Red light cameras found to cause more accidents

By HECTOR #1, Posted: 3/16/2008

I'm a little bit divided on this issue. I live in Miami where the yellow light is more of an invitation to accelerate and a red light something to beat if it's been on for less than 3 seconds (and sometimes for more). I wish people would be more civilized.

On the other hand I have no wish to live in a place like London where these cameras serve their real function: to fill the coffers of the community they're in.

By Gus #2, Posted: 3/16/2008

If it reduces the side-impact accidents then it's a good thing, period. Those are some of the most horrific accidents out there, and I've seen quite a few personally.
If it increases the bumper banging accidents, then those fools should keep more distance from the car in front of them.
People need to wake up and drive.

By Paul #3, Posted: 3/16/2008

These are revenue enhancers. I have never seen any impartial study that supportrs the argument that red light cameras improve safety. There is more evidence to the contrary. The companies that install these cameras are private for profit companies. They share the ticket revenue and therefore their only motivation is to profit. That is exactly why they typically reduce the yellow light times from near 4 seconds to 3 seconds ( and in a few documented cases below 3 seconds). The city council members that approve these systems are being duped. Once the revenue starts pouring in there is no motovation to uninstall them other than lawsuits.
The installation of these cameras is insight into how most governments look for "free" money. Much like lotteries suck money from the lowest income earners, as well as pulling that money straight out of the economy. How hypocritical.
The difference here is we are physically putting people in danger for money. It's disgusting.
No I am NOT a bit divided on this subject. Side impact accidents come from running red lights not yellow lights. They also come from drunks.

By SuperSkyline89 #4, Posted: 3/17/2008

I'm a bit divided on this issue. I can't deny the fact that this provides huge income to the companies that make these cameras as well as the government but these cameras make you think twice about trying to beat a light. We only have about 4 cameras in my area so it's not much of an issue for me though.

Paul,
Please, don't start with lotteries sucking money from the lowest income earners crap. People have the ability to make their own decisions. If they choose to spend what little money they have on lottery tickets then that's their business. No one is holding a gun to their heads. Not to mention that a lot of poor people make very bad decisions in life like dropping out of school or using their little money on drugs or alcohol.

By Gus #5, Posted: 3/17/2008

Paul, your argument is junk.
Side collisions also come from people who think they are going through a yellow and it actually turns red before they hit the intersection.
They also occur less when people stop more frequently at a yellow, preventing the fool who isn't paying attention from simply blasting through the intersection.
And the cameras don't provide any revenue from people who don't run the light, so that's just an imbicilic argument. If you don't want to contribute to the coffers, here's a concept: STOP.
And for those who do run the light, I'd be happier with a laser that blasts their car into oblivion, but a hefty fine and points might make them think twice next time..

By Paul #6, Posted: 3/17/2008

Gus ,
I like your comments on this site, but how can you call my argument junk when you are arguing for compromising safety for safety?
Go look at fatal accident statisics (my state publishes them on the web) and you will see that failure to yield to signals is closer to the bottom of the list. In my state Drinking (obvious), failure to yield, improper lane change (this one contributed to 140 deaths, believe it or not), improper passing, inattention, physically impaired, exceeding speed, exceeding speed for conditions, and driving on wrong side of road all contribute more deaths than running signals (28 deaths by the way, and this doesn't mean that drinking or something else was also a factor). So...allowing "bumper banging" in order to reduce one specific type of accident is silly.
I don't tempt lights and I'm all for keeping the roads safe having lost 2 parents to a repeating drunk driver.

By Gus #7, Posted: 3/17/2008

Some of the most deadly accidents happen at intersections, and anything that improves that is a good thing.
And it is not just a revenue generator if you can easily avoid it by stopping at the light.
A revenue generator is like the tax in London just for driving there, something that is not "easily" avoided.
That's why I disagree with your previous argument.

By Fred Teifeld #8, Posted: 5/11/2008

This is just another case of shifting blame. Most drivers in the U.S. forget that a driver's license is a privilege, not an entitlement. The daily driving ignorance of most not being able to see past their own nose is the cause of many traffic mishaps.

If a drivers didn't follow so closely, then they wouldn't have to panic when its time to stop.

Also, at least in the part of Chicago I live in there are as many drivers of foreign origin that also dont care about others and do what they want with a sense of impunity. The red light cameras have caused a significant reduction in that behavior as well.

by kpatte1 #9, Posted: 4/8/2009

Something I learned long ago, don't believe everything you here. I am pasting an article that tells the "rest of the story" about the USF article, who created it and why it is so flawed. I am sure the professor that wrote his response to this poor bit of inept research will mind me submitting it on his behalf.
K Patterson, M.S.

His original can be found at
http://governing.typepad.com/13thfloor/2008/03/do-red-light-ca.html

Please copy and submit at any site using the flawed USF study.

Edward A. Mierzejewski, PhD, PE
Director, Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida
Recently there has been considerable press coverage of a study released by Dr. Barbara-Langland-Orban, an Associate Professor in the College of Public Health at the University of South Florida that argues against the installation of photo enforcement to curb red light running. Regrettably much of the press coverage has identified her report as a study by the University of South Florida, which implies that it reflects the collective wisdom of the University. Since there are thousands of faculty members at USF, the press coverage would have more accurately noted the views as those of Langland-Orban, a USF Associate Professor.


As Director of the USF Center for Urban Transportation Research I feel compelled to offer some contrary evidence. In her latest paper, Langland-Orban cites the National Motorists Association as one of her sources. You owe it to yourself to check out the website of the National Motorists Association. You’ll find they would better be named the national scofflaw association. If you check out their website you’ll find they sells books like “Speeding Excuses That Work”, “Beat Your Ticket: Go to Court and Win”, a full range of radar detectors, and their Guerilla Ticket Fighter CD. Not exactly a credible source.


Her article reports the results of a year-long study, but really it was a synthesis of other studies. Her article correctly notes that there are many engineering countermeasures that can affect crashes at signalized intersections, including assuring signal head visibility, selecting appropriate yellow time intervals, use of an all-red clearance interval, and others. These measures are important and are included in recommended practice by traffic engineering practitioners. While focusing on a couple contrary studies and citing the aforementioned National Motorists Association, she neglects to include in her synthesis the many studies that support the effectiveness of red light running cameras. A recent Iowa State University showed dramatic reductions in both violations and crashes after the installation of red light cameras for both rear end crashes and for right angle crashes. She also omits discussion of the National Academy’s Transportation Research Board report on the Impact of Red Light Camera Enforcement on Crash Experience, which did a comprehensive review of many studies done across the country. They concluded that a majority of jurisdictions that have implemented camera enforcement reported downward trends in red-light running violations and crashes, especially the more severe types.

The USDOT Federal Highway Administration and the 15,000 member Institute of Transportation Engineers endorse the proper implementation of photo enforcement, which includes site by site studies and implementation of other engineering countermeasures, oversight of photo enforcement by public agencies, and a strong public education program.

Driving on our roads is a privilege and we shouldn't hesitate to ticket those who violate basic rules of the road, notably failure to stop at a red traffic light, which endangers all of us.


Edward A. Mierzejewski, PhD, PE
Director, Center for Urban Transportation Research
University of South Florida