By on February 25, 2011

A peer-reviewed article published Wednesday in the Florida Public Health Review elaborated on a previous analysis of methods used in certain red light camera studies. 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 (view study).

“In our original critique, we faulted the research methods used in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) analysis titled Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras,” the USF report stated. “One FHWA official subsequently contacted us to point out that we overlooked an important finding: fatal crashes at red light camera sites had increased, yet were ignored in the related economic analysis.”

Earlier this month, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) generated a significant amount of positive publicity for red light cameras by claiming red light cameras caused a reduction in fatal accidents (view report). The more rigorous FHWA study found that 0.5 percent of angle crashes were fatal in the “before” period without red light cameras. After cameras were installed, the figure grew to 0.8 percent. The FHWA study concluded there was a financial benefit from crash reductions due to the use of cameras, but only because the FHWA chose to exclude fatal accidents from their estimates. USF re-calculated the FHWA numbers including fatalities to find that red light camera use resulted in a net loss of $17,360 per intersection in estimated accident costs, according to the FHWA methodology.

The USF researchers took issue with the design of the FHWA study, but the greatest criticism was reserved for the “unscientific” studies performed by the IIHS and the Cochrane Collaboration. Both of these works drew sweeping conclusions from a simple before and after comparison that did not control for variables such as traffic volume, long-term accident trends and intersection geometry that could affect the results.

“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 (view rigorous studies). “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.”

The USF researchers explained that red light cameras may increase injury accidents because most red light running accidents are the result of unintentional mistakes. For example, a driver is distracted and did not notice that the light was red, causing a collision. The presence of a camera would not have altered the outcome because if the signal itself was missed, it is not likely the camera would be noticed.

“Understanding root causes of red light running crashes (e.g., intentional versus unintentional infractions, driving under the influence, or traffic signal or intersection defects) is necessary to advance remedies that are specific to the problem,” the report stated. “In contrast, red light camera advocates presume red light running crashes occur from willful red light running.”

The report concluded that federal standards should be established to require engineering analysis before the installation of red light cameras. It also recommends full transparency in the reporting of accident data at red light camera locations.

A copy of the analysis is available in a 90k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Update on Red Light Camera Research (Florida Public Health Review, 2/23/2011)

[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

7 Comments on “Report Critiques Red Light Camera Research Methods...”


  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    “In contrast, red light camera advocates presume red light running crashes occur from willful red light running.”

    How true.  Starting from that premise, red light cameras make perfect sense.  But in the real world where most of us live, that is simply not true.  As they say, garbage in, garbage out.

    • 0 avatar
      Some Guy

      “In contrast, red light camera advocates presume red light running crashes occur from willful red light running.”

      Sure, the presumption may not be correct, but if the willful red light runners weren’t there, governments wouldn’t even bother installing the “evil” cameras because there would be 90% less people running red lights in the first place.

    • 0 avatar
      Lumbergh21

      Sure, the presumption may not be correct, but if the willful red light runners weren’t there, governments wouldn’t even bother installing the “evil” cameras because there would be 90% less people running red lights in the first place.

      Huh?  Do you understand what you are saying?  Are you saying that 90% of the people running red lights do so willfully and if it werren’t for those people there would already be 90% fewer people running red lights.  And, as has been pointed out in numerous articles linked to and quoted on this site, it is not uncommon and maybe even common for cities to reduce the length of time that the yellow light is lit in an attempt to increase revenue from red light tickets.

    • 0 avatar
      SimonAlberta

      I honestly believe most red light running IS willful in the sense that people think of the yellow light as nothing more than a warning. In UK I was taught “yellow means STOP!”
       
      If that was the way most people reacted to the yellow then they could mostly stop without running the red but many (I won’t say most but I am tempted to do so based on what I see here in Redneckville, Alberta) take yellow as a challenge to go faster.
       
      Not only that, I am often stunned when I have just scraped through without infringing to look in my mirror and see not one but TWO idiots piling through behind me.
       
      Truly, cameras or no cameras, there is some seriously defective driving going on.
       
      Wise up people!

  • avatar
    dismalscientist

    The red light cameras are a scam. Originally, traffic laws had safety as their goal. Thus, there were certain minimum yellow light durations – the higher the speed limit, the longer they would be.
     
    Cities, insofar as they use these devices, are putting revenues over safety. Red light violations and accidents decline as yellow light durations increase. When a California city increased yellow light duration from 3 seconds to 4, violations declined from 10 to 1.3 per day. These cameras require a dangerously short yellow to make any money – without it, they are unprofitable, and removed shortly thereafter. There is a wealth of information about the flaws of red light cameras and traffic laws in general, how safety and efficiency are decidedly not the guiding principles behind traffic regulations.
     
    Source:http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/31/3110.asp

  • avatar
    Zas

    NO! We need more red light cameras and less yellow times at all intersections so that the municipality that installs them can make up for all the wasteful non-budgetary spending that occurs and all of the ridiculous pay raises that government managers get at the expense of the people like the well won’t run dry!
     
    WE NEED MORE RED LIGHT CAMERAS!!!!! INSTALL THEM NAOOOOO!!!!!!
     
    (escapes from straitjacket)
     
    MORE RED LIGHT CAMERAS!!!!!!!!!!!!! (close-up of watery drippy nostril)


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • scott25: All of these are hilariously unlikely except or maybe the Triton if the new Ranger is successful, but I feel...
  • ScarecrowRepair: You must not be very familiar with CR’s ratings. They do similar things for other first-year...
  • Nick_515: Paging TW5…
  • WheelMcCoy: Good points all. In tight parking lots, or in crowded city traffic, I’ve found the mirrors act like...
  • WheelMcCoy: Dang. Without the rear view mirror, how can I shave while I drive to work?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States