D.C. Red Light Cameras Ineffective OR WORSE (except for making money) - New Study

D.C. Red-Light Cameras Fail to Reduce Accidents
By Del Quentin Wilber and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 4, 2005; Page A01
The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000
violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City
officials credit them with making busy roads safer.
But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the
number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The
increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the
devices.
Three outside traffic specialists independently reviewed the data and
said they were surprised by the results. Their conclusion: The cameras
do not appear to be making any difference in preventing injuries or
collisions.
"The data are very clear," said Dick Raub, a traffic consultant and a
former senior researcher at Northwestern University's Center for
Public Safety. "They are not performing any better than intersections
without cameras."
The District started the camera program in 1999, and from the
beginning, officials said they were aiming to curtail red-light
running and accidents. At the time, Terrance W. Gainer, then the
second-highest ranking D.C. police official, said the cameras would
"get people to stop at red lights and avoid crashes. . . . Hopefully,
we'll have a few less messes to clean up."
D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said he remains convinced that the
devices are worthwhile. Even if the number of crashes is not going
down, he said, citations for red-light running have dropped by about
60 percent at intersections that have cameras.
Ramsey said the number of accidents would be even higher without the
cameras, adding that he would like to install them at every traffic
light in the city. He pointed to last year's steep decrease in traffic
fatalities -- 45 people died compared with 69 in 2003 -- as evidence
that the program is working.
"I'd rather have them than not have them," Ramsey said. "They make
people slow down. They reduce the number of traffic violations, and
that's a good thing."
City officials attribute the increase in accidents to higher traffic
volume. But that does not explain why the presence of cameras has
failed to slow the rate of accidents at those intersections, Raub and
others said. The outside experts suggested that the cameras might be
more useful at other locations, and D.C. officials said they are
studying the issue.
The city has cameras at 45 intersections. They take photographs of
cars running red lights, generating tickets that are processed by a
private contractor. Police oversee the issuance of tickets, which
carry $75 fines, and the money goes into the city's general fund --
nearly $5 million last year.
The Post obtained a D.C. database generated from accident reports
filed by police. The data covered the entire city, including the 37
intersections where cameras were installed in 1999 and 2000.
The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with
cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last
year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such
wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone
collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame.
Traffic specialists say broadside collisions are especially dangerous
because the sides are the most vulnerable areas of cars.
The number of crashes and injury collisions at intersections with
cameras rose steadily through 2001, then dipped through 2003 before
spiking again last year.
The results were similar or worse than figures at intersections that
have traffic signals but no cameras. The number of overall crashes at
those 1,520 locations increased 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes
rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent. Overall,
total crashes in the city rose 61 percent, from 11,333 in 1998 to
18,250 last year.
Lon Anderson, a spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic, said the data
reinforce the motor club's view that the red-light effort is targeted
more at generating revenue than at reducing crashes. "They are making
a heck of a lot of money, and they are picking the motorists' pockets
on the pretense of safety," he said.
Red-light cameras are used in 12 states, including Maryland, where
they are deployed in Montgomery and Prince George's counties. In
Virginia, the General Assembly eliminated red-light cameras this year
partly because of concerns raised by some legislators about civil
liberties. The action affected six Northern Virginia jurisdictions:
Alexandria, Arlington County, Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Falls
Church and Vienna.
The District installed its first batch of 26 cameras in 1999. City
officials added 14 the next year. Some intersections have more than
one camera to cover different approaches. All told, the cameras
installed in 1999 and 2000 covered 38 intersections; a camera
subsequently was removed from one of them.
Ramsey said city officials put the cameras where police noticed the
most red-light running. At the start of the program, police officials
said they also received advice on camera placement from residents and
from the private contractor that operated the devices.
Nine more cameras were installed in July, boosting the number of
monitored intersections to 45. Most of those drivers ticketed come
from outside the city. In August, for example, less than one-fourth of
the citations were issued to motorists from the District.
D.C. police also operate photo-radar devices that take pictures of
speeding motorists. Because many of these cameras are mobile and used
at varying times, they were not included in The Post's review.
Douglas Noble, the chief traffic engineer for the D.C. Department of
Transportation, said his office was examining crash data and plans to
review the red-light camera locations. The department collects the
data from police reports and advises police about where to install the
devices.
Noble said that no studies have been conducted on the District's
red-light cameras in several years but that he "would not disagree"
with The Post's analysis. "I don't necessarily have an explanation"
for the trends, he said.
He added that he believes the severity of injury crashes has decreased
at camera locations. The city crash database does not categorize the
severity of crashes.
AAA and other critics have accused the city of installing cameras in
high-volume locations where they could generate thousands of tickets,
regardless of how many accidents happened there.
The analysis raised questions about where police installed the
cameras. Nine intersections with cameras had two or fewer crashes
annually in 1998 and 1999; seven reported no crashes that led to
injuries or fatalities during that period. Officials installed cameras
at six of the 20 most crash-prone intersections in 1998, data show.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:54:28 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
said the following in rec.autos.driving...


> D.C. Red-Light Cameras Fail to Reduce Accidents
> By Del Quentin Wilber and Derek Willis
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Tuesday, October 4, 2005; Page A01
> The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000
> violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City
> officials credit them with making busy roads safer.

That must buy a *hell* of a lot of crack for Marion Berry.

--
Paul.

Self appointed unofficial overseer
of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving

"Smoke crack, get your job back!"
--Chris Rock on Marion Berry

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 01:17:41 -0400, Paul.
> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:54:28 -0700, Ashton Crusher >
>said the following in rec.autos.driving...
>
>
>> D.C. Red-Light Cameras Fail to Reduce Accidents
>> By Del Quentin Wilber and Derek Willis
>> Washington Post Staff Writers
>> Tuesday, October 4, 2005; Page A01
>> The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000
>> violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City
>> officials credit them with making busy roads safer.
>
>That must buy a *hell* of a lot of crack for Marion Berry.

I can't believe what a racist you are. How dare you. How you think
you could say this and not have every person in America attack you is
beyond me.

</sarcasm>