Post by NZMSCWhat sort of accidents increased, Ben?
Did the number of mid-junction crashes reduce?
Did the placement of cameras have any effect on the injury
and seriousness of injury rate in those intersections.?
If you could post it, I'd be grateful as it would be useful
for me in my consideration of this matter as we have red
light cameras here, too.
Sure.
See: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-vdot.pdf
See: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/95aussie.pdf
See: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/burkeyobeng.pdf
Excerpts, comments, related stories:
Thursday, January 27, 2005
All Virginia red light camera studies show increased injury accidents
More bad news for friends of Big Brother -- their precious red light
cameras that were supposed to generate so much revenue also turn out to
generate more accidents. Via Instapundit, quoting TheNewswpaper.com
A brand new, exhaustive study of all seven Virginia red light camera
programs shows an overall increase in injury accidents has occured
where the devices are installed. The study was performed by The
Virginia Transportation Research Council at the request of the state
transportation secretary. The report also notes a fatal flaw in the
Virginia's camera law -- motorists can ignore any ticket received in
the mail. Only tickets that are personally served matter (the same
thing happened in Arizona).
Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the
researchers found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only
a "possible" decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net
effect was that more injuries happened after cameras are installed.
Camera proponents explain this away by asserting angle accidents are
more serious, but this claim has not been scientifically studied
according to this report. The rear end collisions caused by the cameras
still produce injuries -- the original promise of camera proponents was
that they would reduce accidents and injuries, not rearrange them.
This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North
Carolina.
The New York Times reported similar findings earlier this month. In
Texas, the Houston City Council recently voted to install red light
cameras at 50 locations citywide and start issuing tickets, but
Houston-area legislator Gary Elkins has filed legislation to forbid the
practice statewide. Grits posted here about potential privacy concerns
with the proliferation of cameras combined with Texas DPS' proposed
database of biometric "facial recognition" data.
Virginia DOT Study Shows Cameras Increase Injury Accidents
The Virginia Transportation Research Council studied all of the state
red light camera programs and found an overall increase in injury
accidents.
A brand new, exhaustive study of all seven Virginia red light camera
programs shows an overall increase in injury accidents has occurred
where the devices are installed. The study was performed by The
Virginia Transportation Research Council at the request of the state
transportation secretary. The report also notes a fatal flaw in the
Virginia's camera law -- motorists can ignore any ticket received in
the mail. Only tickets that are personally served matter (the same
thing happened in Arizona).
Despite a distinct sympathy in favor of camera enforcement, the
researchers found a "definite" increase in rear-end accidents and only
a "possible" decrease in angle accidents. Most importantly, the net
effect was that more injuries happened after cameras are installed.
Camera proponents explain this away by asserting angle accidents are
more serious, but this claim has not been scientifically studied
according to this report. The rear end collisions caused by the cameras
still produce injuries -- the original promise of camera proponents was
that they would reduce accidents and injuries, not rearrange them.
This study agrees with long-term findings in Australia and North
Carolina.
1.7mb PDF format (See above link)
Key Statistic:
Further analysis indicated that the cameras are contributing to a
definite increase in rear-end crashes, a possible decrease in angle
crashes, a net decrease in injury crashes attributable to red light
running, and an increase in total injury crashes. Page xiii
Summary of Empirical Bayes Method (Level 4 Analysis)
[Editor's note: only Fairfax County data reflects the most rigorous
analysis. Other cities did not provide volume, yellow time, and data on
other key factors.] The latter half of Appendix D shows the results of
an Empirical Bayes analysis for Fairfax County crash data only. These
results suggest the following:
The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to
17%.
The cameras are correlated with an increase in rear-end crashes related
to the presence of a red light; the increase ranges between 50% and
71%.
The cameras are correlated with a decrease in crashes attributable to
red light running, and the decrease is between 24% and 33%.
The cameras are correlated with a decrease in injury crashes
attributable to red light running, with the decrease being between 20%
and 33%.
The cameras are correlated with an increase in total injury crashes,
with the increase being between 7% and 24%.
But it obscures the fact that only a small percentage of crashes are
attributable to red light running. Data from Virginia's Department of
Motor Vehicles, for example, suggested that in 1998 (a year when no red
light cameras were in operation), only 3.3% of all crashes involved a
driver who "ran traffic control" (DMV, 1999).
Article Excerpt:
There is a practical issue with regard to issuing citations for red
light running: the Code of Virginia requires that an in-person summons,
rather than certified mail, be used to compel an individual to appear
in court. Because of the high cost of delivering summonses outside
Virginia, this requirement could make the programs administratively
difficult for some localities if it became commonly known that only an
in-person summons can require a vehicle owner either to pay the penalty
or to appear in court. However, the program can still legally continue
in its present form without a change in the Code. Page xii
A Fairfax County assessment showed a 40% reduction in accidents after 3
months of camera operation (Ruby and Hobeika, 2003). A limitation of
the study, however, was that it covered only a 3-month period. Further,
the study did not account for the changes in the yellow time while the
impact of the cameras was examined. Page 13
The one surviving legal worry actually turns out to be a practical
problem, generated by the interaction of the notice provisions in the
enabling statute and the Commonwealth's other service requirements.
Because the mere mailing of a ticket without personal service by a law
enforcement officer does not constitute sufficient notice under the
statute's own terms, successful enforcement may require personal
in-hand service if the accused fails to either pay the penalty or come
to court. Although the statute permits the jurisdiction to make the
initial attempt to summon the accused to court via mail, if the person
fails to respond, he or she is not considered to have been
satisfactorily served with notice. However, personal service on all
violators is obviously a very expensive proposition, involving many
personnel hours, and would defeat one of the primary motivating factors
for employing automated detection systems in the first place-a
reduction in the number of officers required to enforce red light laws.
Thus, unless a jurisdiction is willing to devote resources to
implementing extensive in-hand service, citations mailed for red light
camera violations become essentially unenforceable. The average citizen
is probably not aware of this loophole, but if word were widely
disseminated, such knowledge could completely undermine the
effectiveness of red light camera programs, as citations issued to
violators would lose their practical impact. Again, this is a
practical, but not legal, challenge.
Australian Study of Red Light Cameras (Andreassen)
An exhaustive ten-year study of the effect of red light cameras on
accident rates in Australia.
The most complete study of the correlation of accidents and the use of
red light cameras. It closely examined every accident report filed over
a ten year period (including several years before and after cameras
were installed). It found the cameras provided no benefit.
2.4mb PDF File (See above link)
Article Excerpt:
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.
Burkey-Obeng Red Light Camera Study
The most extensive U.S. study of the relation of accidents and red
light camera usage.
Researchers at the North Carolina Urban Transit Insitute were
unsatisfied with the overly simplistic methods used in prior insurance
industry funded studies of the effects of red light cameras on
accidents. So they conducted a U.S. Dept. of Transportation funded
study that looked at a 57-month period and accounted for dozens of
variables such as weather and traffic ignored in previous studies. All
told, 17,271 observations went into their conclusions.
Their own summary says it best: "The results do not support the view
that red light cameras reduce crashes. Instead, we find that RLCs are
associated with higher levels of many types and severity categories of
crashes."
Complete study in 366k PDF file. (See above link)
Key Statistic:
[Rear End Accidents] However, in the before/after table (Table 4.2),
the raw data show approximately a 10 percent increase at the RLC sites.
This difference alone accounts for roughly a 35 percent difference
attributable to the RLC placement.
[Total Crashes] The model is estimating that, had an RLC not been
placed at a particular intersection, we may have seen a 42% decrease in
the accident rate at that intersection (if we could hold all other
factors constant). Similar to what was seen in the raw data in Section
4, the sites with RLCs are not experiencing the decreasing trend in
accidents seen elsewhere. Additionally, the other characteristics of
intersections with RLCs are not explaining the difference in accident
rates.
Article Excerpt:
The results do not support the conventional wisdom expressed in recent
literature and popular press that red light cameras reduce
accidents.... 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. We did find a
decrease in accidents involving a vehicle turning left and a vehicle on
the same roadway, which may have been included as an angle accident in
some other studies. However, given that these left turn accidents occur
only one third as often as angle accidents, and the fact that we find
no benefit from decreasing severity of accidents suggests that there
has been no demonstrable benefit from the RLC program in terms of
safety. In many ways, the evidence points toward the installation of
RLCs as a detriment to safety.
Source: A DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF CRASH RISK REDUCTION (Urban Transit
Institute, North Carolina A-T University, 7/1/2004)
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Red light cameras cause rear-end accidents
The New York Times ran an article on the hot-button topic of red light
cameras today, as the Texas Legislature gears up to address the issue
in its 79th session. Here's some interesting highlights:
Cameras ... are now in use [at red lights] in more than 100 American
cities. Activated by road sensors when a car enters an intersection
belatedly, the systems provide evidence of a violation, including
photos of the license plate and in some cases, the driver.
While Baltimore reports that violations for running red lights have
gone down 60 percent at the 47 intersections with such cameras, several
studies in recent years - in places like San Diego, Charlotte, N.C.,
and Australia - have offered a fuzzier picture. The studies have shown
that the reduction in side-angle collisions at the intersections has
been wholly or largely offset by an increase in rear-end accidents like
Ms. Correa's.
In addition, there has been criticism of the cameras' use to generate
revenue from fines - in some cases exceeding $300 per violation, with
points on a driver's record - and of revenue-sharing arrangements with
providers of the technology. Those arrangements, critics contend, have
led to the placement of cameras not necessarily where they would best
promote safety, but where they will rack up the most violations. Those
questions, along with malfunctions and legal challenges, have led some
local governments to remove the cameras. ...
Studies elsewhere ... made a striking finding: rear-end accidents have
shot up at intersections with cameras. In 2002 a consultant's study in
San Diego reported that the number of crashes at camera intersections
had increased by 3 percent after the cameras were installed, almost all
of it a result of a 37 percent increase in rear-endings. "This finding
is not consistent with the program's overall objective of improving
traffic safety," the report's authors concluded.
Other reserachers thought the rear end crashes were safer than crashes
in the intersection because the cars were moving slower, but at best
these statistics are muddy. They certainly don't confirm claims of
grandiose improvements in traffic safety made in Houston.