Supporters of red light cameras say…

• According to the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), drivers who run red lights account for 22% of all traffic accidents in the United States.
• An IIHS study in Oxnard, California showed that red light running violations dropped 42% after red light cameras was introduced. A similar study in Fairfax, Virginia showed violations declined 40% after one year after.
• Publicity of red light cameras deters violations.
• Red light cameras don’t have biases and therefore drivers cannot be unfairly profiled.
• Privacy issues are null because of the public setting. Also, only people violating the law are photographed.
• They make lots of money for cities in need of the revenue.

Those who oppose the use of red light cameras say . . . 

• The owner might not have been driving the car, yet they are mailed owner the ticket.
• Cameras increase other types of accidents, such as rear ending collisions, when people notice the camera and make hasty decisions to avoid ticketing. A Virginia Transportation Research Council study shows an increase of accidents with the installment of red light cameras.
• Longer yellow lights can make intersections much safer, in an easy and inexpensive way (check out the findings of the Texas Transportation Institute)
• There is no standardization of yellow light duration and several cities have been caught shortening them around a red light camera to increase revenue.
• Insurance companies (including IIHS) support red light cameras because more tickets mean they can raise insurance rates
• The accused receive notification weeks after the violation and there are no human witnesses to analyze the whole situation.
  
• They are expensive to operate and service the tickets in our court system.
  
• There are not stands to the fines through the U.S. which range from $50-$400.

Thank you to our friends at Beat The Traffic Blog for putting together this info . . .