- 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 were 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 revenue.
Those who oppose the use of red-light cameras say . . .
- The owner might not have been driving the car, yet they are mailed the owner of 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 in 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 . . .