Then let's see it.
Study: Cameras Increase Fatal Rear End Accidents (Ontario)That's one example. Another interesting link is this one from the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, which supports the cameras:Although three studies have shown a significant increase in rear-end collisions where red light cameras are used, cities using the devices are quick to dismiss such findings. Camera proponents maintain that such collisions are far less severe than angle collisions. This December 2003 study commissioned by Ontario, Canada's Ministry of Transportation shows that those rear-end collisions can be fatal. (Other studies drawing similar conclusions: Virginia, North Carolina, Australia.)
After evaluating the performance of red light cameras at 68 sites over two years, the report concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage accidents of 18.5 percent coupled with a 4.9 percent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions. Rear-end collisions involving property damage alone jumped 49.9 percent.
...the FHWA study found that the average number of rear-end crashes went up 15 percent...
I do know that in some communities like mine, the feel good town managers have instituted pedestrian crosswalks on major city streets. That's all well and good but there have been several accidents because a nice little old lady would stop her car in the right lane and motion a kid to cross only to have the kid slammed by a car that didn't stop in the left lane (he survived). My son has been in the same dilemma and was smart enough to refuse the insistant lady because he saw the oncoming traffic.
Point being, these idiot town managers who like walking better than driving have caused at least three kids to be injured. When I was a kid we knew getting across the road was dangerous and entirely up to our own devices. Thus we never got hurt.
The two studies contradict each other. If the NC study is accurate I'll take a few rear ends rather than t-bones.