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
- Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes
- City Recommends More Intersection Collisions
- 5 Proven Ways To Stop Red-Light Running
- Increased Yellow Light Times Make Ticket Cameras Unnecessary
- 9 Ways To Improve Traffic Safety That The Government Will Ignore Because They Are Too Busy Ticketing You
52 Responses to “Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It”
By Observer on Nov 14, 2008
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.
By Greg on Nov 3, 2008
The red light cameras.
By G-DOG on Nov 3, 2008
Society today is so messed up.
By I stop for red lights. Why dont you on Nov 3, 2008
What stupid things Greg?
By Greg on Nov 2, 2008
I hate those stupid things
By I stop for red lights. Why dont you on Oct 10, 2008
“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!
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.
By joe on Sep 9, 2008
im doin a perssuavive essay on traffic lights u got info that will help me out?
By stop for red lights on Sep 8, 2008
“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.
By fmobus on Aug 19, 2008
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.
By Tom Brown on Aug 14, 2008
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
By Mark Saxenmeyer on May 27, 2008
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!
By Eric on Apr 29, 2008
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.
By jackie on Mar 20, 2008
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…..
By Jon Stacey on Mar 13, 2008
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.
By Bob on Mar 3, 2008
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.
By Steven D on Feb 28, 2008
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
By James Young on Feb 21, 2008
More evidence that RLCs are about the money:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_columns/robot_revenuing_shots_were_fired_column