A Ban I Actually Support
That would be a ban on red light cameras, which was recently proposed in the Missouri Senate. Although I am not a fan of most rules, I have no problem with the fair enforcement of effective traffic laws. The problem is that red light cameras are not effective in preventing accidents — quite the opposite — and only serve as revenue streams for the cities that install them.
A 2008 study published in the Florida Public Health Review surveyed the literature on red light cameras and found that they actually increased the number of accidents at red light intersections. Here are some of the study’s key findings:
• Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs.
• Some studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained major “research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras. Insurers can profit from red-light cameras, since their revenues will increase when higher premiums are charged due to the crash and citation increase, the researchers say.
Langland-Orban said the findings have been known for some time. She cites a 2001 paper by the Office of the Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, reporting that red-light cameras are “a hidden tax levied on motorists.” The report concluded cameras are associated with increased crashes, the timings at yellow lights are often set too short to increase tickets for red-light running, and most research concluding cameras are effective was conducted by one researcher from the IIHS. Since then, studies independent of the automobile insurance industry continue to find cameras are associated with large increases in crashes.
In the two years since the study was published, there have been numerous reports of cities shortening the length of yellow lights at intersections, which leads to even more accidents, purely in the name of generating more revenue from tickets. If the evidence showed that red light cameras made the roads safer, I would not complain, but they simply encourage cash-strapped city governments to deliberately make them less safe, so they can rake in some much-needed revenue. That’s an unacceptable set of incentives, and Missouri should put a stop to it.
Full disclosure: I did just get a ticket from the city of Saint Louis for running a red light equipped with a camera. I didn’t actually run the light, but a rolling right turn is apparently also illegal.
This seems like a false choice. The most direct cause of the increased accidents is not the red light cameras themselves, but the decreased time length of the yellow lights (according to the research you cited). The obviously better alternative would be simply to increase the time length of yellow lights.
Comment by Andrew Hanson — March 20, 2010 @ 11:21 a.m.
Read the first link. The lead researcher attributes most of the wrecks to people slamming on their brakes in the middle of the intersection to avoid getting a ticket. Furthermore, having the cameras and increasing the length of yellow lights is probably not a relevant option because once the cameras are in place, the temptation to use them as a revenue stream is probably too strong to resist.
Comment by John Payne — March 20, 2010 @ 11:56 a.m.
Slamming on the breaks in the middle of the intersection makes no rational sense. It’s like posing for the camera while it takes a snapshot.
I was initially confused by your post and the studies you cite because they seem so counterintuitive. It seems like to most obvious incentive would be to be more cautious at intersections. Having recently moved from Wisconsin (where there are no red light cameras) to Missouri, my behavior has certainly changed in such a manner. But I suppose the incentive story could work the way you’re suggesting. To test this, I did an informal Google Scholar search of “red light cameras” and looked at the first 3 pages of citations.
The majority found that red light cameras reduced traffic accidents, especially right angle crashes. However, there were also a few that suggested the opposite, similar to the study you cited. I don’t know enough to suggest the evidence is conclusive in one direction or another, but one study probably isn’t enough to base one’s policy prescriptions on.
On the second point, suggesting that it’s not a relevant option because it’s just too tempting is a non-starter. I could similarly argue that simply banning the cameras is not a relevant option because “the temptation to use them as a revenue stream is probably too strong to resist.” Both are viable options, but if the real cause of the increased accidents is shorter yellow lights, then it would be good sense to eliminate that, while still reaping the alleged benefits of red light cameras.
Comment by Andrew Hanson — March 20, 2010 @ 5:13 p.m.
The study I cited is a meta-study that looks at numerous studies to draw its conclusions, which actually makes it ideal for drawing policy conclusions.
Furthermore, while I suppose it is possible to have red-light cameras and not just use them as a cash cow, once a city installs them–even if for purely safety purposes–the city begins to rely on the revenue, making it extremely difficult to keep them from using the cameras improperly.
Comment by John Payne — March 22, 2010 @ 3:54 p.m.
“Insurers can profit from red-light cameras, since their revenues will increase when higher premiums are charged due to the crash and citation increase, the researchers say.”
This does not make sense. Crashes mean insurers pay out. The ideal scenario from insurers perspective is to have people paying premiums and never crash, then the insurers are getting money for nothing.
If the argument is that they increase rates due to crashes, disproportionate to the cost of the crash, then that is no different from just arbitrarily raising rates at any point, whether crashes are increasing or decreasing.
Comment by vroman — March 24, 2010 @ 6:08 p.m.