I have written on red light cameras before and today a new study on the city of Garland, Texas confirms my belief in the system. During the 4 year study conducted from 2004-2008, researchers for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that cities, including Garland, with red-light cameras had fewer fatal accidents caused by red-light runners than cities without them. In fact, Garland saw a 25 percent decrease in the number of fatal accidents involving red-light runners at intersections with cameras.
Even though these cameras seem to be working in Garland, they are still really controversial. A lot of folks out there seem to think the cameras are an invasion of privacy and just a way for cities to make money.
As for me, I'm for red light cameras because I think the good outweighs the bad. I think the cameras have a deterrent effect; people are aware of them and are less likely to blow through a light. As a car accident lawyer here in Dallas Fort Worth, I have seen the results of accidents when people run red lights. The collisions are usually bad and result in serious injuries. I think if a red light camera will keep people from getting hurt, then they are a good idea. What do you guys think?
I agree, the injury numbers have improved. So has the income for the 3rd party camera provider and the state. What keeps them from doctoring these videos to keep the money flowing in? $75 per ticket at 11,500 at Coit & Spring Creek alone. $862,500 so far. Thank you for the post, great stuff.