Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It
January 8th, 2008 Posted in Red-Light Cameras
The NMA has been contending that red-light cameras (RLCs) are a detriment to motorist safety for many years.
People, both in the media and in the general public, often dismiss this claim as opinion, suggest that there isn’t enough data available yet, ask why we support people who run red lights (we don’t), or write off the organization as being biased.
The only way to combat this is through hard facts and independent research. Luckily, we have both.
We reiterate our challenge: If it’s not about the money, then prove it.
No community has accepted, which shouldn’t be surprising considering the facts.
Here are five independent studies that demonstrate the failure of red-light cameras as a safety measure:
1) A Long Term Study of Red-Light Cameras and Accidents
David Andreassen
Australian Road Research Board
February, 1995
This study examined the long term effect on accident-types of red-light cameras at 41 signalized intersections in Melbourne, Australia. The cameras were installed in 1984, and reported accidents for the period 1979 to 1989 were used in the detailed analysis.
Quotes from the study:
“The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.”
“There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure.”
2) The Impact of Red Light Cameras (Photo-Red Enforcement) on Crashes in Virginia
Virginia Transportation Research Council
June 2007
The Virginia Transportation Research Council released a report expanding upon earlier research into the safety effects of red light cameras in Virginia. Despite showing an increase in crashes, this study was instrumental in the return of red-light cameras to the state of Virginia. With a proven negative safety impact, the clear incentive to bring back the cameras was money.
Quotes from the study:
“After cameras were installed, rear-end crashes increased for the entire six-jurisdiction study area… After controlling for time and traffic volume at each intersection, rear-end crash rates increased by an average of 27% for the entire study area.”
“After cameras were installed, total crashes increased.”
“The impact of cameras on injury severity is too close to call.”
“Based only on the study results presented herein and without referencing other studies, the study did not show a definitive safety benefit associated with camera installation with regard to all crash types, all crash severities, and all crash jurisdictions.”
3) The Red-Light Running Crisis: Is It Intentional?
Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
May 2001
This report was prepared by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s staff. It looks at the problems of red-light cameras and how to really deal with traffic-light violations.
Quoted from the study:
“And one should ask the question, if there’s a problem with an intersection, why don’t safety engineers in the field just go out and fix the timing?
In fact, before red light cameras arrived in the United States, that’s exactly what our regulations instructed them to do. If too many people enter on red at an intersection, engineers were supposed to lengthen its yellow time. But in the year that red light cameras first started collecting millions in revenue on our shores, those entrusted with developing our traffic safety regulations dropped the requirement to fix signal timing, instructing engineers to “use enforcement” instead.
Indeed, according to the Federal Highway Administration, these problem intersections serve as a great location to hold a press conference. The agency offers a script for local officials to exploit a tragically mistimed intersection to call for the installation of additional red light cameras and tout their safety benefits.
But none of the reports that are supposed to tell us that red light cameras are responsible safety benefits actually say that. First, they dismiss increases in rear-end collisions associated with red light cameras as “non-significant,” despite evidence to the contrary. Second, they do not actually look at red light intersection accidents. The latest accident study in Oxnard, California, for example, only documents accident reductions “associated with”—not caused by— red light cameras. Although that statement has little scientific value, it does have great marketing appeal if you don’t look too closely.
Every study claiming red light cameras increase safety is written by the same man. Before joining the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), he was a top transportation official in New York City at the time the city began looking into becoming the first jurisdiction in the country to install red light cameras. In other words, the father of the red light camera in America is the same individual offering the “objective” testimony that they are effective.
A similar conflict of interest affects those entrusted with writing safety regulations for our traffic lights. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is actively involved in lobbying for, and even drafting legislation to implement, red light cameras. They are closely tied to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which in turn is funded by companies that stand to profit handsomely any time points are assessed to a driver’s license.
In short, the only documented benefit to red light cameras is to the pocketbook of local governments who use the devices to collect millions in revenue.”
4) Investigation Of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting From Red-Light Cameras In Small Urban Areas
Mark Burkey, Ph.D. & Kofi Obeng, Ph.D.
North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University
July 2004
A study prepared by the North Carolina A&T State University’s Urban Transit Institute for the United States Department of Transportation.
Quoted from the study:
“Using a large data set, including 26 months before the introduction of RLCs, we analyze reported accidents occurring near 303 intersections over a 57-month period, for a total of 17,271 observations. Employing maximum likelihood estimation of Poisson regression models, we find that:
The results do not support the view that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of crashes.”
5) Evaluation of the Red-Light-Camera-Enforcement Pilot Project
Ontario Ministry of Transportation
December 2003
This report from Ontario, Canada’s Ministry of Transportation’s concluded that jurisdictions using photo enforcement experienced an overall increase in property damage and fatal and injury rear-end collisions. The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. However, a closer look at the data found in this government-sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group (page 21).
In fact, the non-camera intersections fared better than the camera intersections in every accident category.
Quoted from the study:
“Exhibit 2 indicates the red light running treatments have:
* Contributed to a 4.9 per cent increase in fatal and injury rear-end collisions; and
* Contributed to a 49.9 per cent increase in property damage only rear-end collisions.The rear-end collision results are similar to findings in other red light camera studies.”
This is by no means an exhaustive list. You can find more studies on the NMA website here: Photo Enforcement Studies.
Other Related Articles
- Red-Light Cameras Do Not Reduce Right Angle Crashes
- Los Angeles Red Light Cameras Lead To Increased Accidents
- City Recommends More Intersection Collisions
- Peoria Reevaluates Ticket Camera Program After Accidents Double
- Short Yellow Light Times No Longer Going Unnoticed
We've switched our commenting system over to Intense Debate. For more information, read this article.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by bauxring and Radio Sunnyvale, Radio Sunnyvale. Radio Sunnyvale said: RT @bauxring: @CityofSunnyvale Redlight doesn't photo enforcement increases accidents? http://is.gd/7jBhA Don't change light timings ju … [...]
This is especially dangerous for motorcyclists. Being swiftly rear-ended can mean death or paralysis, even at low speeds on a motorcycle. @ ‘i stop for red lights why don’t you’, this article is not talking about people who run red lights, its talking about unsafe road conditions caused by people who slam on their brakes when the light changes to yellow at these camera-equipped intersections. I also stop for red lights, and most yellow ones, especially whilst on my motorcycle. These cameras are a hazard for the law abiding. We are clearly sacrificing safety for revenue, criminally IMO. This is not just an arguement against the use of cameras at intersections, this is imperical evidence that they are a hazard to life and property. WAKE UP
Can’t agree. As a motorcyclist, I find that anyone who is SO close that I risk being rear-ended is such a jackass that I can’t blame redlight cameras for his behavior. I’m at risk from those idiots, no matter whether it’s streets, redlights, highways, or even trying to turn into my driveway. It’s also why I carry several large lug nuts when I’m riding, so I can fling a few over my shoulder. If he’s following at a safe distance, the lugnuts will just hit the road. Following too closely earns him cracked windshield.
@Mike – first of all, you are completely full of crap (I hope)…and second, if you are serious about the lug nuts comment I hope to God you get arrested. There simply isn’t enough room on the road for people like you, especially not in the 2 wheeled world. These cameras do cause more accidents; this has been proven beyond debate IMO (what you might call “empirical evidence”). It is also true that non-fatal rear end collisions are routinely much more serious (and often more fatal) when involving a motorcycle. When you combine these facts, the conclusion becomes obvious.
Full of crap? Yep, a term I can sure apply to you who CLAIMS to be a biker, but obviously is not. You might play with your little off-road toy and even on occasion take it down the street, but anyone who rides seriously is already familiar with the tailgaters and has at least considered carrying lugnuts to discourage them. This is not a new idea by ANY stretch.
Trying to blame traffic lights up in front of you for the irresponsible driving habits of those behind you shows that you’re making this stuff up as you go along. Tailgaters are a problem for bikers, regardless of any traffic control devices. It’s not the cameras that make them drive too close to you.
In fact, ANY biker who slams his brakes, expecially with someone close behind him, is way too stupid to ride for long in this world anyway. There are old bikers, and there are bold bikers. But there are no old, bold bikers.
So what you are saying here is “Let’s keep allowing the ignorant morons to keep running red lights so they can legally kill someone. Ask yourself this question; Why do the number of rear end collisions go up after a camera is installed? The answer is simple; it is because the person who did the rear ending was assuming that the driver of the car in front of him/her is as lawless as he/she is and that they will run the light so he/she can follow through the light. Now who is wrong here? Come to think of it, if I were a traffic engineer, I would sleep a little better at night knowing that my adjustments to an intersection resulted in rear enders rather than broadside collisions where people are more likely to die. Your answer to the problem is to extend the timing on the lights. That is ridiculous because the ignorants that are so used to running red lights soon learn that they now have more time to run the light and therefore they will now run a red light a good 5 seconds after it has turned red. Great answer to the problem. I thing the cameras are a good thing, but I also have an extreme idea: instead of a fine, maybe some jail time for repeat offenders. We do it for drunk drivers who we say are not in control of their judgements, why not do it for the morons who chose to run red lights stone cold sober.
So what about cities that reduce the yellow light timing to increase fines? The accidents are caused by unsafe behavior (slamming on brakes when the light changes yellow) that is precipitated by the presence of the camera. The evidence states that the number of fatal accidents is either at a net of same (no increase) or it rises slightly with the installation of cameras, depending on which study you read. The argument that these cameras cause less fatal accidents is unsupported by the available data. These devices are a menace. Their singular purpose is to increase revenue.
[...] Ok, this is the third time this has been posted. Its from a blog but links to actual studies. Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It And I showed you a website which cites studies that show that red light cameras reduce accidents. [...]
[...] permalink Originally Posted by jbhtexas Whose data? Ok, this is the third time this has been posted. Its from a blog but links to actual studies. Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It [...]
[...] earlier in the thread, that's not necessarily true (and potentially causes the exact opposite): Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It Granted, the link is to a blog, but the studies linked are not. Originally Posted by 3TrueFans [...]
[...] permalink I just wonder how sensitive the cameras are. If you just blow right through the turn you deserve a ticket but if you come to nearly a full stop but are barely moving then turn cuz there is no one coming, most cops wouldn't ticket you for that. Do the cameras? Or are they set for a certain speed too? My problem with the intersection cameras are that they cause more accidents than they prevent under the guise of public safety. Its all about the money so just admit that, don't try to pretend its making us safer. Don't believe me? Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It [...]
Red light cameras are an abomination to the US constitution. I’d rather legalize murder then have red light cameras stick around.
[...] use of the cameras is portrayed as a way to improve traffic safety. However, there is evidence that suggests just the opposite: that red light cameras actually cause car accidents and make our [...]
[...] http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/ [...]
[...] to the stalwart denizens of Aggieland for voting down redlight cameras. Study after study has shown red light cameras actually increase accidents, and merely exist as a way of extracting yet more money from taxpayers, and to line the pockets of [...]
[...] governments argue that these sorts of cameras improve safety and increase revenue. Studies are increasingly putting the lie to the safety claim, but nobody’s disputing that these traffic enforcement mechanisms bring in revenue. Red light [...]
RLCs suck. If you want to reduce collisions, do these things:
-Increase the yellow time.
-Post the yellow time, or a timer as it counts down.
-Don’t choose goofy yellow times, like 3.48 seconds. Use whole seconds only.
-Build traffic circles. They’re not just for gay Europeans any more.
-Use more stop/yield signs and set traffic lights to flash red/red or red/yellow in off hours.
None of those things involves treating people like scum, and every one of them reduces collisions. Too bad they don’t make money. Or make sanctimonious jerks feel better when they pontificate about how people should be “better drivers.”
++ good on you
[...] are numerous studies showing that red-light cameras lead to increased accidents. Yet, while cities will trumpet the smallest apparent ticket camera success, they will go to [...]
The one study that this site shows a link to says that the statistics were unreliable because of the coding that they went off of by the accident reports were not consitent and reliable to do proper analysis. It basically said that the report was worthless.
As for the other link that was show it reports that:
11.2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results presented in this report, the Red Light Camera Enforcement Pilot Project has
been shown to be an effective tool in reducing fatal and injury collisions, thereby preventing
injuries and saving lives. For these reasons, it is the opinion of the evaluation study team that the
pilot project has been worthwhile and would continue to be of benefit to any participating
municipality.
As for any increase in rear end collisions it would show that people at the location would be traveling too fast and too close to the vehicle in front of them and that they would have been the red light runners if the vehicle in front of them did not stop them. This site goes ahead and prints any statistics that would help their point and ignoring the rest of the reports that show otherwise. What else is new?
Here is another disturbing red light news story…
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jun/13/1cz13photo213156-red-light-runners-caught-red-hand/?metro
1. There is a Federal Dept. of Transportation law that ALL yellow lights must have a minimum 3 second duration. This duration INCREASES with higher speed limits posted on the street where a red light and a camera is located, and also increases depending on the grade of the road. A traffic light on a steep hill road SHOULD have a longer yellow light than one on a level road given the same posted speed limit.
2. In New York City the city speed limit is 30 MPH and ALL yellow lights on level roads should have a MINIMUM 3 second duration.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN ALL RED LIGHT CAMERA LOCATIONS.
Perhaps this is due to a faulty timing mechanism, BUT MOST LIKELY the yellow lights have been rigged to a less than 3 sec. duration to cause more drivers to run thru a red light, and get their photo taken by the camera. The city makes A LOT of money that way along with the private contractor who installs and operates the camera.
3. Next time you get a red light camera fine in the mail, go to the intersection, use your cell phone’s stopwatch function and TIME THE YELLOW LIGHT. Do that about 5-10 times and average the results. ALL the timings, as well as their average, should be MORE than 3.0 seconds.
IF NOT, that’s an illegal yellow light and NYC is essentially ROBBING YOU.
4. There is a 100% chance that even if you document this and go in for a hearing YOU WILL STILL BE FOUND GUILTY AND HAVE TO PAY because the city will CLAIM that AT THE TIME the photo was taken the light was operating properly.
5. NOW if you REALLY want to defend yourself against an illegal yellow light, OR YOU SIMPLY WANT TO THROW A MONKEY WRENCH into the system: FILE A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST – FOIL -with the New York City Dept. of Transportation requesting ALL maintenance records and light timing adjustments and benchmark tests and any other defect corrections done to that light for the period of time that you are interested in. The longer your request the more NYC DOT will have to dig and chances are you’ll get some data to help in your defense (an unusually high # of repairs in the X number of months before you got your photo taken, for instance). Now, IF there is a record that the light timings were adjusted soon after your photo was taken, you have a very good case of a defective light and possibly avoiding the fine.
NOW, IF EVERYONE WHO GOT A PHOTO AND A FINE DID THIS it would cost the city much more than the fine. Complying with LOTS OF FOIL requests is time consuming and requires a lot of manpower.
File your FOIL request with the:
Litigation Support
New York City Dept. of Transportation
55 Water Street
New York, NY 10041
6. This is really the only way to defend yourself against being robbed by the city and its red light camera contractors.
7. TRAFFIC ENGINEER studies have shown that increasing the yellow light duration by just half a second above its minimum causes a DRAMATIC DECREASE IN RED LIGHT RUNNING to the point in many cases of making the installation, maintenance, and operation of these cameras uneconomic.
A simple google search will provide a wealth of information on yellow light duration and its ILLEGAL manipulation by cities and contractors across the USA to entrap motorists and raise revenue.
RED LIGHT CAMERAS ARE REALLY A REVENUE SCAM CONSIDERING THAT IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT LENGTHENING THE YELLOW LIGHT DURATION DRAMATICALLY REDUCES RED LIGHT RUNNING AND IS THEREFORE MUCH SAFER FOR ALL INVOLVED.
WRITE TO YOUR STATE LEGISLATOR AND DEMAND A LAW INCREASING YELLOW LIGHT TIME DURATION. REVENUE SCAMS BY NEW YORK CITY AND OTHER CITIES WILL STOP THEN.
[...] studies that prove his point. you don’t have to take his word, either. you can google or bing it. Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents, USF Study [...]
Joey writes: {Now if only I could get red light runner’s to stop running red light’s
the same way.}
Don’t worry about it. Red light running is much overblown compared to its real occurrence. Remember, red light cameras are about revenue, not traffic safety.