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.
