Is this actual news, or a press release for Goldman Sachs owned American Traffic Solutions? Why is it not being pointed out that these videos were produced while the cameras were installed and operating, de facto evidence that the cameras do nothing other than silently record these accidents. They sure did not stop them. Also, your story alludes that the Nottebrok decision in Creve Coeur has some bearing on the class actions that were filed. Problem is, the Nottebrok decision is based on Creve Coeur's ordinance which is different than the others. Creve Coeur invented the civil violation of parking in the middle of the intersection, and that was what they argued. The other municipalities actually prosecute the action of running the light. Legally, they are different.

I am glad you posted this video. I recommend that all the victims of these crashes sue your respective cities for manslaughter and wrongful death. Also sue the traffic engineers for malpractice. Look at the video carefully. All these crashes occur because these intersections either do not have sufficient all-red clearance interval (time to allow drivers to clear the interesection before cross-traffic gets a green), or a short yellow causing a type I dilemma zone which forces drivers to enter the intersection after the light turned red. These crashes are all caused by traffic engineers. Traffic engineers are ignorant of the physics behind the ITE Yellow Clearance Formula, their standard for setting yellow durations. And so they either short the yellows by plugging in the wrong numbers into the formula or misapply the formula. (The formula only works in one case, and the case is not in this video.) These videos are proof that red light cameras do not work because they do not address the real problem The real problem, the cause of all the crashes, is the physics ignorance of traffic engineeers. No amount of driver behavior modification will trump the laws of physics.

For proof that these crashes are the city's fault, see redlightrobber.com. You will see.

I have a problem with them because the current law on our Missouri books doesn't seem to apply for a red light camera moving violation. Points should be assessed toward someone's license every time they get this kind of a ticket, instead they can simply pay a fine. Let's follow the law to the letter and get those irresponsible drivers an appropriate punishment.

With regard to the MoDOT "study" you are citing, you neglect to mention that accidents overall increased 14% according to MoDOT's own numbers, and in some cases, as much as 370% like at the intersection of Richardson/Vogel/I-55 in Arnold. Have you seen the raw data yourself? The only way they could find to make the numbers tout any percieved safety benefit is to take intersections who had 0 accidents in the pre study period and 0 accidents in the post study period, and factor them in as a 100% decrease, which is a flawed statistical method that would get you an F in Statistics 101. Here is the raw MoDOT data, see the glaring errors in methodology yourself: http://www.scribd.com/doc/46882681/MODOT-Red-Light-Camera-Enforcement-Study-Raw-Data

Cameras give a false sense of security, because they can't stop the real late runners and the accidents they cause - like in this video of accidents the cameras didn't prevent!

Longer yellows drop violations by 2/3, and the effect is permanent. But even with high fines in some states ($500 in CA), cameras and longer yellows don't stop the people who run multiple seconds late and cause the bad accidents.

Most real late runners don't do it on purpose - they fail to see the signal, because they are lost, unfamiliar with the area, distracted, or impaired. To stop the late runners, local traffic engineers need to make high-accident intersections more obvious, improve the visual cues that say, "You are coming to an important intersection." Florida's DOT found that improved pavement markings (paint!) cut running by up to 74%, without installing cameras - thus without the side effect of increased rearenders. Also make the signal lights brighter, bigger in diameter, add backboards to them, and place the poles on the NEAR side of the intersection, not so far away. Put brighter bulbs in the street lights at intersections. Put up lighted name signs, for the cross streets.

Longer yellows and improved visual cues are easy and cheap to do, so can be done all over town, unlike cameras, which are expensive and can drive business away.

To see a funny, yet true video, on red light cameras. See http://redlightrobber.com.

Let the camera vendor answer candidly answer these questions.
1-Why is there no independent camera certification?
2-Why do the do the vast majority of sworn police officers reviewing RLC videos have no forensic video training?
3-Why are judges and officers only trained by camera vendors?
4-Why does the video software used by most camera vendors and municipalities lack the ability to do "instant replay" for fairer hearings?
5- Why don't red light cameras have the ability to record newer car's digital stop lights which may influence municipal decisions?
6- Why do RLCs use Federally prohibited strobe flash lights?
7- Why don't RLC contracts contain the word "safety"?
8- Why don't any of the RLC contracts have safety milestones or goals????

Brian, I totally agree with you. I also dislike the cameras on constitutional grounds. I frequently hear the argument "Red light cameras keep us safer." I say if the goal is safety, then the points need to be given against the licences of these dangerous drivers. Paying a fine and simply being absolved of all other consequences is not a deterrent! It is obvious in this video (which is quite over the top in my opinion) that these drivers were paying no attention to the cameras or the lights for that matter. They had no intention of stopping at those lights! I'd like to know how many of them were drunk or "on the run" from police when the accidents happened.

Elizabeth! Listen! Watch the video. Understand that drivers do NOT intentionally run red lights. Drivers are NOT suicidal. No one thinks, "Oh, see the red light. I want to run it and get killed." The craziness you see in this video is because traffic engineers FORCED drivers to behave this way. Engineers have screwed up the basic laws of physics in timing yellow lights, and forgot to put in an all-red interval at these intersections. Missouri's traffic engineers CREATED the conditions at these intersections. You, and others, must blame the engineers. The engineers are the cause of the mayhem. The drivers in these video MUST SUE the engineers for malpractice, manslaughter and even possibly wrongful death. Elizabeth, drivers do NOT get suicidal at isolated intersections.

The reason the red light cameras are at these intersections, is NOT because drivers behave particular badly at these intersections. The red light camera companies put them there to exploit and profit off of obvious engineering errors. You city will say, "We put camera there because of all the crashes." But the reason there are crashes is because the engineers screwed up.

I guarantee it!

Elizabeth. Some of the drivers in these video enter the intersection several seconds into the red, or so it looks. But that fact is worthless without 1) knowing the length of the yellow light, 2) without knowing the speed limit and 3) without seeing what is on the approach to the intersection. As for 3), the camera shows only about 20 feet before the intersection. But if this is a 45 mph road, the pertinent distance to view is 300 feet before the intersection. Anything within 300 feet which causes the driver to tap his brakes, for any reason, will force a driver to run a red light. A yellow light is only long enough for a driver to approach the intersection at no less than the speed limit. The video evidence conveniently does not show the real reason why drivers run red lights.