So some have questioned my earlier posting. I provide some clarifications.

1. My major point of contention was around persons needlessly trotting out the "safety" pony to justify a 'business-as-usual' scenario. From my readings of secondary research summaries, individuals and institutions alike seem hellbent on misrepresenting the data by asserting that, across the board, both injuries and property damage goes up as a result of these cameras. If anyone bothered to research or quote properly, they would find that while property damages and minor injuries tend to rise as a result of camera installations, MAJOR INJURIES AND FATAL CRASHES DECREASE SIGNIFICANTLY. However, the research also suggests that red-light cameras are not a panacea and need to be considered under highly specific contexts. Fair enough.

So are people just stupid and can't read properly? I don't think so. What I really think is that people are looking for any evidence to justify previously held opinions. Why? Well, I've already proved it isn't safety we're all shook up about so it must be... well... money. So let's just all say it together, "this has everything to do with money, and little to do with safety".

2. Speaking of money, I heartily agree that low-cost options should be sought like increasing yellow light times. Why not? However, is this a strategy that will always work completely in isolation? Are longer yellow lights the silver bullet? My instinct says no and wonders why they can't be complimentary solutions. Increase yellow light times AND install red-light cameras in problem intersections that fit specific installation criteria.

3. Naturally this is still going to rile some people up. People who think cameras are a pressing threat to the very fabric of society. To be fair, the question of using more effacious means of enforcement is valid. Why not use an increase in traditional policing to get better results? Unfortunately, this too comes down to cash money ding. Policing is expensive. They have special cars, uniforms, shiny guns, badges, and wages. Even the most ticket happy cop is probably not going to recoup all the money needed to keep him on the streets. So where does that money come from? Municipal revenues aka property taxes.

So do I think it's fair that municipalities are choosing less effective means of enforcement that are revenue-positive and shift financial burden from the tax base and onto lawbreakers? Absolutely. Maybe that's because I drive like an old lady and am sure not to get dinged myself.

I have a serious issue with this posting. While I'm not contesting that some municipalities may be tampering with red light camera programs in order to maximize profit, I call bullshit on the claim that red light cameras are a threat to safety.

The most referenced document I found was "Red Light Running Cameras: Would Crashes, Injuries and Automobile Insurance Rates Increase If They Are Used in Florida?" by Barbara Langland-Orban, Etienne E. Pracht, John T. Large, published by the Florida Public Health Review.

http://hsc.usf.edu/publichealth/fphr/current.htm

While the article makes some pretty grandiose claims that suggest red-light cameras lack efficacy and have unintended consequences, the authors have seriously misrepresented at least one of their sources. One of the key studies cited looks at data gathered in Ontario. Being an Ontarian myself, I did some further digging to find the primary data. The Floridian authors claim that "A study conducted for the Ministry of
Transportation in Ontario by Synectics
Transportation Consultants (2003) evaluated two
interventions (cameras and stepped-up police
enforcement) in six jurisdictions following a public information campaign. Camera intersections had a:
• 16% increase in crashes, compared to an 8%
increase at comparison intersections;
• 2% increase in injury or fatal crashes,
compared to 10% and 12% decreases respectively at stepped-up police enforcement and comparison intersections." (pg. 3).

However, a quick peek on the Synectics website reveals their claim that "fatal and injury
collisions decreased 6.8 percent while property
damage only collisions increased 18.5 percent
at the study sites".
http://www.synectics-inc.net/projectSummaries/appliedResearch/documents/45_redlight.pdf

I'm willing to admit that results may be context-specific, what is true in Ontario may not be elsewhere, but I'm not willing to admit that this is a cause people should get behind. There are plenty of more pressing issues out there, and this stellar example of "bourgeoise activism" reeks of lame self-interest by people who refuse to wait 10 extra seconds for their morning lattes.