Red Light Camera Studies Roundup
A collection of red light camera studies over the last decade shows red light cameras have serious side-effects.
Over the past decade, a number of studies have examined the use of red light cameras. The most relevant studies examined the devices in light of changes in traffic and engineering conditions made at intersections during the study period and pulled actual police reports to examine the particular causes of each collision. The following studies are the most comprehensive available:
A 2008 University of South Florida report found:
"Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them.... public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety."
A 2007 Virginia Department of Transportation study found:
"The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested that this increase was 29%... The cameras were associated with an increase in the frequency of injury crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested an 18% increase, although the point estimates for individual jurisdictions were substantially higher (59%, 79%, or 89% increases) or lower (6% increase or a 5% decrease)."
A 2006 Winnipeg, Canada city audit found:
"The graph shows an increase of 58% in the number of traffic collisions from 2003 to 2004.... Contrary to long-term expectations, the chart shows an increase in claims at each level of damage with the largest percentage increase appearing at the highest dollar value."
A 2005 Virginia DOT study found:
"The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%."
In 2005, The Washington Post found:
"The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."
A 2004 North Carolina A&T University study found:
"Our findings are more pessimistic, finding no change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections."
A 2003 Ontario Ministry of Transportation study found: "Compared to the average number of reported collisions occurring in the before period, the average yearly number of reported collisions increased 15.1 per cent in the after period."
Related Reports and Studies
The importance of the yellow warning signal time in reducing the instances of red light running is found in the following reports:
A 2004 Texas Transportation Institute study found:
"An increase in yellow duration of 1.0 seconds is associated with a [crash frequency] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes."
A 2001 report by the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives found:
"The changes in the yellow signal timing regulations have resulted in the inadequate yellow times. And these inadequate yellow times are the likely cause of almost 80 percent of red light entries."
________________________________________
Note: The preceding excerpts have links to sources at the theNewspaper.com web page linked at the beginning of this post.
There is no question that there are some studies that show more accidents and others that show fewer accidents. Like I said before, Traffic Engineering uses statistics more than any branch of engineering I have any experience with. For that reason alone, it is suspect. However, the trend is towards proof that Red-Light-cameras do make intersections slightly more safe on average.
The ITE formula that I have mentioned several times started out like that 70 years ago. There is more than enough proof that it works now. It has been studies to death. Anyone who says it doesn't is received like a “troother” or holocaust denier. Eventually, Red-Light-cameras will be the same.