Are red-light cameras fair to drivers?

By Christopher Solomon

Think again before you mash the accelerator at that yellow light, and not just for safety's sake. In more than 100 cities around the country, an electronic eye is watching you. It's not inclined to cut you any slack -- or even to give you a fair shake, as many critics see it.

Despite concerns about everything from accuracy to privacy -- even about whether they reduce accidents at all -- red-light cameras that capture offenders on film so they can be ticketed are proliferating. They're in use in Denver; Atlanta; New York City; Portland, Ore.; and Seattle. More seem to pop up every month.

There is no doubt that red-light running is a big problem. Drivers running red lights account for about 22% of traffic accidents in the U.S., according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. And that number has been growing: Deadly automobile crashes at traffic signals jumped more than 13% between 1993 and 2003, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, far outpacing the nearly 7% rise in other fatal crashes during that period. A big part of that jump is caused by red-light running, the government says. The offense now kills about 900 people annually and injures 176,000 more.

While no one denies the need to stop red-light runners, there's some debate as to whether cameras truly make intersections safer.

Easy money, low manpower

The systems work like this: Cameras are usually triggered by road sensors when a car encroaches on an intersection after the light has turned red. A camera snaps a picture of the license tag and sometimes photographs the driver, too. That information is then usually forwarded to the local police department to interpret, and a citation is issued. Some systems use short video "clips" instead of a photograph. (Click here to see a cool, detailed description of how the cameras work -- and you can try running the light!)

That's work that used to tie up traffic enforcers. But freeing up police officers is hardly the only allure to towns and cities. Many (but not all) have found the traffic cameras to be lucrative as well.

Perhaps the most dramatic example is the District of Columbia's cash cow. The district likes to boast that it has reduced red-light violations at 49 intersections by two-thirds since the program started in 1999 -- but it's also raked in more than $37 million in revenue from tickets, mostly from nonresidents. (Running a red light there is a $75 fine.)

Counting D.C.'s automated speed-enforcement program, the local government has amassed some $130 million from the electronic monitoring programs, according to AAA Mid-Atlantic. That group has praised the results of the red-light cameras but has been wary of D.C.'s motives.

The troubles with cameras

These dollars come at a price, as many towns and cities have discovered. Faced with problems in the courts and other issues, several even have switched off their cameras, or at least altered the way they operate.

The picture is muddier than you might think. According to a comprehensive, 2005 study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration, red-light cameras indeed reduced total "T-bone" crashes by 25%. But because drivers at camera-equipped intersections seem to slam on the brakes so they won't get a ticket, total rear-end crashes increased 15%, and injury rear-end crashes jumped 24%.

Rear-end crashes tended to be less severe, so the red-light cameras nonetheless do provide a "modest crash-cost benefit," the study estimated. But critics of red-light cameras say that the cameras still end up giving a financial reward to a city or town for having a poorly designed intersection that encourages red-light running.

 1 | 2 | next >