- Topics
- Aerospace
- Animals
- Anthro and Archaeology
- Bio and Medicine
- Brain and Behavior
- Business and Economy
- Computers and Electronics
- Education and Outreach
- Energy and Environment
- Geoscience
- Humor
- Internet and Communication
- Media and Entertainment
- Nanotech, Chem and Materials
- Physics and Numbers
- Security and Defense
- Software
- Space
- Transportation
- Reader Blogs
- Commerce
- Register/Login
- RSS
Red-light cameras increase crashes and costs
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 report was published this month in the Florida Public Health Review, the online journal of the college and the Florida Public Health Association.
“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.
Etienne Pracht, PhD, and John Large, PhD, were the other authors of the USF public policy report. To view the report — Red-Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida?
- Printer-friendly version
- 2843 reads


I think this study has its own bias
The problem with these studies is what they don't tell you. The crashes are due to rear-end collisions and due to the high/excessive speed at which drivers enter intersections and tailgating. It's hard to hold the cameras responsible for the driver reaction to them. Most of these studies also fail to take into consideration that red light cameras actually lower cross-traffic collisions (t-bones, etc.) which tend to be the more fatal collisions.
It's sort of like holding a driver doing 75 in the fast lane responsible for a collision because someone behind him wanted to go 80... granted the driver going 75 should move over, but the driver is also not responsible for the actions of someone who wants to get around him. We're so used to coddling drivers that even the research traffic engineers are constantly looking for possible excuses for bad driver behaviour.
All that being said, I'd rather have speed cameras--that takes the intersection issue out of the equation.
Please understand, Mr. Anonymous
The article above is a re-print by the account "BJS" - it does not reflect the opinion of the poster (or bot)... It/He/She doesn't "know" it any more than you or I since it/he/she wasn't the one who wrote the original article or summary.
But, if I may inject my own opinion here about what you have said:
The idea of tickets is not revenue generation per se - it is to provide a financial discouragement that is (hopefully) proportional to the infraction of the law that took place - as well as providing an offset to the cost of enforcing the laws.
Above all this though is the fact that WE are the government and all that happens should be to our group benefit as a society. If the policy of traffic light cameras is so detrimental to the common member of society, causing more accidents and raising insurance premiums, well then we can and should do something. The government is an extention of our will.
Eric
They work fine at what they are intended to do
"Red light cameras don't work" implies you know what they are intended to do.
You don't.
The cameras are intended to generate revenue for government. They do that very well. The additional costs are irrelevant since they are not paid by government.
Post new comment