Another study concludes red-light cameras are harmful

[unixronin]

A study in Ontario, Canada is the fourth major study to conclude that, far from reducing accidents, red-light cameras are actually harmful.

The 2003 study, covering Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Halton, Peel and Waterloo, found that overall property damage accidents increased 18.9%, rear-end property damage accidents increased by 49%, and fatal and injury rear-end collisions increased by 5%, after red-light cameras were deployed.  Other studies have previously found adverse results in Virginia, North Carolina, and Australia.

Full text of the study (PDF)

Comments

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

So is the interpretation that more rear-end crashes are occurring because people are seeing the cameras and than slamming on the brakes rather than potentially run a red light? Talk about your law of unintended consequenses....

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Well, one of the common things that happens is the following:
- City signs deal with vendor to provide red-light cameras
- Contract includes a guaranteed minimum monthly income to the vendor
- City realizes after a few months that they're not getting nearly as much money from the cameras as the vendor said they would, and are losing money fast, but are contractually obligated to meet the minimum vendor income
- City approaches vendor about the problem
- Vendor suggests making amber lights shorter, and city does so
- Ticket revenues go up with the shorter amber lights, because drivers are still thinking in terms of a five-second amber, but so do accidents, as drivers make unexpected panic stops as the light goes red when they thought they had time to get through.

Amber lights used to be a standard 5 seconds. Major red-light camera vendors (including Lockheed Martin) are advising "clients" to cut them to as little as 3.5 seconds in order to increase ticket revenue. (And I've heard of as little as 3 seconds.) The fact that this, in many cases, doesn't leave time to stop safely by the time you allow for reaction time and "Do I have room/time to stop?" thinking time, just isn't the vendor's problem, and the city's got to somehow comply with the contract or go broke. Some of these contracts obligate the cities for guaranteed revenues to the vendor of as much as $20,000 a month. By the time the city figures out the vendor's revenue figures were, shall we say, "optimistic", they're over a barrel.

Frankly, in large part it's a game of obtaining money from the cities by way of fraudulent claims.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I meant to add that of course it's largely the cities' fault, for going after the promise of "free money" without actually doing the research and checking the numbers first.