Illustration by Danny Elchert
What’s wrong with this picture?
In the District of Columbia, a five-year study by The Washington Post published in 2005 concluded that the number of crashes at locations with red-light traffic cameras more than doubled, along with an 81 percent increase in injury and fatal crashes. The paper had championed the initial installation of the cameras.
In Greensboro, N.C., the cameras were associated with a 40 percent increase in accident rates and possible injury crashes, according to a 2004 study covering 57 months of data by the Urban Transit Institute of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University.
In Virginia, cameras were associated with a 27 percent increase in rear-end crashes and a 12 percent increase in total crashes, according to a five-city, seven-year study produced by the Virginia Transportation Research Council in 2007.
Researchers at the University of South Florida reported last year in the Florida Public Health Review that “the rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work. Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections.”
The Florida researchers were sharply critical of “research design flaws” in other studies used to support the cameras, which they analyzed in great detail. They accused the insurance industry of biasing results through its Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and suggested that the institute’s studies were uniformly inferior in methodology to studies that concluded the cameras were unsafe.
“Cities, counties, and the state should be very cautious in using traffic-safety information from the automobile insurance industry. Insurance financial goals are to increase their revenues and profits, which do not necessarily include reducing traffic crashes, injuries, or fatalities,” the report stated.
Those are strong words, and whether one agrees with the report’s boldly stated skepticism of the insurance industry, this much is undeniable: Almost no one else is questioning the basic assumption that red-light cameras are all about safety.
Maybe it’s time that happened.
Camera advocates insist that the devices save lives by discouraging motorists from running red lights. The second half of that statement seems quite likely: It seems obvious that the presence of well-marked cameras will deter motorists from blowing through intersections.
But a similar common-sense test ought to pose this question: How many drivers react to the cameras with the motoring technique known as the slamming of the brakes? The independent studies suggest that the number is unacceptably high.
Even the pro-camera side seems to concede the point to some degree. In 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that rear-end collisions increased by 8 percent at intersections with cameras, a figure that was said to be offset by a 28 percent decrease in right-angle collisions (a.k.a. T-bones).
Strangely, the NHTSA supports the cameras as “a very effective countermeasure to prevent red-light running.” Presumably, the agency sees the trade-off between the dueling types of crashes as somehow mitigating its own conclusion that rear-enders increased where cameras were present.
Tell that to the participants in rear-enders.
In 2003, the same NHTSA had recommended a whole series of effective engineering steps to counter red-light running, including longer yellow-light intervals and the use of a brief all–red light clearance interval in which traffic is stopped in all directions to clear an intersection.
Any number of initiatives might make intersections safer, such as removing nearby street parking that can reduce drivers’ vision as they approach. There are digital counters that advise motorists of how much time they have before lights will change. There are larger signal heads. There are lots of good ideas this side of the cameras.
What if the decrease in right-angle crashes could be achieved with a greater investment in better engineering, rather than the cash-cow approach of red-light cameras? And just as important, why isn’t serious consideration being given to the substantial body of evidence about the dangers the cameras pose?
There appears to be one answer to those two questions: money.
Lots of money.
Our own St. Peters got a few minutes of national fame in March in an MSNBC report. It stated that from January 2007 to September 2008, red-light cameras resulted in 3,203 tickets and a total of $235,973. Yikes. Imagine what larger cities are reaping.
The network also reported that the nation’s largest red-light camera company, Redflex Traffic Systems of Scottsdale, Ariz. (which installed 10 of the approximately 140 cameras currently operating in the St. Louis metropolitan area), earned $10.6 million in after-tax profits in 2008. The company added 79 cities last year—so this isn’t likely to be ending anytime soon.
MSNBC’s report didn’t speculate as to how many of those cities had seriously studied the possibility that red-light cameras could produce tragedies as a nasty little side effect of all that money. But if the recent example of San Carlos, Calif., is any guide, one suspects that would be none.
Less than three months ago, the city of San Carlos was ordered to refund or cancel 411 tickets totaling $156,591 after it was caught violating the federal minimum of 3 seconds for a yellow signal at some of its red-light camera intersections. This was at least the fourth time a California city has had to refund hundreds of tickets for the same reason: It has also happened in Costa Mesa, East L.A., and San Diego.
And those are just the ones that got caught.
Common sense would suggest that shorter yellow lights mean more red-light running and thus more serious accidents. How concerned were those four California cities about safety when they—or their compensated-by-the-ticket red-light vendors—“inadvertently” made the same “mistake” of illegally shortening yellow-light timing?
One can only wonder how many other cities have yet to be caught doing the same thing.
Stories like these make it seem pretty comical to hear politicians offer the standard mantra that red-light cameras are all about safety and that their particular local government isn’t in it for the money. Indeed, they’re universally downright indignant, right off the industry talking points, when it’s suggested that a fiscal motive might be involved.
But it was pretty telling last year when the city of Dallas, Texas, idled more than one-fourth of its 62 red-light cameras because they weren’t generating enough red-light fines to cover their costs. If one assumes the cameras were there to promote safety, wouldn’t operating at a deficit be worthwhile if the cameras were “working” so well that citizens were obeying the law?
Consider that one bluff called.
Sure, municipal governments install red-light cameras to make their citizens safer. And bank robbers rob banks for the adrenaline high.
If governments, presumably representing the people, can be so disgustingly callous in the name of raising revenue off these cameras, do you think it’s far-fetched to think that private companies paid by the ticket to administer the cameras won’t do everything they can to increase red-light violations (thus decreasing safety)?
As to the suspicions of the University of South Florida researchers that the insurance companies are motivated by something other than human kindness here, one question cries out for an answer: Why has the IIHS been silent about the increase in rear-end crashes attributed to the red-light cameras?
It should be noted that nothing has been written here to advance the traditional arguments against red-light cameras. This diatribe isn’t about Big Brother, or due process, or constitutionality, or the potential for inaccuracy, or the special treatment given politicians for the tickets they receive, or any of the rest.
No, this one’s about safety.
With apologies to all those municipal number-crunchers out there, it’s really all that should matter.
A co-owner of St. Louis Magazine, Ray Hartmann is a panelist on KETC Channel 9’s Donnybrook, which airs Thursdays at 7 p.m.
[SIDEBAR]
Red-Light Districts
In St. Louis and surrounding counties, there are already some 140 red-light cameras watching you speed up or slam on the brakes. Those deemed offenders are mailed a ticket ($100 in the city), along with a snapshot of their car in motion. Below, a list of municipalities with at least one camera clicking.
St. Louis City
Cameras at 51 intersections
St. Louis County
Bel-Nor
Bellerive Acres
Beverly Hills
Brentwood
Bridgeton
Calverton Park
Clayton
Country Club Hills
Creve Coeur
Dellwood
Edmundson
Ellisville
Florissant
Hazelwood
Moline Acres
Northwoods
Oak Grove
Richmond Heights
St. Ann
St. John
Sugar Creek
Webster Groves
Metro East
Granite City
Cahokia
St. Charles County
St. Peters
Wentzville
Jefferson County
Arnold*
Franklin County
Washington
* Arnold was the first city in Missouri to install red-light cameras, back in November 2005. A lawsuit against the City of Arnold has yet to be decided (the plaintiffs call the cameras a form of extortion).
