The Chicago Tribune is the latest to take a hard look at red light cameras in an in-depth report. The city of Chicago claims they have made intersections safer. The Tribune FOIA’d all of the traffic safety records for every intersection with a red light camera installed in 2006 and 2007. Their statistical compilation shows that at almost every intersection with a red light camera, the opposite is true: accidents have gone up, making the intersections less safe.
Is less safety really what we want?
RLC have always been about revenue, but given this report it would be hard to accept that residents should be purposefully exposed to the danger of more accidents just to make money. Although Commissioner Schnell expressed support for RLC as a revenue generator, it’s doubtful she would support making intersections less safe. Proper intersection design and light timing remain the surest way to make intersections safer, and reduce red light running and the highly dangerous T-bone type collisions.
The fall back argument of supporters has been only law breakers will get tickets, but subjecting law abiding residents to higher accident risk to make that money is a bad bargain. Mayor Sandack has opposed red light cameras on legal grounds for how they trample personal rights, and has resisted bringing them into the budget discussion. That’s become a prescient position given the now overwhelming body of studies, facts and statistics that point to RLC as nothing more than a money grab by pro-profit companies.
Mark, your bias is showing.
You state that the Tribune reports that “at almost every intersection with a red light camera, the opposite is true: accidents have gone up, making the intersections less safe.”
I had read the Tribune article and that didn’t sound right, so I looked again. And here is a quote from the store: “In fact slightly more intersections saw an increase than a decrease, the data show.” (Last sentence, second paragraph, here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-red-light-cameras-22-nov22,0,2590486.story)
So, which is it: “almost all” or “slightly more”?
And again you make the flat out claim that “RLC have ALWAYS (my emphasis) been about the revenue”, which you cannot support. (You might be able to support “mainly” but not “always”.)
I realize that this must be a hot-button issue for you–I didn’t realize that you were such a libertarian–but I have found your reporting on this subject to be MUCH less than objective. Perhaps you should turn this topic over to a real journalist like Elaine, if you are going to continue to show your bias.
Thanks, Bob. I appreciate your comment. I am unabashedly and completely opposed to RLC being touted as safety devices, and have been blogging about it for quite a while, and have no plans to stop. I picked 10 intersections (mostly ones I drive through, so more bias there) and 8 of them have an increase in number of accidents. The IDOT crash statistics also show higher reported accident rates at 87 of the 119 intersections than were reported by the city. There will be a total of 189 RLC intersections in Chicago by years end.
When the original studies (Oxford CA and Iowa) have been exposed as having used selective data that supported a predetermined bias, when every independent, government funded, and international study shows they make intersections less safe, when traffic experts shun the concept in favor of proper engineering…yep my bias is showing.
Ask yourself this; if a red light camera is supposed to prevent deadly accidents, how can that passive device accomplish it’s intended function? By a sign warning there’s a camera? The warning sign is directly tied to the increase in rear-end collisions.
The driver blowing through the intersection towards the T-bone in the making is already ignoring a red light glaring at them. Where is it that the camera reaches out and actively cautions the T-bone victim of their impending collision? Does it sober up the drunk driver that would have been pulled over by a cop on the beat? Does it dry out the rain slicked pavement? Salt the icy road?
This budget cycle the DGPD’s analysis (see Information please, page 7 here) estimates the monetary benefit of RLC to DG: about $122,000/year. Is it worth $122,000 to be the documented cause of less safe intersections? At one time I said yes, have at it, take the money. But in light of the facts that RLC make intersections less safe, I can’t support that anymore.
SB2466 was introduced and sent to committee in October. The bill is sponsored by Dan Duffy (R-26) and Chris Lauzen (R-25) and would repeal the enabling legislation.
PS- Libertarian? They think I’m a godless commie tree-hugger…
Red light cameras are ridiculous. They don’t stop crime. They raise taxes on everyone, sometimes multiple times. They are Orwellian.
Other studies nationally have shown that crash statistics rise at intersections with cameras. Why? Motorists facing yellow lights slam their brakes suddenly to avoid a costly ticket…more rear-end crashes.
The FHA data says that rear-end crashes go up by 15% at RCL intersections.
Even more offensive than those numbers, is the elimination of our due process rights by “streamlining” the tax collection.
I was at Cass and Maple around 9:30 last night. 2 people ahead of me blew the right hand turn northbound and then one flat out blew the red southbound. The camera took so many pics it was like 4th of July – My first thought was out of towners, but maybe it was just that people do not read signs or even care. Westmont made a few dollars last night at that intersection.
So how does having Red light Cams help stop red light offenders Kelly? Just askin? You just proved how they are not deterrents. Are you in favor of RLC’s?
I am in favor of them for the revenue they generate, but I do not believe they deter accidents. The person who is going to T-bone you is probably a scoff law with no valid lic or ins. Now they may hit a “bad” driver where it hurts..$$$$, but anyone who has been to traffic court knows that worse actions recieve fines, pay 1/3 and go on thier merry way with thier open containers right in the cup holders and thier weapons in the glovebox.