Report Critiques Red Light Camera Research Methods

by The Newspaper

Published: February 25th, 2011

report critiques red light camera research methods

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.

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

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

#Crime&Punishment #Government #Traffic

The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments

Join the conversation

3 of 7 comments

Dismalscientist on Feb 25, 2011

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

Like Reply
- Lumbergh21 on Feb 25, 2011
  
  Oh come on, it's for the children. It's an important safety feature. You aren't against safety are you? (Tongue planted firmly in cheek)
  
  Like
Zas on Feb 26, 2011

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)

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?