A damning report on KC red-light cams
E. Thomas McClanahanIt’s now a lot tougher for advocates of red-light cameras to argue that they reduce crashes. A recent Kansas City police report showed the opposite: Wrecks increased at intersections with red-light cams. For the city as a whole, wrecks decreased. The only kind of crash that decreased was right-angle collisions.
In a study done a few years ago, the Federal Highway Administration came to similar conclusions: Red-light cams mean fewer T-bone crashes, more wrecks overall.
Today’s story in The Star mentions an earlier study done by city engineers that came to different conclusions, and quotes an insurance-industry spokesman saying to get valid findings, you need to compare intersections in Kansas City against similar intersections in other cities.
Sorry, but the police study is damning on its face and decisively shifts the rhetorical burden to those who argue the cameras should stay up. Wrecks went up at camera intersections, down for the city as a whole.
I never liked the idea of having robots issuing citations (even if police get a second look) and in a 2009 column I mentioned the considerable evidence from other cities that in many cases these devices lead to more crashes. Backers say the cameras are about safety, but the evidence shows it’s more about money.
The best indicator of that came when Kay Barnes was mayor. When the notion of red-light cams popped up, her first thought was the city should consider them because it would mean more revenue.
If it’s about safety, target intersections with the most crashes and increase the yellow-light times. More yellow means fewer accidents.
Google+
Share
Tweet
Phil Cardarella
3 months, 3 weeks agoBig Mac & I seldom agree on which direction is North — but he is dead right on this boondoggle!
Kent Mueller
3 months, 3 weeks agoThere is a way to determine if the red lights are about safety or about city revenue.
The city’s theory is that they are increasing safety by requiring red light runners to pay fines. Obviously, the fine is the negative reinforcement and is necessary to decrease the unwanted behavior. But the city says that from its standpoint, it’s not about the money. If that is true, then the city should be agreeable to have the ticketed driver send the city only the amount needed to cover costs. The driver would then send the rest (most) of the fine to the City Union Mission.
If the city is being honest, then they shouldn’t have a problem with this. Safety is increased because negative reinforcement is meted out which decreases the red light running. The city gets reimbursed for its costs. And a wonderful charity gets money with which they will help many, many needy people.
Everyone wins. Unless, of course, it really is about the money…….