Posted on 03/12/2008 6:42:23 PM PDT by blam
Red-light Cameras Increase Crashes, Florida Researchers Find
Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude. (Credit: iStockphoto/Sue Smith)
ScienceDaily (Mar. 12, 2008) — Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and are a ticket to higher auto insurance premiums, researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude. The effective remedy to red-light running uses engineering solutions to improve intersection safety, which is particularly important to Florida’s elderly drivers, the researchers recommend.
“The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work,” said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health.
“Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. If used in Florida, cameras could potentially create even worse outcomes due to the state’s high percent of elderly who are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs.”
Red-light cameras photograph violators who are then sent tickets in the mail. Hillsborough County Commissioners unanimously agreed earlier this month to install the cameras at several major intersections in the county. The devices could be adopted by more cities and counties if Florida legislators pave the way by changing a state law this spring.
The USF report highlights trends in red-light running in Florida, summarizes major studies, and analyzes the automobile insurance industry’s financial interest in cameras. Among the findings:
Traffic fatalities caused by red-light running are not increasing in Florida and account for less than 4 percent of the state’s yearly traffic deaths. In contrast, more than 22 percent of the state’s traffic fatalities occur at intersections for reasons other than red-light running. The injury rate from red-light running crashes has dropped by a third in less than a decade, indicating red-light running crashes have been continually declining in Florida without the use of cameras. Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs. Some studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained major “research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras. Insurers can profit from red-light cameras, since their revenues will increase when higher premiums are charged due to the crash and citation increase, the researchers say. Langland-Orban said the findings have been known for some time. She cites a 2001 paper by the Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, reporting that red-light cameras are “a hidden tax levied on motorists.” The report concluded cameras are associated with increased crashes, the timings at yellow lights are often set too short to increase tickets for red-light running, and most research concluding cameras are effective was conducted by one researcher from the IIHS. Since then, studies independent of the automobile insurance industry continue to find cameras are associated with large increases in crashes.
Red-light running can be reduced by engineering improvements that address factors such as signal visibility and timings, wet roads and traffic flow, the USF researchers say.
The researchers suggest local governments follow the state’s lead in designing roads and improving intersections to accommodate elderly drivers, which would ultimately benefit all drivers.
The report " Red-Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida?" was published in March 2008 in the Florida Public Health Review, the online journal of the college and the Florida Public Health Association. Etienne Pracht, PhD, and John Large, PhD, were the other authors of the USF public policy report.
Adapted from materials provided by University of South Florida Health.
So, it's the money that matters. It always is!
Red-light Cameras Increase Revenues, Florida Researchers Find
Red-Light Cameras Increase Job Security for “Traffic Analysts,” Florida Researchers Find
Even I know that red-light cameras are about revenue enhancement, not public safety.
Can we do anything without the gov in our face anymore?
There now! I'm sure that was just a typo, so I fixed it for you. LOL ;o)
It'll probably be rejected by Pinellas Co too (where I live).
With no State Income tax, FLA has to create other ways of taxation ......... FRegards
Burn down the mission....
Away from the cities, red light and speeding cameras are better known as Targets of Opportunity for paintball throwers and pellet guns.
What do the communities that put them in care? They get more MONEY! Screw the people!
So what! They aren't there for traffic control. Their only purpose is to bring money in to the contractors with a little bit going into the political slush fund (city treasury). More accidents? Great for the lawyers who contribute to the greedy politicians.
After about six months of use, the city in which I live removed their cameras. Part of it was increasing citizen pressure and that fact that collisions increased, insurance rates for residents increased, and the city was threatened with a downgraded bond rating because of the cameras.
I was wondering what the presence of a camera could possibly have to do with the frequency of crashes . . .
Florida is hardly a fair test of anything.
On public roads? You wanna’ drag?!
If a motorist knows he can stop before an intersection, but has doubts about the car behind, should he proceed or not? It's safer to drive at speed into an intersection 0.1 second after the light goes red (and 1.9 before the opposing light goes green) than to be pushed into it some time later, even ignoring the damage to the rear bumper implied by the latter scenario.
The does remind me of something I've wondered, though: if a motorist enters an intersection after his light turns red, but before any opposing signal turns green, is the opposing signal delayed? If not, that would seem to constitute proof positive the installers of the systems are not interested in safety.
Incidentally, do any of those systems vary the fine based upon timing, presence of opposing traffic, or other such factors?
I don’t support red light cameras, but this actually surprises me. I would have thought crashes would be reduced.
Yes. In order for these cameras to be any good, the law must be changed so that the owner of the vehicle is liable for the traffic violation regardless who the driver is. It’s a pretty easy argument to say this is a violation of our rights. All we have to do is start complaining and get a large enough group of people making enough noise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.