UPDATE: Byron Porter is ON BOARD OF SCAMERA FUNDED FRONT GROUP. NCSRLR! http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/bryon-porter-of-old-dominion-universitywas-on-board-of-scamera-funded-front-group.html
Another day another "report" claims RLC "improve" safety. This one only mentions "violations".
Despite the fact that more than a few reports that claim RLC "improved" safety have been dubunked.
The IIHS was a fun one for example. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3699.asp A PEER REVIEW FOUND MORE WRECKS, NOT LESS AS IIHS CLAIMED!
The 2011 TTI report was also reviewed and found to have problems too. http://www.banthecams.org/Studies-Show/critique-of-troy-d-waldens-evaluation-of-photographic-traffic-signal-enforcement-systems-in-texas.html
The 2005 Griffith one wasn't much better. A peer review found funny business in that FHwA report too. http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/orban-study.pdf
(page 3 and 4) Quote: FHWA study (Council, Persaud, Eccles, Lyon and Griffith, 2005) evaluated seven jurisdictions in multiple states. The analysis concluded cameras were associated with decreased angle crashes and injures. The university professor who co-directed this study and provided the methodological ideas has also conducted research for the IIHS (Persaud, 2007; Persaud, Retting & Lord, 2001; Persaud, Hauer, Retting, Vallurupalli & Mucsi, 1997). The research design and reporting concerns are as follows.
• The researchers listed 15 geographic areas with camera programs. However, only seven areas were selected for the analysis because the researchers concluded “significant effects are likely for all crash severities” in these jurisdictions. The decision to selectively (non-randomly) choose among the 15 areas increases the chance of incorrectly favoring one conclusion over another (camera effectiveness or ineffectiveness). Three areas excluded by the researchers were included in the major studies from Virginia and Greensboro, North Carolina, which did not find reductions in angle crashes.
IN FACT A 2007 V-DOT STUDY SHOWED MORE WRECKS!!!! http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp "A new Virginia Department of Transportation study shows accidents increased by nearly a third where red light cameras were used."
(many reports in fact show RLC CASUSING MORE WRECKS NOT LESS! http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents and http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies)
This "report" http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/10/compelling-evidence-red-light-cameras-do-make-roads-safer/3482/ by Bryan E. Porter CLAIMS RLC "improve" safety.
The interesting thing about this one is that it seems to just look at "violations".
No doubt someone will read into this report. Here is a are few issues missing from the article:
1. Amber time.
2. Time into red
3. Did the camera time use RLC "violation" data that might have used Grace periods (1/10 to 3/10 a second). Note in San Diego the city shorten these to increase "violations" a few years back. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2049.asp
Quote: San Diego, California will generate more than $2 million in additional revenue one year after shortening the red light camera program's "grace period" trigger settings. The staggering figure represents a ten-fold increase over the $200,000 promised during the July 2006 city council vote to shorten the timing.
4. Were any camera vendors involved directly or indirectly in this "report" or with the observation?
Many straight thru violation DISAPPEAR when ambers are lenghtened. If the study used intersections that had short ambers in the camera and non camera period, had ambers shorten after shut down, or had grace periods in the camera period (but none after), this will skew the numbers.
Here is the TX study that showed. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/02/243.asp
Quote: "The study found that improving signal visibility reduced violations 25 percent. Other changes could net between 18 and 48 percent reductions. Yet they found when the yellow signal was 1 second shorter than what the standard ITE timing formula specifies as a minimum, red light violations jumped 110%. Adding an additional second to the ITE minimum yellow yielded 53% reduction in violations, producing the greatest benefit of all the factors studied (2-6). When safety is the main concern, preventing crashes is more important than reducing violations. Yellow signal timing again proved most effective in reducing crashes. An extra second yielded a 40 percent collision reduction.
The study also found that the vast majority of red light camera tickets are issued within the first second a light is red -- in fact, the average ticket is issued when the light has been red for half a second or less. Yet right-angle crashes, which account for the majority of red-light related collisions, "with one exception, all of the right-angle crashes occurred after 5 seconds or more of red" (5-16). In other words, tickets are being issued primarily for split-second violations where collisions are not occurring."
But if the above don't interest you, REALIZE that when Minneapolis DUMPED RLC. CRASH SAFETY IMPROVED!
New data shows the lack of red light cameras in Minneapolis, Minnesota has had no negative effect on traffic safety. In 2005, the city was able to issue automated traffic tickets for just eight-and-a-half months before being stopped by a series of court rulings finding the program in violation of state law. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that since the cameras were turned off, accidents have gone down.
City Department of Public Works accident data comparing equivalent time periods show that one year prior to the installation of cameras, there were 104 accidents. In the time cameras were in use, the number dropped to 69 -- a figure used to show how successful the cameras had been. Except in the year following the cameras' removal, accidents dropped to 61.