important. Does that mean actions you suggest such actions as removing red light cameras and spending money to re-engineer dangerous intersections? If so what money should be used to re-engineer dangerous intersections? Gas tax funding?}
Fair question. Any public policy action must be funded with public tax money. That includes funding enforcement staffing as well as the engineering to mitigate designed-in dangers. Re-engineered does not always mean reconfigured, i.e., moving the roadways around. It could and likely does include resetting the yellow light timing as well as a brief all-red interval, usually less than 1 second. Whether we use gas tax funds or property taxes or sales taxes is not important; that we remove obstacles to better driving that are simultaneously used to generate revenue (albeit ill-gotten) is important.
{Any suggestions on reducing the more than 40,000 people killed every year in the USA in traffic accidents?}
NHTSA needs to develop a much more realistic scenario as to what actually causes crashes or at least how much each factor (currently xxxxxx-involved in their parlance) actually contributes to crashes. They also need to accept the fact that suicide is far more common in vehicular crashes than the zero involvement they currently recognize. We then need to develop policies that actually address the issue rather than the institutionally-driven greed that so permeates the traffic safety establishment. I know that I’m really weird about having public policies actually do what they are supposed to do.
We also need to reexamine the proper role of enforcement in traffic safety. What they have been doing is driven far more by institutional power and greed than by any improvement in key traffic safety measures. This must end and if LE is forced to reallocate their resources elsewhere or to less profitable measures, then so be it. If engineers play a much more important role, especially vis-à-vis politicians, then so be that as well.
It seems extremely likely to me that after installing red-light cameras, some drivers became paranoid about running the light(s). Other drivers, expecting the driver in front of them to run the light, ran into the back of them.
I’d like to point out that cameras don’t (CAN’T) cause accidents any more than guns kill people. Drivers intentionally and willfully ignoring the traffic lights or those around them cause accidents.
If it really is a timing issue, isn’t running the light just exacerbating the timing issue for the traffic going the other way? I’ve sat at a green light before while I watched up to 5 cars “sneak” by in front of me – a camera would have given them all nice fat tickets.
I remember when I was a kid this didn’t happen (I’m in my mid 30s). As my generation – full of wealth and self-entitlement – grew older, this type of occurrence became more and more frequent. There’s an undercurrent of entitlement and “I can get away with this” that is genuinely pervasive and irritating.
Everyone – slow down. Consider other people for just a moment (not just yourself and the hurry you’re in) and we’ll all be safer and happier (not to mention more courteous).
Let’s not make more excuses for what is simply rude, anti-societal behavior. Obey the rules of the road and stop whining if you get caught breaking them.
One action I would suggest is that before a community put in new RLC’s they show (to taxpayers who are funding the RLC) careful consideration of the pros and cons of installing a rlc.
some pros and cons to pop into my head:
pros: higher revenue for other community projects, more $$ to re-engineer dangerous intersections, $$ to provide alternatives to driving
cons: higher accident rates in that community, higher insurance rates for those who live there,
and then, they publish the pros and cons of RLC’s to the community and let them vote on it. it the people who live where the RLC is going to be put in think it is worth the risk they will vote for it but if the people don’t want it then they should not be installed.
I live here in Brazil and we also have a lot of cameras.
I’m considerable safe motorist, I try harder don’t break the rules. But I was caught 2 times in a transit camera.
I know people that do everything in the transit, I has never been caught in a camera.
Ok, so lets say that the studies are conclusive. What actions do you suggest? If safety is important i would guess reducing accidents is important. Does that mean actions you suggest such actions as removing red light cameras and spending money to re-engineer dangerous intersections? If so what money should be used to re-engineer dangerous intersections? Gas tax funding? Or is just eliminating red light cameras what you suggest? Any suggestions on reducing the more than 40,000 people killed every year in the USA in traffic accidents? I would guess (without any evidence) red light cameras cannot account for a significant number of those deaths.
The web’s most interesting stories on Tue 8th Jan 2008
These are the web’s most talked about URLs on Tue 8th Jan 2008. The current winner is ..
[...] light cameras increase accidents Here’s a link with five studies that confirm that red light cameras, far from deterring dangerous behaviour, [...]
A new technology can help you avoid this money making scheme
These anti camera arguments are so silly.
I have driven through many intersection’s being monitored by the camera’s both in Florida, Georgia and who knows where else.
Not once have I seen any of the so called foolish actions being committed by anybody.
The only people who seem to be bothered by the camera’s must be red light runner’s themselves who now have to stop for the red light.
The only driver’s who need to slam on their brakes are the driver’s who were planing on running the red light but were stopped by the vehicle in front of them doing “The Right Thing”.
And what’s the right thing? Mister non red light runner.
Right. Stopping for the red light.
So difficult. Isn’t it?