TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents, USF Study Says
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: March 12, 2008
Related Links
TAMPA - Cameras at intersections increase, not decrease, accidents, according to a University of South Florida study published the day after Hillsborough County commissioners voted to allow the cameras at 10 intersections.
The university's yearlong review, published Friday in the campus journal Florida Public Health Review, warns that drivers are at higher risk of having accidents at intersections where cameras are installed.
"People see a yellow light and normally they would drive through it, but at camera intersections they do the quick stop. They slam on the brakes and that means everybody else behind them slams on the brakes," said Barbara Langland-Orban, one of three co-authors of the study and an associate professor in USF's Department of Health Policy and Management.
USF examined five red-light camera studies. It concluded that two were flawed and found that the other three drew the same basic conclusion about cameras at intersections.
"Overall, they have been found to increase crashes and injuries," Langland-Orban said.
She pointed to a seven-year study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council that showed crashes at intersections with the cameras increased 29 percent.
Another study, by the Urban Transit Institute at North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University, looked at almost five years' worth of data. The study concluded that accident rates increased 40 percent at intersections with cameras; injury crashes rose between 40 percent and 50 percent.
The USF review contradicts other studies showing a decline in wrecks, including a report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that is frequently cited by camera advocates.
USF's study came out only a day after commissioners voted Thursday to allow the sheriff's office to negotiate with a company to install cameras at 10 intersections.
The study's release was a quirk of timing and had nothing to do with the county commissioners, Langland-Orban said. "We've been working on this for a year."
Commission chairman Ken Hagan said he would have liked to have seen the USF review before Thursday's vote, although he wasn't sure that would have changed the outcome.
"There's a reason hundreds of jurisdictions across the country ... are installing these cameras," he said. "This ordinance is strongly supported by the sheriff's office, and the evidence that we've looked at, essentially from various cities, showed a drastic decline in collisions and fatalities."
Col. Greg Brown, head of the sheriff's patrol division, said studies he has examined showed a decline in serious collisions, even though others contradict those findings. He had not seen the USF study but added that he had not seen any studies that showed an increase in "right-angle collisions," which tend to inflict the most serious injuries.
"We're going ahead with the program," he said.
Sheriff's deputies will monitor the cameras, and Hagan said that the ordinance could be amended or rescinded if the cameras appeared to cause more accidents than they prevented.
Under the ordinance, which commissioners passed unanimously, a company will install and operate the cameras, which photograph cars as they go through red lights.
Tickets will be mailed to the owner of the vehicle, who can appeal the $125 fine in court. The violations are civil infractions and don't add points to a driver's record.
The USF study shows that despite what backers of the cameras say, red-light running is not a growing problem in Florida.
Traffic fatalities from red-light running are not increasing. They averaged 110 per year between 1998 and 2006, accounting for less than 4 percent of Florida's annual traffic fatalities. Injuries from red-light running crashes have steadily decreased during that same period.
Instead of using cameras to catch red-light runners, the study suggests that engineers look at the timing of yellow lights and make sure the signals are visible to motorists.
That will do more to curb accidents than the cameras, which can cause drivers to speed up or slam on the brakes, said Langland-Orban.
"We're focused on healthy people and healthy communities, and we think there needs to be some awareness about the downside of these cameras," she said.
Reporter Rich Shopes can be reached at rshopes@tampatrib.com or (813) 259-7633.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
Reader Comments
Posted by ( DarthRandall ) on March 12, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
So, it's going to worse for us because people will start OBEYING the law???? Oh, that makes sense.... That just goes to show you how bad the problem is, doesn't it? Once people start to remember that in Driver's Ed we were taught to slow down at yellow lights, not speed up, the problem will solve itself. It's not the rear-end collisions I'm worried about, it's the T-bone collisions that happen (and kill more than 100 people a year in Florida) and may kill me or someone I care about that I'm worried about. Those type of accidents will stop, or be seriously curtailed, because of the installation of these cameras.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Duke_D ) on March 12, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
One major problem that will definitely contribute to a multitude of accidents (possibly major ones) at intersections with cameras is trying to avoid running a light when it's raining or on wet roads. Many times I have found myself almost forced to do so to avoid slipping on a wet, oily road or hydroplaning. I believe running a yellow or red light in such circumstances may be more prudent thing to do, given the circumstances at the time.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( mikeshog ) on March 12, 2008 at 9:13 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ( Doofy ) on March 12, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
It's a shame the cameras don't take pictures of the front seat occupants. That would be interesting to have the wives opening the mail and seeing their husbands with other women in the pictures, Woohoo, let the fun begin.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drorb ) on March 12, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The red light cameras have less to do with safety than revenue. The enabling state legislation earmarks a large portion of the fine for the sponser's pet project. In effect it's just another 'sin tax'. Want to reduce accidents? Just increase the yellow time a second or two.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( DarthRandall ) on March 12, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
mikeshog - Have you actually been out on the roads here? I was at two different lights this morning, each time when my light turned green, two cars then ran the lights on red - this is an everyday occurence!!
I don't know if these cameras are the entire answer, but I'd rather try this than do nothing......
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( foofdawg ) on March 12, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
DarthRandall: Mikeshog was obviously being sarcastic; at least I would hope so. I seriously doubt he thinks that people's cell phone conversations are more important than people's lives.
Also, from your first statement, didnt you read this part "Injuries from red-light running crashes have steadily decreased during that same period." That means that less people are being hurt/killed even when involved in red-light crashes.
I have to concur with drorb, the fact of the matter is that the county wants to bring in more revenue, and if they can state that the real purpose is "saving lives" then it's that much easier for them.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( DarthRandall ) on March 12, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
oh, well, foofdawg - you're right. The study shows fatalities are at "110 per year between 1998 and 2006" and there's been no increase, so I guess it's alright to continue to run red lights then.....
It's only a revenue maker if you run a red light, so STOP RUNNING RED LIGHTS! If you don't want to look at it as saving yours, or someone else's life, think about it as a way to save money - It's all you people think about, your wallet.
p.s. - I truly hope mikeshog was being sarcastic, but I'm not placing any bets on it.....
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( FreedomsAdvocate ) on March 18, 2008 at 12:57 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The cause and fix is the yellow light time, that is, if the objective is to reduce accidents. They standards have slowly been changed since 1976 which has reduced the Yellow Light time tremendously.
Just a 0.5 second change can reduce accidents by about 40% in most studies.
The camera's are expensive only increase rearend collisions. There are numerous studies which back that statement up.
Hagan needs to provide some cities to back up his comments, becuase DC and VA both have stopped using them. DC after nearly 10 years and $32 million in tickets, that is.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( DJBSTL ) on July 5, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
In Arnold, Missouri there is a RICO case pending that citizens have filed against ATS that compares this red-light camera activity to extortion. The outcome could affect all of the cameras located in the United States.
Report Inappropriate Comments