Studies Show Red Light Camera's Increase Collision
In November 2008 a report was published in the Florida Public Health Review that found red light cameras increase collision, injuries and insurance industry profit. (View report here)
The analysis published in the journal of the Florida Public Health Association argues that, contrary to common assumptions, the use of red light cameras leads to increases in insurance rates and injury collisions.
Researchers Barbara Langland-Orban, Etienne E. Pracht and John T. Large from the University of South Florida reviewed the most referred to studies of red light cameras and concluded that they were not all equally reliable.
“All research studies are susceptible to design flaws, especially observational (i.e. non-experimental) studies,” the report stated. “Some of the major studies concluding reductions in red light running have exhibited such design flaws.”
The most proper way to study the issue would be, gather accident data at intersections where cameras are issuing tickets over a set period (after) and compare them with accident records for an equal period when the devices were not installed (before). Control intersection data can then be used to better isolate the effects of camera use. The Professors found that the studies usually cited by photo enforcement proponents did not follow this basic procedure.
For example, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study of collision reductions in Oxnard, California did not actually examine accidents at camera intersections. Instead, it compared citywide collision rates between intersections with signals and intersections without signals. Likewise, the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 2005 study of cameras did not compare the accident rate before cameras were installed to the rate afterward. Instead, it estimated expected crashes in the after period by comparing intersections with cameras to intersections without.
The FHWA also excluded particular cities from its analysis, including Greensboro, North Carolina and cities in Virginia, which experienced a significant increase in injuries and accidents according to other studies. The report also selectively excluded the reporting of certain data to ensure independent researchers would be unable to challenge or verify the study’s conclusion. The federal agency even went as far in its secrecy as to refuse a Freedom of Information Act request for a set of its results listed by location. The National Motorists Association had made the request so they could verify the particular conditions at the intersections studied.
The researchers suggested that the IIHS and FHWA studies were tainted by financial conflicts of interest. The insurance industry directly funds IIHS. And, although the FHWA study was sponsored by the US Department of Transportation, study co-director Bhagwant Persaud has accepted significant payment from IIHS for his past research. Orban explained that the insurance industry not only makes money from traffic tickets that carry license demerit points, but it also makes greater profit when the number of collision increase.
“Higher collision rates suggest higher risk; justifying higher premiums and profits,” the report stated. “Due to the pricing methods used, automobile insurers do not have a financial incentive to lower crash rates or perceptions of risk.”
The report cites Florida data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners which shows that insurance profits skyrocketed from 2000 to 2004 — from $8.7 billion to $14 billion. It did so by paying out 73 cents in claims for every dollar collected in premiums in 2000. This number dropped to 61 cents on the dollar in 2004. During this period, the accident rate remained static and the number of traffic tickets issued increased.
Orban found the independent VDOT, Ontario and Burkey-Obeng studies followed proper scientific methods and were fully open in sharing all data upon which the conclusions were based. These studies concluded that red light cameras caused an increase in injuries and overall collisions.
“Cities and counties should… pursue engineering improvements to enhance intersection safety for all drivers and passengers,” Orban’s report concluded. “Proven engineering practices and countermeasures can reduce crashes and injuries due to red light running, as well as other causes of intersection crashes.”
I spoke with Professor Orban in the spring of 2009 and she had advised me that when the above report was completed in 2008, the author of The Oxnard report, Richard Retting disputed the analysis by Orban’s team and called their credentials into question. As a result, her team then took to duplicating the reports studied as opposed to just analyzing them.
Again they proved the Oxnard report to basically not be worth the paper it was printed on. This is very significant as this particular report has been used in selling camera programs to Cities, State Government etc., in fact Richard Retting has been nick named the Grandfather of the Red Light Cameras and funny how the only reports insisting they work are authored or co-authored by him.
After proving their findings Orban’s team then posted an eletter to the American Journal of Public Health attaching it to the reference of Retting’s report. This letter was a scathing critique of the report and was titled Analysis Violates Principles of Sound Research & Public Health Evaluation.
The last paragraph of the letter gave a stern warning to those considering Red Light Camera Programs, “The Oxnard RLC study violates many basic principles of sound statistical public health research and lacks internal and external validity. First, the RLC “treated” intersections were not separately analyzed. Second, the purpose of RLCs is to reduce crashes due to red-light running and yet red-light running crashes were not analyzed. Third, the authors admit to deviating from the methods described. Of most concern, the study’s reported statistical results cannot be replicated. All RLC investigations should be scrutinized for adherence to applied research methods since studies with greater adherence to quasi-experimental research designs have concluded RLCs are associated with large increases in crashes [Ref.2,9] and since special interest groups with a financial stake in RLC use are actively working to influence public opinion and policy.”
| File | Description |
|---|---|
 Reductions in Injury Crashes Associated With Red Light.pdf | |
| Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rate |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
