BY MIKE CETERA
With so many communities -- including Aurora -- approving use of cameras to catch people running red lights, I found a new study out of Florida particularly interesting.
The Florida Public Health Review concludes that "crash, injury and mortality risks do not change immediately, if at all" with the introduction of red-light cameras.
Further, the study notes that red-light running fatalities -- at least in Florida -- are not on the rise. So why the need for cameras?
Because the rigorous and robust studies conclude that cameras are associated with increased crashes and costs, any economic analysis of cameras should include these newly generated costs to the public. Indirect costs to the public are usually not considered in the calculation of total revenues and profits generated from red light cameras.... Also, public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety (emphasis added).
The city of Aurora and many other Illinois communities have approved use of red-light cameras as a way to increase safety at intersections. Aurora's vendor, Redflex, is working with the city to pick the 20 locations where cameras eventually will be set up.
I wonder why the safety concerns raised by this and other studies haven't been cause for alarm in so many communities that have approved cameras. Don't cities open themselves up to further liability if they ignore these studies?
I've noted the concerns with red-light cameras here; they are well documented elsewhere as well.
Find a defense of red-light cameras here.
Leave a comment