Red-light cameras do more harm than good

I'm sure you've seen them by now - those intrusive red light cameras that glare down at you with their ever-watchful eye at intersections across the nation. Of course, as with every government intrusion, these cameras are being used in the interest of public safety.

Well, how's this for public safety…

Researchers in Florida have found that those Orwellian red-light cameras have significantly increased traffic accidents at the intersections where they've been placed.

Thanks for nothing, Big Brother.

Researchers from the University of South Florida College of Public Health concluded that "rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don't work." And yet these lights are showing up at more and more intersections nationwide.

According to USF professor Barbara Langland-Orban, one of the lead authors of the study, the cameras actually "increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections." Langland-Orban says the problem is compounded in Florida by the fact that "the state's high percent of elderly are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs."

And in compiling their research, USF found that Florida isn't the only place where these traffic-light cameras are a safety issue. Studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and even Ontario, Canada, also reported that the traffic-light cameras have played a significant role in the increase of intersection crashes in those cities, including a rise in crashes that involve injury and excessive damage.

If the "safety record" of these cameras is suspect, the cameras should be removed immediately, right? Well, good luck with that. There are folks out there with a vested interest in keeping these cameras not only up and running - but spreading. And I don't just mean the local townships that stand to have their coffers filled with additional traffic ticket money at the end of each month.

Believe it or not, there's actually a lobbying group out there to support traffic-light cameras. It's called the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Of course, the IIHS actually cares little for highway safety, or else it would be concerned about the findings of the USF study.

No, the IIHS is the ally of the traffic-light camera because it is a shill for the insurance industry. And the insurance industry LOVES traffic-light cameras, because its revenues skyrocket every time some poor schmuck runs a light and gets another moving violation tacked on to his license. The more points on your license, the higher the premiums you have to pay. Follow the money!

Apparently, the findings that were unearthed by the USF study have been unearthed before. Langland-Orban said that a paper published in 2001 by the Office of the Majority Leader of Congress called traffic-light cameras "a hidden tax levied on motorists," and even determined that the cameras are associated with increased incidents of traffic accidents. The report also alleged that the lights are often tampered with, shortening the time the lights stay yellow in order to snag more drivers and increase fine revenues. And who wouldn't be shocked by that little tidbit?

It would be a lot more difficult to argue against the existence of traffic-light cameras if they actually did what they were ostensibly created to d make traffic intersections safer. But the fact that multiple studies have shown that they're actually MORE dangerous makes it even more infuriating that local government and insurance companies are still willing to support them purely on the basis of profit. As usual, whenever money gets into the mix, high-minded ideals are the first thing out the window.

But beyond that, there's the bigger issue of personal freedom to consider. The idea of red-light cameras sounds great at first, but it's one of those slippery slope issues. If cameras are OK at traffic lights, then why not everywhere? What if, in a couple of years, technology allows those cameras to tell whether or not you're wearing your seat belt? Or if you were going through that light faster than the speed limit allows? Then what? Fines will be levied. Perhaps criminals will be taken off the streets. But at what cost? In a free society, when is enough enough?