Red Light Cameras

Here are links to studies supporting our claims on Red Light Cameras:

University of South Florida Study: 

http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/2511FA2D-6BC2-4091-9FD5-DBF711F420AA/0/2011pp00109FPHROrbanetal.pdf

USF follow-up to their study, taking aim at the Insurance Institute's claims: http://www.baynews9.com/content/dam/news/static/baynews9/documents/2014/01/Red-light-camera-study-usf-124.pdf

Article summarizing USF findings:Study finds red light cameras cause accidents | Watchdog Wire - Florida:

Watchdog Wire - Study finds red light cameras cause accidents

University of North Carolina A&T study prepared for US DOT:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/burkeyobeng.pdf

Crashes increase at Winnipeg intersections with 7 years of data:

Winnipeg Sun red light cameras disgrace

A California firm was found to rig their data in a bid to keep red light cameras:

California: Firm found to rig data in bid to keep rlc

 Analysis Of National Data Finds No Benefit To Red Light Cameras:

 Analysis_Of_National_Data_Finds_No_Benefit_To_Red_Light_Cameras.pdf

Roundup of Red Light Camera Studies:

http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp


Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon (R-13) today released the first true cost/benefit calculations of the NJ red light camera pilot program.  The numbers are striking, and devastating to the camera program.

“The best way to assess the success of any program – government or private – is to actually assess the value of the program versus the cost.  If a program costs you more than the value it returns, then it is a bad investment – and should be discontinued.  This is particularly applicable to automated enforcement programs like red light cameras.  If the total value of “accident cost savings” is less than the amount of fines charged, then the deal stinks for NJ drivers.  You can’t argue with these numbers because they come directly from the state study” said O’Scanlon.

O’Scanlon outlined that the methodology of the NJ red light camera study lends itself particularly well to a cost benefit analysis. “The NJ RLC study applies a monetary value to accidents based on the degree of severity. A fender bender costs $7,400, a possible injury costs $44,900, an ‘evident injury’ costs $79,000, a disabling injury costs $216,000 and a death – although there weren’t any deaths at qualified study intersections either before or during the assessment period – would cost $4,008,900. The numbers employed coming from straight from the Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual, from there it is easy to do the math” said O’Scanlon.

“The easy and most honest answer is that there were no savings – since we have demonstrated that cameras don’t improve safety.  So there are only costs.  Those costs amount to around $40 million per year.  That’s the total fines paid by NJ motorists – with normally half the proceeds going to the municipality, with the other half going to the camera operators. That’s almost too easy, so we decided to see if there would be net savings using the camera company/town fabricated savings numbers. They try to suggest that there are savings even though we have shown that any reductions line up with natural accident rate trends and fluctuations or can be attributed to factors other than the cameras.  Stunningly, even using the tortured numbers – the cameras are a disaster from a cost/benefit perspective.

Using the most statistically significant data set from New Jersey’s red light camera reports, 22 intersections with over 3 years of data, one finds that this data set averages 12,200 citations per month. This translates to 146,400 tickets per year costing motorists at least $12,444,000.  The supposed “savings” at those intersections is $390,000.  That leaves a net cost to motorists of over $12,000,000!  Looked at another way, the program takes almost $32 in fines for every $1 saved. By any objective standard, the red light camera experiment was a disaster. 

This Op-Ed originally appeared on tapinto.net:

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/south-plainfield/categories/press-releases/articles/oscanlon-stunning-cost-slash-benefit-analysis-obliter


Here are links to studies supporting our claims on Red Light Cameras:

University of South Florida Study: 

http://health.usf.edu/NR/rdonlyres/2511FA2D-6BC2-4091-9FD5-DBF711F420AA/0/2011pp00109FPHROrbanetal.pdf

USF follow-up to their study, taking aim at the Insurance Institute's claims: http://www.baynews9.com/content/dam/news/static/baynews9/documents/2014/01/Red-light-camera-study-usf-124.pdf

Article summarizing USF findings:Study finds red light cameras cause accidents | Watchdog Wire - Florida:

Watchdog Wire - Study finds red light cameras cause accidents

University of North Carolina A&T study prepared for US DOT:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/burkeyobeng.pdf

Crashes increase at Winnipeg intersections with 7 years of data:

Winnipeg Sun red light cameras disgrace

A California firm was found to rig their data in a bid to keep red light cameras:

California: Firm found to rig data in bid to keep rlc

 Analysis Of National Data Finds No Benefit To Red Light Cameras:

 Analysis_Of_National_Data_Finds_No_Benefit_To_Red_Light_Cameras.pdf

Roundup of Red Light Camera Studies:

http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp

 

 


Bills that would have provided that Florida residents get treated a little more fairly by the red light camera program were gutted recently by the Florida legislature.  This is more than sad. It is disgraceful - particularly because the gutting was done by a group of legislators from both the Democrat and Republican parties.  Essentially members of both parties have sold out so that out-of-state companies - whose product claims and tactics are more than exaggerated, they are down right fraudulent - can continue to steal from the legislators' constituents.  And the legislators who gutted the bills last week know it. Or should have known it.  The evidence is clear and convincing - red light cameras don't improve safety.  Every competent, objective study conducted over the past 15 years demonstrates this. The pro-camera Florida legislators are particularly lazy, or worse, given they didn't have to go very far to avail themselves of some of the best research on the subject - done by the folks at the University of South Florida.  


More people approach me regarding the red-light camera issue than any other. Despite that level of passion — virtually all of it appropriately against the devices — there are still folks who say, “This is a minor issue,” or “Just don’t run red lights and you have nothing to worry about.” Those people are wrong on both counts.

Let’s agree that it wouldn’t be fair, or safe, to do away with yellow lights altogether, with lights changing from green directly to red. By the same token, yellow lights that simply flashed for a split second wouldn’t be fair or serve their purpose, to permit people who are too close to the intersection to stop, to have enough time to travel through safely.


The single activity which exposes us to government rules and regulations more than any other is driving. Every single day we have to deal with traffic laws. When they are irrational or unfair - or purposefully designed to rip us off rather than improve safety - it is particularly irritating. Traffic safety issues gave me my entree to policy and politics more than 20 years ago - so I know from what I speak.

Today we have an ongoing debate about red light cameras in New Jersey. Never mind that every single objective study in towns throughout other states has shown that these cameras are all about money - and that something as simple as proper setting of yellow light timing reduces dangerous straight-through red light running by up to 90%. Folks trust me, if the prospect of death isn't enough to dissuade someone from running a light, the presence of a camera isn't going to make the difference!


Volunteer Contact Spread the Word

PAID FOR BY Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon

Sign in with Facebook, Twitter or email.

Site by Acquire Digital