Do speed cameras really cut accidents?

As a retired Police Officer and I am entitled to my opinion, NO. Speeding doesn't cause accidents, poor driving does. If everyone is 20 miles over the speed limit and not jumping in and out of lanes, keeping a safe difference from the car in front of you and being courteous, etc., there should be no accidents. Speed and red light cameras are for generating revenue, not preventing accidents.

We've finally heard it from a "Honest Cop"!! Thank You. I honored to know ones on the site here.

Nuvi1300WTGPS

Speed cameras may get people to slow down, but mainly it is a cheap way for cities and towns to generate income.

It's the inattention to driving that does it. There are way too many distractions nowadays. Other 'important' things, like texting, or applying makeup, or reading that book, or shaving, or whatever..... Makes you wonder what folks did before cell phones, that texting while driving crap....

The accidents are caused by people that are not paying attention to the road and their surroundings. If everyone drove at the same speed, minimized lane changes and kept a safe distance between cars, it does not matter how fast they drive so long as the road/car/driver can handle the higher speed. Accidents can occur when someone is driving too slow in comparison to everyone else and the drivers behind the slow car needs to slow down/brake and try to change lanes.

Before you sharpen your swords...

I'm just curious why there are such strong feelings against speed cameras.

If the law says that a certain stretch of road should be a specific speed, why can't the process of enforcing that law be automated? If a cop were to pull you over for the same infraction, is it really all that different than getting a ticket from a speed camera?

If the camera were properly calibrated, I would rather have police be available to deal with other crimes, or walk a beat, then sit waiting for speeders.

(prepares for incoming...)

IMHO it has to do with many factors, one of which is the feeling of self-importance.

There's several different points here as well. many speed limits have remained unchanged for up to 40 years or more. Speed limits that were sensible in the 50's, 60's, 70's and even the 80's do not take into consideration changes in roads or the vehicles themselves. Many states are beginning to look at how speed limits are determined and while some of the "old" rules about sight distance, number of access points, road design and type remain, one that is gaining is looking at the average speed of the traffic. In some areas speed limits are being set to somewhere near the average speed of traffic through the section reached by 80% of the vehicles. That's different than the 'free-flow' speed you can travel the same route at say around 3AM.

Speed limits are also set to help with congestion. lowering a speed limit on a freeway or Interstate during busy or rush periods can actually cut travel time. If you reduce speed, the safe following distance is reduced and you can get more cars into the same stretch of highway. Conversely, leaving the lower speed posted when the road is not congested leads to accidents due to the speed differentials between cars traveling closer to the free-flow speed and those at the lower posted speed.

It gets complicated real fast and no matter what speed is posted, there are those that will always feel it doesn't apply to me because: ...

So, it's not so much about the camera, they normally catch those exceeding the 80 percentile that would be speeding in any event. It's when the speed limit, with any "grace" is below the 80th percentile that draws the ire of many.

Regardless of whether speed cameras reduce accidents, if they reduce speeding then there is some merit. Reduced speed means that in the event of an accident, it will almost always be less severe. That said, I hate speed cameras or most speed limits in general. The purpose of speed limits and speed cameras is much more of a way to generate revenue and subjugate a population than a way to decrease the severity of accidents.

That's it, plain and simple. I believe I'm a safe driver. The last accident I had was in a late March snow storm a couple years back, when I was T-Boned by a 4x4 Ford driving too fast. I couldn't tell you the last one before that. Been a licensed driver since 1983.

I have seen some recent articles that advocate setting the speed limit for a stretch of road at that speed at which 85% of drivers are traveling.

While this soulds reasonable on the surface, it does not account for those who are admittedly "lead-footed" who will then increase their speed to be in those 15% who exceed whatever the new limit is. Surely, there is some reasonable upper speed limit above which someone should not travel.

It would seem to me that calibration is essential. It would see that we should be wanting to see automated camera systems that can pick out those drivers who endanger others be their "speed and weave" habits.

I came through Atlanta on I75 a while back and had to drive about 70 to avoid being run over. It appeared that the 55 MPH limit was only a suggestion. However, almost everyone just stayed in position and it seemed quite safe to me.

With the budget cuts faced by most states, it is scary to think that there will not be enough police officers to fight crime now. If the anti-camera crowd had there way, we might become victim to the "law of unintended consequences": not enough police officers to fight crime and enforce traffic safety so both crime and accidents rise.

Thanks for the truth!!

Indeed you are entitled to your opinion. I am wondering if you have statistics from your former employer to support your statement that cameras are for generating revenue.

What someone else has assumed (by commending you for telling the truth) is that you were quoting facts as opposed to voicing an opinion.

Where did you work and can you point us to some data?

I'm not trying to disparage jgermann's desire for data but as we all know (except perhaps from the perpetually naive), is that statistics are usually prepared to prove an opinion of the parties presenting them. For instance, statistics presented by a politician or compnay providing cameras will probably differ substantially from motorist advocacy groups. So overdependence on numbers is folly.

Sometimes application of a little common sense or the open minded listening to other's especially when it was part of their profession can teach us all something (I can see teenagers now discarding the older and wiser experiences of their elders because 'numbers' weren't provided to substantiate the life leesons they were trying to teach). Empirical data based on our own observations is also valuable without attaching numbers to everything you see. For instance it is obvious to me that accidents are caused my a variety of factors i.e. people driving too slow in the fast lane causing others to change lanes around them, distracted drivers, driving under the influence, etc. Speed in and of itself isn't an accident causing agent unless done irresponsibly.
Again, these are assertions I make as fairly obvious things from my own observations without shoving numbers down your throat.

I have yet to see a stationary object prevent a traffic accident from happening. In fact, no device can prevent an accident, it can only mitigate or modify the affect of an accident. A barrier may prevent someone from crossing into the oncoming lanes, but hitting the barrier is still an accident. The severity of the accident is lessened for some, but the barrier did not prevent someone from hitting it in the first place. Same with the cameras. They don't prevent anything, but they do modify driver behavior and that may reduce accidents.

jgermann points to the Chattanooga study and report. Installation of the cameras caused drivers to slow and that was the cause of the accident reductions.

NO. all they do is make money. thank u

DrewDT, you made a number of common sense statements about driving that I agree with.

Because a retired police officer implied that his city had cameras only for the revenue generation but offered no basis for the claim, I asked for data.

As a statistician, I realize that the data might indeed prove that, in his city, safety had not improved but revenue had. Were that to be the case, I would want to know how the installation of the cameras was initially presented. If the claim was that it would improve safety and it had not, then the citizens of that city should be asked to put the cameras to a vote.

Educated opinions are valid discussion topics. However, conventional wisdom is not always correct.

Not often you hear of a town voting DOWN red light cameras! (Chicago - take note!). Now, if they would just get rid of the rest of them...

http://www.tinleyjunction.com/Articles-c-2010-07-29-209073.1...

It was interesting that this post came at this point in the thread. In this case "common sense" is equated with a resolution voting down installation of a camera.

When I saw the post and its link, I thought that someone was providing a case study where safety had not improved after a camera was put in service and the citizens were rejecting it because it was only for revenue generation.

In my city, safety has improved plus there is the added benefit of revenue generation. In spite of this, I suspect that if put to a vote, cameras would be voted down because the lie of "they are just for revenue generation" resonates with a lot of people and they do not want to be confused with facts.

Educated opinions and conventional wisdom are two diffrent things.

Education is not convention.... or, at least a good education is not convention.

To compare (scramble) the two is generally considered non-gratifying to the level of education achieved by the speaker.

Conventional wisdom (CW) is a term used to describe ideas or explanations that are generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field.

HawaiianFlyer, how would you define "educated opinion"?

jgermann, if I understand this statement correctly, it is similar to saying "common sense isn't very common" (albeit in a a far mor diplomatic way). I'll have to agree with you there, also, to clarify I do not discount the merit of statistics, I'm just advocating other sources of information to pain a whole picture since things are rarely black and white and it can be human nature to oversimplify issues.

I do like your style of challenging people to provide substance to their assertions. One of the most valuable lessons I've learned in my educational journey is to always question/challenge your sources.

I don't mean to answer for Flyer, but it seems to me that an educated opinion is a stated belief from an individual source that has expertise in the subject, where conventional wisdom is a general consensus as described in the wikipedia definition cited by jgermann. It certainly would be possible for someone to have an educated opinion that is quite different from the conventional wisdom. The English language is quite interesting.

Where I was going all along can be illustrated by this quote from Wikipedia.

"Helicobacter pylori was first discovered in the stomachs of patients with gastritis and stomach ulcers in 1982 by Dr. Barry Marshall and Dr. Robin Warren of Perth, Western Australia. At the time the conventional thinking was that no bacterium can live in the human stomach as the stomach produced extensive amounts of acid of strength to the acid found in a car battery. Marshall and Warren rewrote the textbooks with reference to what causes gastritis and gastric ulcers. In recognition of their discovery, they were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine"

Prior to this, educated opinion and conventional wisdom believed that ulcers were caused by lifestyle - remember the emphasis on the "Type-A personality". What these doctors did was get facts.

All of us need to try to get all the facts - not just one side of a story.

As alandb observes "It certainly would be possible for someone to have an educated opinion that is quite different from the conventional wisdom." AND, both may be wrong.

First, I find that people use the word "accident" loosely when they should be talking about car crashes.
An accident is a specific, unidentifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects.
When a person breaks the law by speeding or running a red light, it is not an accident but intentional for no one makes them do it. I live on a long block and every day I watch idiots speed from one stop sign to the other just to see if they have brakes. There is an oak tree at one end that has been stopping cars every year. They are not accidents but crashes for it was deliberate speeding.
The only accident is when two cars crash one of the participants was accidentally there.
If one speeds then he/she should pay the piper when caught irregardless how. Would you pay to have a camera sitting there or pay for a policeman sitting there while drawing his wages, medical insurance, retirement etc?

that was straight and to the point.

To answer to the topic?
One Word: No.

Since the freeway speed cameras went dark on us60 in az a few weeks ago I observed the following on my 30 mile daily commute:
My moving avg (per gps) has gone from 47 mph to 55 mph. Some driving is surface streets but majority is freeway.
Speed limit is 65 but traffic used to move at about 70
Traffic now moves on average 75+
I have experienced more accidents on this freeway then before the cameras went dark.

Honestly, I did not think that people really thought that it was for safety.

Even in government it is understood that safety is what is said to the public but for those involved in making, implementing or enforcing these devices, it is all about revenue.

Revenue.

Poi factory is not iPhone friendly....

Anyway, I don't believe the cameras make it any safer, it is just a revenue generator but now that they are no longer active, the driving is becomming reckless and this IS leading to more accidents from what I have seen recently.

I see cops pulling over cars more frequently on this road also. The problem now is that the 9 mph buffer with the cameras are now gone and u can get pulled over for going just 5 over.

Note that:
a) There are different stats for Speed Camera enforcement vs. Red Light Camera enforcement (not the topic here),
b) Crashes are categorized into 3 groups- all, P.I., and Fatal. No stats are given for non-injury crashes (property)
c) Percentage reductions vary in each study
d) The referenced link also mentions alternatives, some more intrusive than others.
e) IIHS isn't exactly an impartial source but I don't think they would blatantly lie (imo).

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_lawenf.aspx

"How effective are speed cameras at reducing crashes?

The effects of automated speed enforcement on crashes have been the subject of a considerable number of prior research efforts, as summarized in 3 recent systematic reviews of the international literature.

A 2005 review analyzed data from 14 studies and found crash reductions in the immediate vicinities of camera sites, ranging from 5 to 69 percent for all crashes, 12 to 65 percent for injury crashes, and 17 to 71 percent for fatal crashes.

A 2006 review published by the Cochrane Collaboration (an international organization that conducts systematic reviews of the scientific literature on public health issues) analyzed data from 21 studies and found reductions ranging from 14 to 72 percent for all crashes, 8 to 46 percent for injury crashes, and 40 to 45 percent for crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries.

A 2007 NHTSA-sponsored review of 13 published studies reported injury crash reductions of 20 to 25 percent for fixed speed cameras and 21 to 51 percent for mobile speed camera programs."

I agree that the IIHS wouldn't lie about what these "Reviews" find, but it's not exactly first-hand data. What you quote is a review of several other reviews which each reviewed some number of studies. So at best this IIHS document is questionable. In order to properly evaluate the data, one would have to look at each of the dozens of individual studies reviewed by the 3 reviews the IIHS document quotes.

Cheers,
--Lee

First off, for those that do not realize it, the local governments don't get all of $$$ from camera fines. The companies that install and maintain the cameras get at least some portion of these $$$.

Given that, ifred-light and speed cameras are not about the revenue, then why (as happened in DC a few years ago) do the local governments get upset when people actually start modifying their behavior, which leads to fewer fines and less income from the cameras? Why, as was the case in NC, when a court ruling declared that the majority of the funds from fines from red-light and speed cams would have to go to the local school boards, just like other types of traffic fines, did the local governments (Charlotte, in particular) remove ALL their cameras? One would think that if safety had anything to do with it, it would be worth having the cameras in place for that reason. Or is safety only a good thing as long as the local government isn't taking a loss providing it?

Some things to think about...

Cheers,
--Lee

That's why there's so much non-specific info out there. It's all over the graph so we accept the ballpark summaries of summaries.

Type "Speed Camera" into this NTL database & see what else you find. And, NTL is near the top of the govt. data food chain. Everyone stops looking someplace/sometime, eventually.
http://ntl.bts.gov/

I think you missed the point, anyway. If you look at these summaries, there is a WIDE range of values over 3 years and 48 studies. If you then debate the safety vs. income question, it's apples and oranges because you first have to define a level of safety and associated cost value to it. That in itself is all over the graph. The income produced is very concrete on the other hand.

It's a dead horse (safety or money), imo because no honest person could possibly say there is no safety benefit, or no monetary incentive. I also don't think the numbers indicate a very cost effective safety solution, but at the same time you wouldn't want to stop anything that has some safety benefit until you have something equally effective to replace it with, would you?

I wish the opponents of cameras would at least be able to admit tha safety is generally a result of the installation of cameras. While I do not agree with many arguments against cameras, they have some logic behind them (for example, the right to confront your accuser). When someone makes a blanket claim that cameras are for revenue only, it demonstrates that the person has not done any research because there are too many studies that indicate safety improvement.

JD4x4 asks a question I wish each opponent would consider. If you are in favor of stopping something with a safety benefit, what would you replace it with?

I'm going to change this around a little bit:

One could just as well say that reducing the total numbers of cars on the freeway could fulfill the dual purpose of most likely promoting traffic flow and potentially enhancing safety. The simple practice of carpooling or using mass transit could direct us to this objective.

But how likely is it for that practice to substantially increase in the absence of a financial driver such as we saw with the 1973 Arab oil embargo? In opposition to change, there’s something in our national psyche that resists giving up our individual (almost narcissistic) impulses.

I just find it odd that we are so adamant to have the freedom to be able to hop in our car and drive but when it means that surveillance cameras are necessary to act as a check on that freedom, no one flinches. No once flinches, that is, unless it stings him in the wallet.

One could also ask Arizona governor Jan Brewer if she is concerned with your question. Once it became apparent that the actual revenue stream was not as high as anticipated, she allowed the state’s speed camera contract to lapse.

I would think that a higher question would be: how do we implement changes purported to increase safety? For me, it is not necessarily so much, what do we replace it with, but how do we do it, through government decree or through some other means?

Don't forget that I also think the cameras aren't very cost effective (considering the diverted flow of dollars out of taxpayer's pockets, not the "cost" to jurisdictions). And, that the numbers are all over the graph(s) depending on the study.

So assuming you accept the median numbers for effectiveness as worthy of a target.. what would we replace it with?

Btw, I wish camera advocates would consider the huge disservice to safety when jurisdictions focus on revenue. The focus should never for a second be on anything but safety (as we are led to believe). It should be a crime for public officials to even consider profit/income from these cameras. They should operate for as little as humanly possible to the taxpayer, and break even without middlemen whenever possible.

I support the cameras.If you do any driving in FL you can see a good reason to have them.It has gone on there so many years that it has become acceptable to speed through the lights.You can't hardly pick up the newspaper with out reading about someone getting killed or injured from a red light runner.You would never pull out just when you side turns green without a good look see.Don't need no graph to see how dangerous it is.See it all the time there.

No.

The cameras not only enable more tickets to be written, they also have no health care or pension expenses. They increase traffic enforcement while increasing municipal revenue while cutting costs via layoffs.

I'd have less of a problem if income from the cameras was spent improving or maintaining police / emergency services. Unfortunately the cameras often come with reduction in police staffing.

Would you care to tell us the source for this statement?

Sounds like he’s talking in a general sense, not in a specific case, that surveillance cameras may be used in lieu of personnel in particular situations.

Perhaps he may be implying a future scenario with a likely potential to occur. Take for instance, the situation in Oakland, California where layoffs are already happening. Here’s one link that explains the situation: http://www.examiner.com/x-57066-SF-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m....

The cause of the layoffs is related to the continuing financial crisis. The cameras are one answer to the ongoing fallout of the crisis which is cascading through the system. Not really the answer you were looking for though, huh?

The problem in search of a solution is not necessarily the layoffs. Rather, the feeling of insecurity raised by the specter of crime is what needs to be allayed. That’s public safety in a nutshell.

And, you want efficiencies in justice? Check out the last sentence in this Wall Street Journal article: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704....

Or maybe it goes more like this:

When a police spokesman is quoted in a newspaper or on a radio program regarding photo enforcement, everything he says is carefully scripted by the private company dependent on the survival of the program for its revenue. This became clear after a Maryland activist yesterday released contract documents that outline the role of Affiliated Computer Services (ACS) in creating the sales pitch delivered to the public by Montgomery County officials. StopBigBrotherMD.org obtained copies of the contract in which ACS receives a cut of every ticket the company issues, promising in return to control all aspects of communications regarding the program.
"ACS recognizes that public acceptance of the photo speed enforcement program plays a vital role in achieving Montgomery County's goal," the contract states. "The key to ACS' success is our ability to anticipate frequently asked questions and prepare the necessary materials, information and quotes to reporters who ask these questions...

And it goes into this:
The camera company is responsible for generating "statistics on the program" and "reports on the accomplishments of the program," giving the company with a direct financial interest in the program the role of passing judgment on the program's effectiveness. The statistics, after ACS finishes "clarifying" and "amplifying" the data, will help the company avoid spending time "defending the program to a dissatisfied public."...

But it's not good, if you can't learn how good cameras are for you and how much safer you are, so:
"The program, as currently envisioned by our team, would include writing and placing one or more articles in the local, daily newspaper of the county's choice," the contract stated. "ACS experience shows that outreach to traffic reporters and commuter journalists such as Dr. Gridlock of The Washington Post increases support and understanding of the program... We have been successful in providing the necessary information to high-profile newspapers such as The Washington Post where positive stories about the enforcement programs have been published."...

source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3222.asp

For some reason I'm not so impressed with those people, even when it's "for my own good". And for some reason I'm really suspicious that my safety is what they have in mind. And it makes me wonder, if there any place in the world, where those statistics about cameras are really honest.

The article from thenewspaper.com. The website is decidedly anti-camera (which is their right) but I have found they engage in selective quoting in order to fool people who do not take the time to read their sources.

Neither the website nor the sources quoted at the website make any claim one way or another about safety. The article reports about and links to a community awareness program touted by ACS. The article fails to give a link to the contract from which they claim to quote.

However, nothing you quoted seems to be out of the ordinary. If you are opposed to cameras, you will read into this article nefarious actions by ACS.

I will look to see if there are any statistics for Montgomery County available on the web. Montgomery County should have statistics on locations with cameras as well as those without cameras.

For Montgomery, the question is whether or not safety improves. If the county makes money, well OK. I expect ACS to make money, otherwise they would not be in business and have made the capital investment in the cameras.

I'd love to get that link. I've never found anything statistically comprehensive on M.C's site(s). Though that might be because it's (they are) so poorly indexed.

I'm not only interested in how effective M.C's cameras are on Safety (i.e. injury), but also on incident reduction overall.

I know that you are Kool-Aid drinker about cameras. But there is link in article to scans of this document. For clarity direct link (pdf format):
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1e8Zo-xJDL2YzU0ZTdiYjc...

And maybe for you it is nothing unusual but in real word there it is simple propaganda attempt aided by government officials. It is simple dishonesty presented by authorities to show side prepared by company with vital interest of outcome of this case. But I guess in your mind it is "for greater good" so outright propaganda from ACS is justified and preferred over truth. Or you think that if cameras will not work as expected they just apologize and quietly shot down whole project?

[quote=grzesja
I know that you are Kool-Aid drinker about cameras. But there is link in article to scans of this document. For clarity direct link (pdf format):
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1e8Zo-xJDL2YzU0ZTdiYjc...

And maybe for you it is nothing unusual but in real word there it is simple propaganda attempt aided by government officials. It is simple dishonesty presented by authorities to show side prepared by company with vital interest of outcome of this case. But I guess in your mind it is "for greater good" so outright propaganda from ACS is justified and preferred over truth. Or you think that if cameras will not work as expected they just apologize and quietly shot down whole project?

When I asked you for the stats link, I incorrectly thought the Montgomery County you were referring to was Maryland, not Tennessee. TN does indeed seem to have more stats than my jurisdiction, and that's a good thing. But a quick glance at the charts in the link wouldn't convince me that they are the most effective use of the funds, or even the best choice for safety improvement. Perhaps they will keep the data up to date, but my jurisdiction doesn't. I wonder why.

That's a good criteria that makes anyone opposing it (on the surface) appear as a heartless scofflaw. But to understand either support or opposition one has to actually define public safety as well as the price, and answer the question "at what price". I personally don't agree with "just one life at any price". And I don't agree that "saving lives" is a convincing statement of definitive fact about the condition of public safety.

Yet it's documented all around you. You need to look yourself. The credible stories are out there but without sites that focus on opposition you actually need work harder to seek them out. The exact same is true about the proponent view. And if your jurisdiction is truly unbiased and focused only on 'safety', I'd be VERY surprised. It's really a question of seeing the trees in the forest, imo.

Spend more time looking. "..has been poor.." and continues to be.

"In all of the instances.."- All?. Who's making selective statements now? All? Really?. Oh wait. You said "reported". Where? By whom?

ANY information that states a conclusion is likely to have a bias towards that conclusion. Duh. It's tough on the brain cells, but it's up to us to honestly seek out the facts only, consider the source, determine which are true, and make our own informed conclusions. Even having done that, we'll still be branded as biased because we then ARE.

Bias only colors facts. Deceit alters or eliminates them. You can only find your "truth" as long as you continue to question everything and everyone, unless you're all-knowing. Generally too time consuming so we make our definitions, set our price, and get on with life. The problem comes when we begin to think it's truth enough to insist that everyone must agree without compromise. Compromise means that no party is completely satisfied. I can live with that if it's fair and equitable. Cameras might be be fair in a best case implementation, but you'll have a lot of convincing to do if you say they are an equitable or efficient use of my taxes and fines (should I have them) for overall public good.

..imo.

I really do respect your opinion, as it seems you have sought out your local information. I just can't find enough detail for my jurisdiction or most others. But looking at what there is, nationwide I think cameras are a marginal public safety improvement for the resources spent, a failure in improving trust in government, and a great success at generating revenue. But I usually continue to re-evaluate my position and "price".

Here is your link to Chicago trying to go below federal guidelines of the bare minimum of 3 seconds for yellow lights, to 2.6 seconds.

*edit*

http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2010/04/24/r_qoe7rdctvgon5t...

I have an entire thread dedicated to the subject, with links and the articles copied and pasted. To see the article in its entirety, please refer to that thread.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/28357

"SPRINGFIELD – A compromise proposal outlining the use of red light cameras at traffic intersections is headed for Gov. Pat Quinn's desk after clearing the House on Friday on an 80-27 vote.

The measure previously passed the Senate.

Sponsored by state Rep. John D'Amico, D-Chicago, the legislation would regulate the minimum length of yellow lights to 2.6 seconds, require municipalities to post videos of red light violations on a website, and require a police officer or trained reviewer to look over the violation videos.

D'Amico said drivers who ran through red lights still would get tickets, but those who stop on the line or just after the line would not.

'You have to come to a complete stop, otherwise you will get a ticket,” he said. “Before, if you eased over the line a little bit, you still got a ticket. You will not get that ticket now, but you have to come to a complete stop.'"

Speed cameras do not cut accidents, but they can cause them!!!

The last few accidents I saw were right around the speed cameras.

As long as they don't cut the yellow light short I don't see why anyone should complain about the cameras. You know where they are in your home area and can get a GPS warning for most other areas when traveling so don't try to run the light.
It can't help but improve safety if less people are running lights.
All the arguments against them seem to me just a rational to be able to run red lights.

your local observation cannot be refuted.

Your general statement that speed cameras do not cut accidents requires some support on your part.