Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

An anonymous reader writes: Ars Technica summaries a study by the Chicago Tribune (paywalled) that found red light cameras do not improve driver safety. "[W]hile right angle crash incidents have been reduced, rear-end crashes that resulted in injuries went up 22 percent." Chicago officials recently claimed that the cameras led to a 47% reduction "T-bone" injury crashes, using that statistic as evidence that the program is worthwhile. But the study's authors, who "accounted for declining accident rates in recent years as well as other confounding factors, found cameras reduced right-angle crashes that caused injuries by just 15 percent."

They also noted that the city chose to install many cameras at intersections where crashes were rare to begin with. Chicago has raised roughly $500 million from red light camera tickets since 2002. "[O]fficials recently admitted to the city inspector general that they had quietly dropped the threshold for what constitutes a red light camera ticket, allowing the tickets even when cameras showed a yellow light time just under the three-second federal minimum standard. That shift earlier this year snared 77,000 more drivers and $7.7 million in ticket revenue before the city agreed to change the threshold back.

Comments

Study financed by

[Snotnose]

the institute of No Shiat Sherlock. It was always about the revenue, safety was a smokescreen swallowed by the gullible.

Re:Study financed by

[ShanghaiBill]

the institute of No Shiat Sherlock.

It isn't really that obvious. There was an overall 5% increase in injury accidents at the intersections with cameras. But they did not mention the severity of the injuries. T-bone crashes (which were reduced) are likely to result in more severe injuries than rear-end collisions (which were increased). There were other complications: Most of the additional accidents occurred at intersections that were poorly chosen because they previously had few accidents. So it is possible that cameras improved safety at intersections with a history of accidents, and could improve safety overall if they are only installed at those intersections. Another issue is the yellow light duration. Longer yellows leads to fewer accidents, and some cities installing cameras also shorten the yellow light duration to increase revenue. It isn't clear if yellow light duration was decreased in the intersections studied.

The study shows that cameras can increase accidents, but it doesn't show they always increase accidents. If they are used more intelligently, they could be a net benefit.

Re:Study financed by

[BarbaraHudson]

Another issue is the yellow light duration. Longer yellows leads to fewer accidents, and some cities installing cameras also shorten the yellow light duration to increase revenue. It isn't clear if yellow light duration was decreased in the intersections studied.

Actually, it's right in the summary:

[O]fficials recently admitted to the city inspector general that they had quietly dropped the threshold for what constitutes a red light camera ticket, allowing the tickets even when cameras showed a yellow light time just under the three-second federal minimum standard. That shift earlier this year snared 77,000 more drivers and $7.7 million in ticket revenue before the city agreed to change the threshold back.

Re: Study financed by

[BarbaraHudson]

Nope - that's what the city argued, and lost. The judge tossed the tickets.

RIVER NORTH — Some of Chicago's yellow lights are too short, according to an administrative law judge who said he's thrown out "60 to 70 percent" of red-light camera tickets he's come across recently because of the discrepancy.

The city uses the state and federal standard of having yellow lights display for a minimum of three seconds at intersections. But an administrative law judge, who hears appeals from motorists ticketed by red-light cameras, said during a hearing this week that he has seen evidence that yellow times are slightly beneath that at some Chicago intersections with red-light cameras.

Over the objections of the city, Fagel was allowed to present his video evidence on two of the red-light tickets that he said showed yellow light times slightly under three seconds.

Judge Robert Sussman dismissed the two red-light camera tickets and then surprised the hearing room by saying the Department of Administrative Hearings was seeing a large volume of red-light camera violations that listed a yellow light time of under three seconds.

"We're having a big problem with these yellow lights," Sussman said. "Sixty to 70 percent are coming up under three seconds."

Sussman said he has routinely thrown out any ticket for which documentation shows the yellow light lasted less than three full seconds. And he said he will continue to do so until the timing is fixed.

Re:Study financed by

[rtb61]

What they are saying is there is a link between having fines as a percentage of income and having those fines actually have some real impact. Obviously the idea of a $100 fine to someone earning a million dollars a year is much like expecting a $1 fine having an impact on someone earning $10,000 per year. So for real impact and to reduce the number of motor vehicle impacts fines need to be a percentage of annual income so as to have a fair and equal impact on all people breaking the law.

Old news.

[Karmashock]

We had them installed in Los Angeles despite no one wanting them outside of the city council.

They then installed them in places that didn't actually have accidents such as busy though safe intersections.

The result was actually an increase in accidents because everyone had to start driving dangerously to avoid the cameras.

This was brought to the attention of the city council and they basically ignored it. The accidents were higher. People were unhappy with them. We had one christmas where some group of people wearing santa outfits put big colorfully wrapped cardboard boxes over the speed cameras that said "merry christmas". No one liked these things.

Then after the systems had been in place for awhile and they did a finacial audit... they found the cameras weren't actually making any money because most of the tickets were getting thrown out of court by judges that also didn't like them.

THEN the city council took them down... roughly about a week after that was revealed the cameras were disconnected or gone.

Which really highlights from several angles what this was always about.

Money.

Safety has nothing to do with it. Nothing what so ever. It was money - period. That is all these things are about or have ever been about. Cash. End of story.

Re:Old news.

[ArsonSmith]

Actually yes they did, due to the extra threat of photos people are more likely to slam on the brakes at the last second when it would be safer to continue through the intersection.

Re:Old news.

[jtownatpunk.net]

They did if they were expecting a standard yellow light, then it changed red in 2.5 seconds instead of the federal minimum of 3 seconds and slammed on the brakes to avoid running the red light. And 3 seconds is the minimum. It needs to be even longer on fast roads.

Generally, the yellow light should last a bit more than 1 second per 10 miles per hour. A 45mph road should have a yellow light that lasts about 5 seconds. But it's not required to be 5 seconds. It can be as low as 3 seconds. And many cities got caught going below even that minimum requirement at intersections with cameras. So people who drive that road know they have to stop fast on a yellow even if they can't do it safely. They have to balance the will get a ticket or might get rear ended.

Re:Old news.

[Opportunist]

Ticket: I have to pay.
Rear ended: His insurance will pay for it.

The choice is obvious. Fuck safety.

Details matter

[overshoot]

The original red-light camera trial was in Scottsdale Arizona. The city farmed out the study to a university research group, and the cameras were installed at a random selection of the worst red-light-accident [1] intersections. The trial was publicized and ran for several years. The timing of the lights was not changed.

The conclusion of the trial was that the cameras reduced both accidents and injuries. Scottsdale then ran the cameras for years with general public approval, in part because the city has some pretty rational traffic ordinances (like raising the speed limit if most people are going faster anyway) and an open set of books on the program.

The cities that treat red-light violations as a revenue source and especially those that cut yellow times to increase red violations have only themselves to blame for poisoning public opinion. If anything, cameras should be paired with longer yellow times.

Scottsdale is strange that way. They also did studies that showed that traffic flows better and reduces accidents by having left turn after green rather than before. Those results have been mostly ignored by other cities.

PS: I've seen some of the footage from the cameras, by the way -- one truly amazing one of a guy who totally spaced and drove right through an intersection well after cross-traffic was flowing but amazingly managed to miss all of it. Hard to believe.

[1] Skip the joke. It's ancient.

Your reasoning is:

[FatLittleMonkey]

People have been trying to make driving safer.

Driving is now safer.

Laws to make driving safer were therefore hysterical and stupid.

Re:Tailgaters cause rear end crashes

[fustakrakich]

Nope, the tailgater is always wrong, without exception. You keep a safe distance and you won't hit anything, simple law of physics. I do have the right to avoid blowing the light. If you rear end me, screw you. You were too damn close or driving too fast! I am not responsible for the people behind me in any way. I always do my best to allow them to pass if they are so inclined. You don't have to like it. Just accept it and move along.