Home >

Are live traffic cameras at red light intersections worth it?

June 18, 2012
By: Will Roberts

Live traffic cameras first came into use in the United States in New York City in 1993 as a tool to automate the issuance of red-light violations and, hopefully, decrease collisions. After their introduction to Chicago in 2003, red light cameras quickly grew in popularity and spread across the country. Their presence is extremely controversial, with some public safety advocates highlighting reductions in fatal crashes and others claiming that they are unconstitutional and unnecessary.

Red light traffic surveillance cameras typically operate with a sensor located near the crosswalk embedded in the pavement. Once the light turns red, the sensor gets energized and it triggers the camera when a car moves over it. At that point, the camera shoots both video and still images of the car and its license plate. Some systems also use an always-on camera that serves as a traffic surveillance camera above and beyond simply monitoring the intersection during red lights.

Pros

Traffic cameras have two key advantages. The first is that they reduce some types of accidents at intersections equipped with them. The second is that they can provide additional revenue for some cities and jurisdictions that use them.

Research conducted by the Federal Highway Administration shows that red light cameras reduce the instances of "t-bone" collisions where a car drives into another car's side by 25 percent. These collisions tend to have higher injury rates than rear end collisions. An international study showed a 13 to 29 percent reduction in all types of injury-causing crashes at intersections equipped with red light cameras. Another study conducted in Virginia documented an 8 to 42 percent reduction in crashes related to red light running.

Cameras at intersections can be significant money makers for cities. When the Phoenix suburb of El Mirage, Arizona installed both speed and red-light cameras, they earned over $1.3 million over just a portion of a fiscal year. When the city of Naperville, Illinois allowed their red light camera contract to expire early in 2012, they estimated they would lose $261,000 a year in income.

Cons

Red light cameras have numerous cons. In many cities, they can be money-losers. They also increase certain types of accidents. Finally, the presence of the cameras not only inflames civil libertarians but can even incentivize law enforcement agencies to violate laws in the quest for additional ticket income.

For every city that profits, there are other cities that lose money on their cameras. Escondido, California and Charlotte, North Carolina are two examples of this. Los Angeles' recently disconnected system has been described as a money "sieve." The only reason that Coral Springs, Florida has not lost money on their cameras is that they have a cost-neutral contract. In an attempt to counter this problem, many cities have actually resorted to shortening the length of yellow lights to increase tickets issued by red light cameras. Shortening yellows actually increases collisions, trading safety for revenue.

The FHA study that showed a reduction in "T-bone" crashes also shows that red light cameras actually increase the number of rear-end collisions as people stop short to avoid being caught by the camera. The Virginia study that showed an overall reduction in accidents confirms the dual-edged nature of the cameras by establishing a 27 to 42 percent increase in rear-endings. It also shows that the total cost of accidents increases because of them. This happens because although there are fewer crashes related to red-light running, there are more crashes that come from people stopping short.

Finally, red light cameras are extremely controversial. Organizations like the National Motorists Association and the ACLU have expressed opposition to them for a number of reasons. They infringe on privacy, lead to incorrect citations, and turn law enforcement away from being a public safety function to a revenue collection function. In fact, many cameras that have proven their worth by significantly reducing red-light running and increasing safety have actually gotten removed because, even though they were a positive safety tool, they were no longer effective revenue generators.

Conclusion

While red light cameras have shown some safety benefits, they come at a very high cost. Governments that use them tend to either lose money or anger many of their occupants. This may the reason that many jurisdictions including Albuquerque, Houston and Los Angeles have all removed them, joining the 9 states that have completely banned them. Given the spotty record of these devices, it is likely that the future will bring more opposition to them.

Also See:  [ The benefits and dowsides to CCTV systems ]
[ 2500 year history of biometrics timeline ]
[ Surveillance camera placement guide ]

[ top of page ]

Related Articles

[ top of page ]