The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a new study today, showing the installation of red light cameras, although controversial, has reduced fatalities by 35 percent in 14 of the largest cities in the United States. Deadly intersection crashes fell in other cities with traditional enforcement, but only by 14 percent. The study also stated that by having tradition police surveillance, the officer would have to chase the vehicle that ran the red light, putting his or her life in danger, as well as other vehicles. The article states that red light cameras are more cost effective than having a police officer at every traffic light intersection and those who are willing to break the law should shoulder the burden of the cost of enforcement. The researcher’s analysis also highlighted a trickle-down effect of fewer fatal accidents in the red light camera cities even at other intersections without cameras installed.
In spite of the extensive media attention given to the installation of the cameras, red light running killed 676 people and injured an estimated 113,000 in the United States in 2009.
Comments 1
Great post. Curious – what do you think about their legality as they put the burden of proof on the defendent and not the State? In Ohio, if you crash one of these intersections the owner of the car must come to Court and prove he/she wasn’t driving the vehicle when it passed the intersection. And in Ohio it’s illegal for the Court to use images of the driver – they can only use images of the license plate during proceedings. Because of this it’s really hard for the defendent to “prove” he/she wasn’t driving. I’m curious as to what your thoughts are.