MoDOT Study Finds Red-Light Cameras Reduce Accidents, Increase Safety
New policies are put in place to notify residents of camera-enforced areas and ensure citations are issued by certified officers.
Photos
Have you ever received a citation in the mail after running a red light in a camera-enforced intersection? If so, you’re among hundreds of other Florissant residents who have found public safety violations in their mailboxes thanks to red-light cameras.
The Florissant City Council passed an ordinance that would begin a red-light enforcement program to improve public safety back in October 2005. The city’s first red-light enforcement cameras were installed in April 2006, with live enforcement beginning in May of that year.
Since then, many residents have wondered how effective and accurate these cameras could actually be, but a recent study completed by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has confirmed that while some policies needed to be changed, the red-light cameras are effective in reducing accidents around intersections with traffic lights.
Within the first year of operation, the mere presence of the cameras in Florissant produced a 51 percent reduction in red-light citations in the areas they were installed.
In fact, it is thanks in part to MoDOT’s study that red light and speed cameras will remain in Florissant and throughout the state of Missouri. The study, which was done to determine whether the cameras are useful in the enforcement of red-light stops and speed limits, resulted in the lifting of a three-month moratorium last month on new photo enforcement zones.
The study found that people are far less likely to run a red light when cameras are present. Plus, MoDOT found a 45 percent reduction in right-angle crashes that caused death or serious injuries at intersections that had cameras. Surprisingly, though, the study also found that there was a 14 percent jump in the total number of crashes at those intersections.
Based on the results of the study, the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission implemented a new policy that is designed to regulate the use of the cameras, but they won’t be eliminated.
MoDOT director Kevin Keith said in a press release that the new policy will provide better guidance for law enforcement agencies and offers additional oversight to ensure that the cameras are being used to increase safety and prevent injuries and death.
“The policy was put in place to help ensure that cameras are used to ticket red light runners and are used fairly and consistently,” said MoDOT’s outreach coordinator, Sandra Hentges.
The new red-light camera policy has already taken effect. It requires that a study and a 30-day public awareness campaign are completed for new red-light camera installations. The policy also requires that officers are POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Certified in order to issue camera citations.
Florissant police chief William Karabas said that MoDOT worked closely with the city of Florissant on setting up the cameras in town, and that MoDOT had approved plans and issued permits for all of the cameras installed at Florissant intersections. He added that more than 1,000 injuries had occurred at the most dangerous intersections during the previous three years from as many as 900 accidents.
Florissant resident Gina Abernathy echoed the concerns of many other residents when she said that while she thinks the cameras can do some good, she’s not so sure they’re entirely accurate.
“I think they’re good as far as increasing the safety of drivers, but how do they know if they get the right person or plate for the ticket?” she said. “The cameras are taking pictures of moving cars.”
St Pete Driver
6:34 pm on Monday, April 11, 2011
The MoDOT study is severely flawed, and should not be relied upon.
The use of Bayesian analysis on the severe crash data is not a good fit for the data due to the extreme rarity of severe crashes at the studied intersections, for example more than 85% of the intersections studied had no severe right angle crashes at all during the before period, making the statistical change shown for severe right angle crashes insignificant. None of the conclusions of this study are supported by the data supplied.
http://www.stpetecameras.org/home/rlc-studies/missouri-dot-usa-2011-rlc-study
Photoradarscam
1:00 am on Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The study does sound flawed as it doesn't seem there were any comparisons to (control) non-camera intersections. IT was unclear what the total injury and fatality accidents counts were, which is what REALLY matters. I also think they minimize the result that overall accidents INCREASED 14%! Every crash is an opportunity for injury or death, and I have seen some DEADLY rear-end accidents which camera advocates like to play off as harmless. If overall crash numbers are increasing by 14%, I don't see how cameras can be justified. Clearly they just want the revenue.
JD
7:48 am on Tuesday, April 12, 2011
So the headline is wrong, the study is flawed and the cameras stay. BTW, if this is such a great idea why is there no camera at Washington/Charbonier and 67N intersection? That's the problem point with people deciding to extend the left turn light into red.
J
10:11 am on Tuesday, April 12, 2011
51% sounds so big doesn't it? That's the scam. Think about it... mathematical equations that would get close to equaling 51%: 1/2, 2/4 , 3/6, 4/8, people, don't be fooled, either way the accident reduction is not that much and shows that it could be the driving conditions or lack of drivers on the road ect.
Doug
9:49 am on Saturday, May 28, 2011
Not only that, but the camera vendor, American Traffic Solutions, is one of the most dishonest, corrupt, money-grubbing corporations in the country. One of their VPs just got "suspended" for posting comments in a news blog just like this under a fake name, lying about being a local resident, while praising to high heaven the virtues of cameras. ATS does this all the time. They make huge political donations to city council members to get them elected so they will do ATS's bidding, they start fake advocacy groups like NCSR, hire their chief Washington lobbyist from a DC PR firm to run it, and bind cities into inescapable contracts, while keeping most of the money from the tickets. If all of that weren't enough, they are 70% owned by Goldman Sachs, yes, THAT Goldman Sachs, the most despicable and criminal financial enterprise in the United States. All of this information is easily available on Google, folks. You're being scammed, not to mention the entire process of red light camera tickets and violations is unconstitutional since you cannot possibly face your accuser in court. And having the city say a certified officer is reviewing the cameras is NOT the same thing as facing your accuser (ie, the entity that witnessed the violation, that is, the camera itself). People need to flood their city council members' office with phone calls demanding this blatant revenue-generating ripoff be stopped.
Elizabeth O'Fallon
10:32 pm on Tuesday, May 31, 2011
I'm not a huge fan of red light cameras, but I would prefer to see the cameras being used as they are in the City of Wentzville. Wentzville takes photos of the driver in the car so that there is no doubt about who is driving when the ticket is issued. I don't feel that simply taking the photo of the license plate is sufficient enough.
Kevin
1:20 am on Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The only true solution to the red light cameras is to stop trying to beat the red light. If everyone stopped running red lights, the cameras would come down. No tickets = no revenue for the red light camera company. No company would keep their cameras up if they weren't bringing in revenue. The City doesn't care. It's not their equipment or their people monitoring the cameras.
normalicy
4:28 am on Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Well, I've been rear ended personally because of the cameras (slammed on my brakes because I wasn't sure the yellow light would last long enough). Sure the person behind me should have paid attention, but on the other hand I could have been killed from how far into the intersection I was pushed (also my back sure was in pain for quite a while after being hit). Seems a large price to pay compared to going through a just turned red light. I hadn't been in an accident for an incredibly long time till these lights went up. Now it seems I'm either slamming on my brakes to avoid rear-ending someone who slammed on their brakes or am afraid of being rear-ended myself (it's now a natural reaction for me to eyeball my rear-view when braking at the camera lights).
Am I saying that people should be able to do whatever they want on the roads... heck no. I just think that the lights are too black & white. Everyone has had that experience where they weren't sure if they should stop or keep going. Everyone has had that experience where they just plain didn't notice something. That's life. Why all the sudden are we expected to be robots?
Ignoring the safety of it all, it's hard to ignore the fact that this is really all about money. Wouldn't you think that the public would be satisfied with their government if they were taxed over being penalized? All I know is the person who can abolish those lights will be the one who gets votes.