- A 2008 University of South Florida report found:
“Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them…. public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety.”
Read a summary
Full copy, 80k pdf
Study author responds to criticisms
- A 2007 Virginia Department of Transportation study found:
“The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes… The aggregate EB results suggested that this increase was 29%… The cameras were associated with an increase in the frequency of injury crashes… The aggregate EB results suggested an 18% increase, although the point estimates for individual jurisdictions were substantially higher (59%, 79%, or 89% increases) or lower (6% increase or a 5% decrease).”
Read a summary
Full copy, 1mb pdf
Study author responds to criticisms
- A 2006 Winnipeg, Canada city audit found:
“The graph shows an increase of 58% in the number of traffic collisions from 2003 to 2004…. Contrary to long-term expectations, the chart shows an increase in claims at each level of damage with the largest percentage increase appearing at the highest dollar value.”
Read a summary
Full copy, 541k pdf
- A 2005 Virginia DOT study found:
“The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%.”
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.7mb pdf
- In 2005, The Washington Post found:
“The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame.”
Read a summary
Full article on the Post website
- A 2004 North Carolina A&T University study found:
“Our findings are more pessimistic, finding no change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections.”
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.7mb pdf
- A 2003 Ontario Ministry of Transportation study found:
“Compared to the average number of reported collisions occurring in the before period, the average yearly number of reported collisions increased 15.1 per cent in the after period.”
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.5mb pdf
- A 1995 Australian Road Research Board study found:
“The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals.”
Read a summary
Full copy, 2.4mb pdf
- A 1995 Monash University (Australia) study found:
“a simple correlation analysis was undertaken for red light running data in the current study and revealed no significant relationship between the frequency of crashes at RLC and non-RLC sites and differences in red light running behaviour.”
Read a summary
Related Reports and Studies
The importance of the yellow warning signal time in reducing the instances of red light running is found in the following reports:
- A 2004 Texas Transportation Institute study found:
“An increase in yellow duration of 1.0 seconds is associated with a of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes.”
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.5mb pdf
- A 2001 report by the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives found:
“The changes in the yellow signal timing regulations have resulted in the inadequate yellow times. And these inadequate yellow times are the likely cause of almost 80 percent of red light entries.”
Full version with summary
- Albuquerque, NM, USA 2010 RLC Study by the University of New Mexico
- California State Auditor, CA, USA 2002 RLC Report by the California State Auditor
- Chicago, IL, USA 2010 RLC Analysis by the University of Illinois at Chicago
- Costa Mesa, CA, USA, 2009 RLC Report by the City of Costa Mesa, California
- Davenport and Council Bluffs, IA, USA 2007 RLC Study by Iowa State University
- Delaware DOT, DE, USA 2007 RLC Study by the Delaware Department of Transportation
- Federal Highway Administration, USA 2005 RLC Study by the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)
- Garland, TX, USA 2006 RLC Report by the City of Garland, Texas
- Grande Prairie, AB, CAN 2009 RLC Report by the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta
- Greensboro, NC, USA 2004 RLC Study by Urban Transit Institute at the North Carolina A&T State University
- Houston, TX, USA 2008 RLC Study by the Rice University Center for Civic Engagement
- Jefferson Parish, LA, USA 2010 RLC Study by Tulane University School of Medicine
- Las Cruces, NM, USA 2010 RLC Report by the City of Las Cruces, New Mexico
- Los Angeles, CA, USA 2010 RLC Audit by the Controller of the City of Los Angeles, California
- Lubbock, TX, USA 2008 RLC Report by the City of Lubbock, Texas City Council
- Modesto, CA, USA 2007 RLC Report by the City of Modesto, California
- Ontario MOT, ON, CAN 2003 RLC Study by Synectics Transportation Consultants Inc.
- Oxnard, CA, USA 2002 RLC Study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
- Philadelphia, PA, USA 2007 RLC Study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
- Phoenix and Scottsdale, AZ, USA 2005 RLC Study by the University of Arizona
- Raleigh, NC, USA 2004 RLC Study by the Institute for Transportation Research and Education North Carolina State University
- Regina, SK, CAN 2006 RLC Study by the City of Regina, Saskatchewan
- San Diego, CA, USA 2002 RLC Study by PB Farradyne
- Seattle, WA, USA, 2007 RLC Report by the City of Seattle, Washington
- Stockton, CA, USA 2007 RLC Report by the City of Stockton, California city auditor
- Temple Terrace, FL, USA 2009 RLC Report by <uncredited>
- Texas DOT, TX, USA 2008 RLC Study by the Texas Transportation Institute of Texas A&M University
- Virginia DOT, VA, USA 2007 RLC Study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council
- Washington DC, USA 2005 RLC Report by the Washington Post
- Winnipeg, MB, CAN 2006 RLC Report by the Winnipeg Audit Department
- more to come...
ABQ http://www.thenewspaper.com/
CA State Auditor http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/
CHI http://www.thenewspaper.com/
COSTA MESA http://www.stpetecameras.org/
IA http://www.intrans.iastate.
DE DOT http://www.deldot.gov/
FHWA 2005 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
GARLAND TX (report unavailable on the web; requested copy of '06 study from this link http://douglasathas.net/blogs/
GRAND PRARIE, AB http://www.thenewspaper.com/
GREENSBORO, NC http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.
HOUSTON http://images.chron.com/
IIHS 2011 http://www.northfieldil.org/
JEFFERSON PARISH (attachment #1)
LAS CRUCES http://las-cruces.granicus.
LOS ANGELES http://controller.lacity.org/
LUBBOCK http://lubbockonline.com/pdfs/
MODOT 2011 http://www.modot.org/about/
MODESTO CA http://www.thenewspaper.com/
ONTARIO CAN http://www.thenewspaper.com/
OXNARD CA http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
PHILADELPHIA PA http://www.
PHOENIX/SCOTTSDALE http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/
RALEIGH NC http://www.thenewspaper.com/
REGINA SK CAN 06 http://www.thenewspaper.com/
SAN DIEGO 2002 http://www.its.uci.edu/its/
SEATTLE 2007 http://www.seattle.gov/police/
STOCKTON 2007 http://www.thenewspaper.com/
TEMPLE TERRACE FL http://www.thenewspaper.com/
TEXAS DOT 2008 http://www.
VA DOT 2007 http://www.virginiadot.org/
DC 2005 http://www.motorists.org/red-
WINNIPEG MB CAN 2006 http://www.thenewspaper.com/