• 276
Red Light Traffic Camera. Flickr GSBrown99... Red Light Traffic Camera. Flickr GSBrown99

The first red light camera ticketing system was put in use in New York City in 1993. Since then, 24 states and the District of Columbia have installed red light cameras, while another 15 have banned automated ticketing systems that include red light and speed cameras. You generally don't find that kind of love-hate relationship without something murky going on, and murk is exactly what you step into when you ask this one simple question: Do red light cameras reduce accidents?

That simple question has four answers: Yes, No, Maybe, and It Depends. But it takes a lot of research, a lot of reading, and a lot of money to come to any of these conclusions.

After looking at more than ten studies on both sides of the red light camera argument, the general trends stand up quickly. What is behind them are lots of asterisks and disclaimers, however, such that every one of those four answers is qualified.

Yes, Red Light Cameras Reduce Accidents

The idea that red light cameras reduce accidents is generally true if you are referring to broadside (or "T-bone") accidents. This is the worst kind of collision you can have at an intersection, when a car enters crossing traffic and plows into the side of another car. A slightly greater number of studies showed that these broadside incidents were reduced by red light cameras. A November 2008 study carried out by the Center for Transportation Safety of the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University found "a 43 percent annualized decrease in right angle collisions" at 56 intersections with red light cameras. A 2007 study by Iowa State's Center for Transportation Research and Education concluded that the "expected average number of crashes per quarter for [red-light-running]-related crashes (non-rear-end) decreased by 40 percent after installation of cameras at intersections with camera-enforced approaches."

The same results were discovered in studies for the Transportation Research Board in 2003 ("angle crashes are usually reduced"), a 2007 study for the Virginia Transportation Research Council ("a decrease in red light running crashes, about 8 percent or 42 percent depending on the statistical method used"), and a 2004 study by the Urban Transport Institute ("one type of accident found to experience a decrease at [red light camera] sites are those involving a left turning car and a car traveling on a different roadway").

But as we suggested before, even those yeses are called into question by other studies. The Washington Post conducted a review of traffic accident data at 45 red light camera intersections during 1999 and 2000, finding that "Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."

No, Red Light Cameras Don't

Although there are no easy answers, when it comes to argument against red light cameras, the preponderance of evidence is much clearer. While cameras are often credited for reducing broadside accidents, and sometime reducing accidents between cross traffic and those making a right turn on red, they are almost universally credited for increasing rear-end accidents. You have to rummage through a lot of paperwork to find studies, like the one from Iowa State, that claim reductions in rear-end crashes at monitored intersections.

Even the government's look into the matter found that rear-end crashes go up at intersections with the cameras: A 2005 study by the Federal Highway Administration found an average increase of 15 percent in rear-end crashes after looking at 132 locations in seven areas. In the journal of the Institute of Transport Engineers, the group that studies and develops intersection standards, an article that looked at a vast number of studies trying to determine the effects of red light cameras found in almost every case that rear-end crashes increase.

Maybe They Do, Maybe They Don't

Then there is the issue of injuries. While one type of accident said to be most harmful -- the T-Bone -- might be down, but are the increased number of rear-end collisions contributing to more hurt drivers overall? Perhaps.

According to the data, a slight majority of studies also show that injury crashes go up in red light camera-monitored junctions. The Washington Post investigation found, for D.C. at least, a rise in every type of crash, writing, "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."

Countering that is the study from the Transportation Research Board that concluded, "The findings of several studies support that, in general, red light cameras can bring about a reduction in more severe angle crashes with, at worst, a slight increase in less severe rear-end crashes."

But that conclusion is then countered, sort of, by the Virginia Transportation Research Council study that stated, "However, when considering only injury crashes, if the three fatal angle crashes that occurred during the after period are removed from the analysis (the only fatalities that occurred during the study out of 1,168 injury crashes), then the cameras were associated with a modest reduction in the comprehensive crash cost for injury crashes only."

We don't know why you'd remove three fatal crashes during a study period and then draw conclusions based on that, but in fact, this sort of way of thinking is indicative of a lot of what happens with these studies and the conclusions they reach.

Who's Behind The Data?

This is why, frankly, the best answer to the question, "Do red light cameras reduce or cause accidents?", is that it depends on who you ask.

Short of a public outcry or rioting in the streets, states and municipalities are loathe to walk away from easy money, especially when they need it so badly to pay for the very things their populace is crying out for. Red light cameras present a path-of-least-resistance way to get that money. Vendors sign a contract for the cameras that is often cost-neutral, that is, the cities don't have to pay for the camera operation, they just send a cut from each citation to the contract operator. So it's no skin off the municipality's back. What could be better?

That's why you get lots of politicking and doubletalk even in studies that appear to show conclusive evidence of a particular trend, and then more doublespeak when concerned parties get hold of those studies. On top of that you have the liquid nature of statistics itself and the varying methodologies and accepted scientific practices used to gather them.

The Spillover Effect

One of the murkiest areas of red light camera research is something called "spillover effect," which describes the tendency of drivers to change their behavior around other intersections in the area, whether or not they are equipped with red light cameras. Of course, nobody agrees about whether it even exists.

A researcher at the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), went so far as to publicly criticize the Urban Transport Institute study, saying it "ignores the well-known spillover effect."

Actually, the UTI researchers stated up front that, "There is also evidence, also not conclusive, that there is a 'spillover' effect to other signalized intersections within a jurisdiction."

The Federal Highway Administration would only say that, "There were weak indications of a spillover effect that point to a need for a more definitive, perhaps prospective, study of this issue."

But calling into question how the spillover effect is used, one journalist wrote, "Spillover effect is IIHS's trick for giving the cameras credit for reducing fatalities even where they aren't. It assumes that red-light cameras at a few intersections will cause drivers to stop promptly all over town, or all over the county, or maybe all over the state, so improvements outside the cameras' zip codes are credited to them nonetheless. As statistical acrobatics go, this one is breathtaking."

Drawing Conclusions

Do you see where we're going with all this? Mad Hatters and invisible, grinning cats could make more sense than the average motorist of what's really happening. And we're still not finished.

On top of all of that confusion, even though there are red light programs in more than 400 U.S. cities, many studies were conducted within timeframes that simply didn't allow enough time and couldn't gather enough evidence to present black-and-white comparisons of crash data before and after cameras were installed at a single intersection. In other words, some studies lacked a control group.

That is why just about every study we looked at contained a disclaimer that warned, as in the Transportation Research Board study, "Based on the information acquired and reviewed for this effort, it appears that red light running automated enforcement can be an effective safety countermeasure. However, there is currently insufficient empirical evidence based on statistically rigorous experimental design to state this conclusively."

Studies even admit that because the conclusions drawn are all over the graph, nothing definitive can be concluded. From the Virginia study: "These results cannot be used to justify the widespread installation of cameras because they are not universally effective. These results also cannot be used to justify the abolition of cameras, as they have had a positive impact at some intersections and in some jurisdictions. The report recommends, therefore, that the decision to install a red light camera be made on an intersection-by-intersection basis. In addition, it is recommended that a carefully controlled experiment be conducted to examine further the impact of red light programs on safety and to determine how an increase in rear-end crashes can be avoided at specific intersections."

It cannot be expected that cities will step away from red light camera programs, as long as they're making money. But it doesn't help their cases that the only other genuine supporters of red light cameras appear to be the companies that install them, and insurance agencies. Groups like the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running are funded by Redflex and ATS, two of the biggest RLC operators. The Redflex site has testimonials supporting red light cameras, all of them from city or law enforcement officials.

USA Today published a poll showing that more people strongly support red light cameras, but the poll was conducted by the IIHS, which is funded by the insurance industry.

A key item noted by those who are against red light cameras, though, is the matter of yellow lights. Studies by the ITE have shown that if you slightly increase and standardize the run-time of the yellow light, and leave a slight delay in the cross traffic's transition to green, accidents will be reduced. Still, cities are routinely hauled into court for having made yellow light times ridiculously short -- as if, you know, they're trying to catch people running red lights.

For a final, cynical look at whether red light cameras are truly run for safety or money, take High Point, NC. When the city was court-ordered to pay 90 percent of its citation revenue from red light cameras to the local school system, what did it do? It shut the system down and found a way to break its contract with the operator.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 276 Comments
      gotchaphoto75792
      • 5 Months Ago
      I ONLY RECEIVED ONE TICKET WHILE MAKING A LEFTHAND TURN. UNFORTUNATELY....THERE WAS A GROUP OF TEENAGERS IN FRONT OF ME THAT HAD CROSSED THE "LINE' AND STOPPED! THEY LEFT ME HANGING MY BUTT OUT THERE UNTIL THE LIGHT TURNED RED. I LIKE THE LIGHTS THAT COUNT OFF HOW MUCH TIME YOU HAVE. THEY SEEM TO BE MORE FAIR....BY THE WAY....I AM 65 YEARS OLD AND THAT WAS MY VERY FIRST TICKET EVER!
      • 5 Months Ago
      Acording to the constituion a ticket must be issuded by an acual police officer and must be physically seen by a police officer and must be issued at the time of the incodent. Also the camera is an illeagle from of profiling witch is also illeagle and should be outlawed. The lawenfrocement agencys are just getting lazy and the goverment can also tap into the cameras and keep an eye on the people and control them. When are the american people going to wake up and notice that the goverment is trying to control the people and stripe them of there rights to be free and live as your forfathers wanted the american people to live and not be afraied of our goverment.
      • 5 Months Ago
      Excuses excuses. So what if red light cameras are for revenue and they just won't say it? Maybe they are for safety and revenue is a bonus. People causes collisions. If the camera wasn't there they'd be runnning the lights anyway so place the blame where it belongs. Squarely with the drivers. Quit trying to beat lights, get off the phone, eyes on the road, and slow down.
      Jorge Torres
      • 5 Months Ago
      WHEN IT COMES TO TRAFFIC SAFETY PHOTO RED LIGHTS CAMERAS REALLY ARE EFFECTIVE! IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES WE HAVE 32 PHOTO RED LIGHT CAMERAS LOCATED ALL AROUND THE CITY. AND AT EVERY INTERSECTION WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED THE FATALITIES RESULTING FROM TRAFFIC COLLISIONS HAVE DECREASED TO NOTHING!! RESULTS LIKE THAT ARE HARD TO ARGUE!!!
      raydbonz
      • 5 Months Ago
      The scientific studies show that the cameras reduce accidents. Of course, if people would pay attention to what they are doing, these cameras would not be needed. Put down the stupid phone, quit eating in the car, don't shave or apply makeup while driving, put down the newspaper, etc. You are piloting a two-ton lethal weapon which demands your full attention. If you can't, then walk!
      hotep1
      • 5 Months Ago
      These stupid red light camera can and do cause accidents. Yesterday I almost ran into the rear of another car at the intersection of Queens Blvd and Hillside ave, when the light change yellow I was in the middle of the intersection. Know that there is a camera there that would give me a ticket if the light become red while I am at the intersection, I speeded up the car in front of me was stop, I had to swerve to the right not to hit him, lukily did not have an accident, but sometime people do panick trying to rush accross when the lights are changing from green to red in order to avoid a camera ticket. I am agAInst them. The state dont and the citities dont care about safty, its just another way to rip off drivers. they have these stupied devices installed all over long island and Queens. I hope drivers will stand up and have them do away with these things..
      donnarains
      • 5 Months Ago
      No. They increase rear end collisions and close calls. In my opinion, the point of red light cameras is to generate revenue for the local areas and the contractors providing the cameras. The safer claims are right up there with unmarked police cars and hidden radar traps. Marked cars and obvious radar traps slow down traffic. Unmarked police cars and hidden radar traps help generate revenue for police and for equipment dealers.
      gomezcorp
      • 5 Months Ago
      My biggest complaint is all the stupid lights that cycle whether there are any cars or not, forcing you to wait when there is no one coming for miles. The government is always asking us to save energy and help the environment but when it comes to ugrading the traffic lights to SMART technology they don't want to spend the money. They'd rather have us idling at dead intersections at all hours, for no reason. ALL THEY WANT IS THE MONEY CAMERAS BRING...
      • 5 Months Ago
      I'm not against the cameras due to the fact that there are plenty of horrendous drivers out there....me personally, I've never been pulled over or received a speeding ticket in my life, or have I been in a accident. But I am against the cameras for the simple fact that they CAN cause accidents and they are truly for profit. I received a ticket due to one of those 'red light cameras' last year...I was going through a yellow light when the light turned red when I was in the middle of the intersection. For one, I'm not going to slam on my brakes and put stress like that on my car, just because I would miss beating a red light by literally one or two seconds...yellow lights should be longer! And another, I'm not going to slam on my brakes and risk having the person behind me ram into the back of my car. Also, guess where you make the check payable to for the ticket? The Chicago Department of Revenue...not the DMV, not the Courthouse...straight to the 'bank'. And more than half of these tickets that go out to people aren't fair on the basis that if a police officer saw them 'beating the yellow light', they wouldn't bother to pull them over. But the computers don't care, and quite frankly it's pure ********. I'm not encouraging people to run red lights, don't get me wrong, but if I'm 10-15 feet away from the intersection when the light turns yellow, don't count on me to slam on my brakes - I'm sure as hell going through. But to avoid accidents and to produce better drivers, I believe kids shouldn't be allowed to get their licenses until they're at least 17, go through at least a year of driving school, and the tests should be much harder. And FYI - if you're going slow in the left lane, get the **** out of the way for christ sakes, and if someone is riding your tail, let them pass because the only thing your accomplishing is pissing off and provoking an already aggressive driver. Follow those 2 rules and I'm sure tailgating will drop signficantly.
      drasl
      • 5 Months Ago
      Bottom line is ... if you are an attentive driver and obey the law, then why are so many of you upset with red light cameras? People who object to them are prima faciae violators who then have no right to protest these devices. If we had speed detector devices and ticket every driver on Interstate 95 between Daytona Beach and Jacksonville, the fines would amount to THIRTY BILLION DOLLARS in one year. C'mon police, judges and legislators ... fine all of these scofflaws!
      ricke330
      • 5 Months Ago
      FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE UPSET THAT THE CAMERAS ARE JUST A WAY FOR THE STATE TO MAKE MONEY. YOU CAN PROTEST BY NOT RUNNING RED LIGHT!!!!! THAT WAY THE STATE WON'T MAKE ANY MONEY!!!!! JUAT SLOW YOUR ASS DOWN!!!!
      szervitz
      • 5 Months Ago
      I've long believed that the major issue with red light cameras is the profit motive in a given district. And the way profits are increased is by shortening the length of time given a yellow light. Cars caught in a yellow light camera "cross-fire" because they attempted to negotiate passage through an intersection while the light changed, more often than not, in a time-shortened yellow light roadway, are trapped and ticketed unfairly. It's a motor vehicles ambush. If your queried your local department of motor vehicles on whether at camera intersections yellow light times have been decreased, I guarantee you the response would be a les-than-truthful "Absolutely not!" At one very heavily-used intersection in a nearby county, I've timed a yellow light there, and it changes in a matter of a second ot two. I recall when there was no camera, if memory serves, you had considerably more time and you hardly ever saw an accident or a ticket given. Cameras increase tickets but they do not prevent accidents. It's all about revenue enhancement.
    • Load More Comments