Are red-light cameras good or bad? Do they really save lives? A member of the national organization for motorists, National Motorists Association (NMA), has done a study of red-light cameras and has found some startling results. I have a problem with research done by an organization with a vested interest in the results. You know that I have warned you in the past of "research" done by the IIHS (Institute for Highway Safety) which is an organization funded by the insurance companies. Their research always has results that would maximize the profits of the insurance companies that fund the research. Is that what we have here?

Motorists United is funded by its members. It was originally organized to end the national 55 miles/per hour limit and now is a lobbying organization for drivers in the United States. This organization has strongly disliked speed cameras and red-light cameras right from their beginnings.

Also remember that red-light camera studies that have been seen in the press have been funded by the companies that make the red-light cameras. They are very wealthy and lobby cities and states to get them installed. This is because they don't sell the cameras to the cities, instead they make money from each ticket issued. Usually the company gets 50% of the fine assessed. Most often this ticket is a lot of money, $300 is not uncommon. This also means that red-light cameras are a big profit center for city treasuries. So both the companies and the cities want to make the cameras seem like they are the best thing yet for traffic safety.

The research article asks if red-light camera actually cost lives instead of saving them. This is heresy. Of course they save lives! Well, maybe not, as you will see.

The IIHS states that red-light cameras not only "save lives" but also "significantly reduce" angle crashes and all traffic signal intersection crashes and injuries. Many localized studies such as those performed in North Carolina, Varginia, and Washington D.C. disupte this claim.

By the end of 2000, about 40 cities were operating red-light cameras. That number has grown to over 100 cities today. Analysis of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statistics suggests that ticket cameras actually cause an increase in both injuries and fatalities according to Gregt Mauz, of NMA.

Looking at gross numbers, the following table shows that comparing the time before cameras became widespread (1996-2000) and when they were installed (2001-2005), there was almost no reduction in crashes, and only a small decrease in injury crashes.

	1996-2000	2001-2005	Change
All crashes	6,685,000	6,659,000	-0.4%
Injury crashes	2,432,000	2,329,000	-4.2%

Yes, but these improvements, small as they are, pale in comparison to the overall trend seen in traffic crash injureis in those periods of time as shown below.

1996-2000	2001-2005	Change
16,448,000	14,336,000	-12.8%

This seems to dispute IIHS's claim that installation of cameras would "significantly reduce" all crashes. Of course, one might argue, that crashes were reduced drastically enough at camera-installed intersections to overcome an actual increase of crashes at other intersections.

But, Mr. Mauz maintains, the trend really isn't surprising bcecause red-light camera studies in North Carolina, Arizona, and Australia have all shown increases in crashes and injuries at camera sites, while non-camera intersections experienced decreases. What? That would mean that positive historical safety trends are actually being stymied by the presence and proliferation of ticket cameras.

The next table shows a summary of these studies. During the five years of camera use, there were exactly 412 more fatal crashes than during the five years prior to camera use. Cameras were supposed to "significantly reduce" all traffic-signal-related injuries and fatalities. It doesn't look like the reduction was very "significant".

1996-2000 (Pre-RLCs)	2001-2005 (Post-RLCs)	Change
14,149	14,561	+2.9%

Specific data is available from the NHTSA for years up to 2002. No confirmed data is available for more recent years. The following table shows data for specific intersections with red-light cameras.

No RLCs	1996	1999	Change
Fatalities	1066	947	-11.2%
RLCs in Use	1999	2002	Change
Fatalities	947	921	-2.7%
Mixed	1996-1999	2000-2002	Change
Avg. Fatalities	1014	5 921	-9.2%

As a control, Mr. Mauz picked Florida which has no RLCs and ranks third in licensed drivers in the U.S., vehicles miles traveled, and traffic fatalities. Florida has over ten percent of the nation's red-light violation fatalities and had no red-light cameras until 2006.

No RLCs	1996	1999	Change
Fatalities	121	119	-0.2%
No RLCs	1999	2002	Change
Fatalities	119	99	-16.8%
No RLCs	1996-1999	2000-2002	Change
Avg. Fatalities	125.5	102.6	-18.3%

The charts show that before red-light camera began to be installed, 1996-1999, national red-light violation fatalities dropped 11.2 percent. After red-light cameras were installed, fatalities dropped by another 2.7 percent. But comparing that to Florida, where there were no red-light cameras, there was a drop of 18.3 percent, nearly twice the national reduction of red-light violation fatalities. In fact, if Florida were excluded from the national red-light violation fatality statistics, there would have been an increase in fatalities, instead of a decrease. Oops.

Another factor in the issue of red-light camera accidents is the fact that red-light cameras consistently cause an increase of rear-end collisions. Maurice Hannigan, vice president of ticket camera manufacturer Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), not-so cleverly describes these accidents as a little "bump" in the rear.

Unlike the rosy picture of red-light cameras presented in the media, red-light cameras increase rear-end collisions significantly. Research at camera sites has shown increases from 70 to even 180 percent. This has happened at a time which many non-red-light-camera intersections recorded declines in rear-end collisions.

An even more dire picture is shown in the following table of rear-end collision fatalities -- hardly a "little 'bump' in the rear". Rear-end collision fatalities increased to 908 (+12 percent) in the five-year time after installing red-light cameras.

1996-2000 Pre-RLCs	2001-2005 Post-RLCs	Change
8179	9159	+12%

It is even more disturbing that angle crashes (i.e. side-impact crashes) have also increased since red-light cameras were installed. These are the more serious crashes that camera proponents say that the devices prevent. Note that most of the angle crashes are do not happen as part of a red-light violation, the statistics show that there was a 10 percent increase in fatalities after the cameras were installed.

1996-2000 Pre-RLCs	2001-2005 Post RLCs	Change
22,555	25,001	+10.9%

It is pretty clear from these statistics that red-light cameras don't do what their proponents say they do. One might also argue that the cameras are violating American's rights like due process and the right to face your accuser too. They are very effective at filling the pockets of the manufacturers and city treasuries with money. They do not save lives in the process. Mr. Mauz maintains that these statistics show that more than 500 people died from the exact kind of accidents that red-light cameras are supposed to prevent.