Study finds red light cameras cut fatal crashes

ok, well thats what they are supposed to do?

This article says"
Baltimore saw a 14-percent drop in fatal red light crashes, but a 50-percent increase in fatal crashes at intersections with signals."

I need to find the other post where I wondered what the experience in Baltimore and Austin TX was (as both these cities are on the 10 most dangerous driving cities in the US)

I'll believe that when I hear from a real news organization, not a Murdock opinion channel.

I watched the same story on Bay News 9 in Tampa today.
But they said there were more rear end crashes with the cameras.
They said people were apt to jam on the brakes for fear of getting caught by the cameras.

The study was done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a group supported almost entirely by insurance companies, and which is also the only organization whose studies repeatedly find positive relationships between accidents and redlight camera usage. Studies by organizations that have no vested interest in the study outcome tend to find that either redlight cameras are not associated with a reduction in accidents or are not as effective at reducing accidents as properly engineered and maintained intersections.

My point is that we might ought to be as suspicious of any redlight study results touted by insurance companies or government agencies as we were of smoking studies funded by cigarette manufacturers.

If you are interested, you can check out Dick
Armey's staff report, "The Red-Light-Running Crisis: Is It Intentional?", and 15 or so other reports raising issues in regard to the validity of IIHS reports and other studies related to the purported effectiveness of redlight cameras. Follow this link: http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies.

I don't know where all this will wind up; but, in the meantime, keep your windmill turning and your gps loaded with up-to-date redlight and speed camera information.

Martin77429, can you edit your post or title so it doesn't have a url in it? The board is all misaligned.

don't disagree with you. the reason I think this story is getting so much tractions is it gives the results that they??? want.

There is opinion of this study on http://www.thenewspaper.com. In short:

...the Insurance Institute looked at the raw number of intersection fatalities in 62 large US cities and divided them into a group of 14 localities where red light cameras were installed and a group of 48 camera-free cities. For each group, accidents in the "before" period of 1992 to 1996 were compared with an "after" period of 2004 to 2008. IIHS claimed that fatal "red light" crashes (defined as any intersection crash except a rear end collision) dropped 35 percent in the after period for the cities that happened to have cameras but only dropped 14 percent in the after period. The results reflect citywide accident numbers, not figures at photo enforced locations....

It's methodology is interesting compering to this study by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)from 2005:

...By comparison, a 2005 study by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) gathered data from fifteen cities that used automated enforcement. The study's final results excluded eight of these locations because it was not possible to obtain complete accident reports, signal timing data, traffic flow numbers and other variables -- twenty-eight in total. While the FHWA study suffered from its own methodological flaws, the government agency considered reporting results without detailed data to be unscientific...

By comparison:

...IIHS did not bother gathering data regarding any of the factors FHWA considered essential, aside from looking up 1990 and 2000 population figures. In fact, the insurance industry relied upon the eight-year gap between the "before" and "after" periods to obtain the desired result. In locations like Chandler, Arizona the community went through significant changes -- including the building of the Loop 101 and Loop 202 freeways -- during this time. These new routes drew traffic away from intersections during the "after" period despite the increase in population. Without accounting for traffic volumes, the figures would be misleading. Chandler accounted for the greatest decrease in citywide accidents in the IIHS report. IIHS not knowing which locations had cameras could not check whether there was a difference between camera and non-camera locations...

For me it looks like another "scientific" study by insurance industry.

source
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3392.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3393.asp

One being Raleigh, NC, and that article doesn't even mention it much less explain contradictory results.

There's a need to avoid equating correlation and causation. And also a need to avoid cherry picking data.

I'm all for safe driving, but micromanaging human behavior thru government intervention/interference is a lost cause.

GC

... or is it? Anyone else see this on PBS last night?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/mind-control-TMS.html

You can read the report from the source: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr020111.html

I didn't see it, but does it work if you're wearing a tin foil hat?

As far as the study, is it trying to imply that fatal crashes are reduced, and fatal only?

The final sentence of the article about the Insurance Institue of Highway Studies study quotes Anne McCartt, the co-author of the IIHS study: “We don't know exactly why the data from Raleigh and Bakersfield didn't line up with what we found elsewhere…Both cities have expanded geographically over the past two decades, and that probably has a lot to do with it’."

Let me translate: “We admit there is conflicting data in the results of this study but we chose to ignore the conflict in our analysis so that this new study would not undermine our earlier studies and would support the conclusions we wanted for this study. We came up with the guesswork about geographical expansion in the hopes you will ignore the bias in our analysis of the data.”

Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Yup - when it comes to statistics you can usually twist them to read whatever you want into them.

And the IIHS is the biggest twister on the block.

It isn't even GIGO - It is just garbage, pure and simple.

it's nice to have them, just in case

Study shows that the proper use of common sense also prevents all kinds of bad things!

This subject a “hot button” issue for me because a nearby town, Opelika, AL, has started the process for the installation of red light cameras (RLC's). The city council has requested the local legislative delegation to propose a local bill in the state legislature that would allow Opelika to continue to move forward with installing the RLC's. It is a quirk of Alabama law that certain actions proposed by local governments must first be approved statewide. If the local bill passes, then the Opelika city council would be in position to adopt a local ordinance regulating RLC's and to select a vendor.

Under the current proposal: The vendor would likely be American Traffic Solutions. Any violation would be civil, not criminal. The fine levied would be $100.00, with American Traffic Solutions receiving $28.25 and the City of Opelika receiving $71.75. Late fees would be capped at $25.00. There has been no mention of court and other fees, but I suspect the net amount paid by a violator could be signifigantly more than $100.00. The picture proving any violation would be of the tag, not the driver, to avoid the appearance of profiling. Local officials say that the installation is for safety, not revenue.

I am sure of three things: (1) American Traffic Solutions is more interested in revenue than safety. (2) No matter what the local officials say in public, in private not one of them would be surprised, concerned, or less than delighted by the prospect of the RLC's being a source of revenue generation for Opelika. (3) It will take a while for Opelka to jump thought the legal hurdles, but when Opelika does eventually install the RLC's, I will provide information to Miss POI for inclusion in her Redlight Cameras file.

...there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

How many geographical areas have shrunken in population in the last 20 years? Raleigh is hardly unique in it having grown over time.

GC

Virtually anything can be shown to be true.....until you look at how the conclusion was reached, or as stated earlier..garbage in=garbage out

Facts are the enemy of truth.

Statistics are processed numbers from data. Someone did the processing, so they can be biased.

Bias info plus there is another study that red light cameras caused more accidents because people were slamming on their brakes and causing drivers to rear-end them

I fear that this question will never be answered definitely.

It is what it is. You run a red light (unlawful behavior), and you get your picture taken and receive a ticket in the mail.

Does this help save lives? My opionion is no.

The Gecko will be glad to hear that. Oh yeah, that's right they paid for the decision they wanted, sorry almost forgot that.

Just because the study did not say what you wanted to hear does not make the results wrong.

go both ways on this. Sit at a camera equipped intersection and watch all the people slamming on their brakes and common sense tells you it does not reduce accidents. It is for city revenue generation and it works very well.

doesn't make it right either. especially if they will not release data, and methodology.

Here on Long Island, Nassau County has installed a number of red light cameras for "safety" reasons.

I know of at least two cameras that were immediately removed when the County discovered that the cameras were installed within incorporated villages.

That is because the loot that the county collects from these cameras would have to be split with the incorporated villages.

So much for "safety".

Fact remains...
Red light cams cause more crashes.

Do you have any recent studies that support this comment?

So if it's on the internet it is fact? Read the article, they are extrapolating data to sway the result. This 'scientific data" is biased at best.

Not using common sense leads to more crashes in my opinion. Though I realize someone would argue that.

It would seem that many people think that studies which support their position are valid with the data firmly established while studies that contradict their position are "biased" and based are extrapolations.

I find that studies on Automated Traffic Enforcement produce a wide range of results which are dependent on the way ATE was implemented. Some implementations result in an increase in total crashes; some result in a decrease in total crashes.

Indeed, most studies will find that some intersections benefit; some don't; and some have mixed results.

What is usually not detailed for the readers are the various timings of yellow lights and whether or not the end of each yellow light is followed by an "all red" interval to allow cars to clear.

University of South Florida (USF) researchers Barbara Langland-Orban, Etienne E. Pracht and John T. Large returned to clarify certain points raised in response to their 2008 report that concluded red light cameras tended to increase injury accidents

In conclusion:

"The studies that integrated relevant independent variables in the analysis found red light cameras were associated with increases in crashes and injuries," the report stated. "This reveals the complexity of conducting public health research because an outcome can be incorrectly attributed to an intervention if variables necessary to explain the outcome are excluded."

source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3413.asp

I still don't buy it. It is for revenue only. Drivers who know that they are there are more cautious and will stop short more often than not at these corners. But does it really stop them at corners, where red light cameras are absent?

Excellent post grzesja.

Also http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14270_files/14270.pd... Page 71, Table 13.
and
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/26000/26600/26639/Automated_Enforceme...
The abstract should suffice.

Now how about some links to recent studies that specifically prove the point to be false, jgermann?

Can you say the word self-serving???

Fred

“(Capt. John McCall, commander of the traffic division and red light camera program manager for Montgomery, Alabama) said although one to two people per month contest their citations, they have a 100 percent conviction rate." (Emphasis added.)

(http://www.theplainsman.com/view/full_story/11141469/article...

Depending on what your looking to hear will have a direct correlation on whether or not the results are right or wrong.

If you're looking to hear the "TRUTH" (but instead receive mis or incorrect information), then obviously the results (based off of the erroneous information you were given) become "WRONG"!

Nuvi1300WTGPS

I concur. They are just using the cameras for revenue, and they know they increase rear-enders.

I wonder if this increase in revenue will lead to lower property taxes. I think not.

In the abstract at the start of the document is the statement:

“The economic analysis examined the extent to which the increase in rear end
crashes negates the benefits for right-angle crashes. The analysis showed an aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems. A disaggregate analysis found that the greatest economic benefits are associated with the highest total entering average annual daily traffic, the largest ratios of right-angle to rear end crashes, and with the presence of protected left turn phases.”

On page 63 just before Table 13, the report says:

Composite Effects at Camera sites
Because the intent of the research was to conduct a multijurisdictional study representing different locations across the United States, the aggregate effects over all RLC sites in all jurisdictions was of primary interest. Table 13 shows the combined results for the seven jurisdictions. As seen, there is a significant decrease in right-angle crashes but a significant increase in rear end crashes. Note that “definite injury” crashes here are defined as K, A, and B crashes; they do not contain the “possible injury” crashes captured by KABCO-level “C.”

It would be hard to say whether this reports is positive or negative, but, on balance, it supports RLC.

they also increase the number of accidents where people get hit from behind

But you asked..

And there it is. Page 71, Table 13.

We (I thought) were talking about increases in rear-end crashes.

Technically speaking (in this case), yes there was a net reduction of 4 total crashes and 23 injury crashes, while an increase of rear-end crashes.

If we knew the total cost of implementation & monies paid, I'm guessing we could find better ways to reduce crashes by a total of 4/23, if not more.

'crash cost benefit'

''possible injury' crashes'

So the fact is that according to the study, if you charge each and every person who crosses the line a millisecond after the light changes, you will, to some degree transfer the accidents from side-impact to rear-end with a 'net cost' differential that can't be determined because they have no idea what the injury rate is, but even they say that it is too close to call.

In other words, even by their own biased studies they can't prove any real reduction (from a cash perspective) in the accident rate.

However, would it be safe to say that the cost of repairing a rear-end collision is less than that of repairing an accident resulting from from a T-Bone? After all cars are better engineered to survive inline crashes.

I find it suspicious that they use the 'crash cost' number, rather than the absolute number of accidents in the study - so there probably is a significant increase in the raw numbers of accidents - and I would wager that they do not figure in the 'time cost' of these accidents - certainly with more accidents a greater number of drivers would have to spend each as much time dealing with insurance companies and body shops.

Assuming that everything else was equal (and by the post above it seems that this could be the case), the only real negative impact for drivers is that the jurisdictions take millions of dollars out of the drivers' pockets - and THAT they don't figure into their 'cost' analysis either.

So the true 'social cost' (which is the factor they SHOULD have been researching) is an unknown. But since the 'crash cost' is a wash, the reality is that the RLC has ZERO IMPACT on life safety. The social cost would have included the amount of fines collected as a negative factor in the evaluation as well.

Had they done that, it is a given that RLCs are a true negative, since even they admit that the 'crash cost' is statistical break-even.

Which, of course is because their intent is to pickpocket drivers rather than to reduce accidents.

If we were discussing rear-end crashes then I certainly agree that they went up and I think that I said that earlier. I have had to be away from the forum for a while as we have had two deaths in our family so my mind is a little boggled.

I am interested in the page 71 reference. I find Table 13 on page 63. Yet I think we are talking about the same Table. with a net reduction of 4.

Very sorry to hear of your loss. I hope everyone gets through it well, & my prayers will be the same.

Yes, same table. Paper page 63, Acrobat page 71.
Had I followed my own 'find the root cause/item/problem' philosophy, I should have just said "Table 13", eh?

There is not much to comment so just from article:

...An extra 0.7 seconds of yellow time at a Fremont, California intersection did more overnight to cut violations than a decade's worth of red light cameras use. What was once the city's most profitable photo enforced location now rarely sees any straight-through violations...

source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3436.asp

Get conclusions on your own. For me it is so much for safety from RLC.

I believe there is much to comment on the way thenewspaper.com writes its articles. For those who do not do their research into the cited articles and studies, it seems quite damning. However, a closer look often shows a different story. That is the case here.

First, the detail about the original study done by the vendor was for 1997 through 1999 and the installation of cameras done in 2001. Looking at the documents from the vendor, it certainly seems that the red light intersections were chosen for their revenue potential. Since that was 10 years ago, one would hope that potential for accident reduction has become the new criteria. If someone can cite information that seems to show that revenue is still the principal reason for the RLC, it would be informative.

As a side note, I personally see no problems with a municipality installing Automated Traffic Enforcement for "revenue" if the data also shows that "safety" would improve. Municipalities must get revenue from somewhere and it makes sense to get that revenue from law-breakers (speeding, running red-lights straight thru, parking violations, not wearing seatbelts, texting/cellphone use while driving) rather than from law-abiders in general (property tax, sales tax, etc).

So why comment on the article at hand. Well, the RLC in question is described as "a demand-based signal timing system creates a situation where green times could last as little as 4 seconds during a period of light traffic, trapping a driver approaching to make a left-hand turn."

"Roger Jones set out to investigate a ticket that an acquaintance of his received in July while turning left 0.28 seconds after the light turned red. Jones found the yellow for the left turn lasted just 3.0 seconds -- the shortest time allowed under federal law."

It appears that this was a one-off situation with a specific RLC. "This complex series of events created an impossible dilemma," Jones told TheNewspaper. "When the light turned yellow the required deceleration rate would have required a near panic stop rate of deceleration."

It further seems that Freemont, CA was not at fault as the article says "The signal in question is maintained by state officials with Caltrans who investigated the complaints. Engineers on the scene disagreed that the left-turn phase provided insufficient yellow, but in the course of their engineering survey they decided other changes were warranted."

The article's title "California: Longer Yellow Time Slashes Red Light Tickets" is surely true for yellow durations that are insufficient. BUT, increasing the yellow time to 15 seconds might create a new set of problems because drivers would have to guess when the yellow would change to red and there are a lot of drivers who increase their speed from already over the speed limit just to "beat" the light. As other threads have discussed, count-down timers might be helpful. Myself, I look at the walk/caution/don't walk images that are at many of the intersections in my city to gauge when the light will turn yellow and adjust my speed accordingly. If it looks like the light is about to turn yellow, I will already be decelerating and looking in my rearview mirror to make sure someone is not accelerating at me.

Interesting article - opponents of ATE will latch onto it as "proof" that ATE is just for "revenue" - when a careful reading shows it to be an improvement (a justified correction, in fact) in the administration of Freemont's ATE.