Red-light cameras haven't improved safety, L.A. city controller says

Los Angeles’ much-debated red light camera program has bypassed some of the city’s most dangerous intersections, cost more than $2.5 million over the last two years and failed to adequately demonstrate an improvement in safety, according to an audit due to be released Wednesday by City Controller Wendy Greuel.

The study, the first independent assessment of a program that catches tens of thousands of violators annually, comes as officials are hoping to add to the city’s 32 photo-enforced intersections. Details of the audit findings are scheduled to be released at a morning news conference with Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and City Councilman Dennis Zine.

Greuel’s office noted in an advisory that the decade-old camera program was supposed to reduce accidents at the highest-risk intersections. But auditors found that some of the most accident-prone corners were passed over -- partly for political reasons, such as ensuring that at least one camera system was placed in each of the 15 City Council districts.

Only half of the intersections equipped with cameras showed a reduction in accidents, according to Greuel’s office.

LAPD officials, who have insisted that the cameras have improved safety and reduced fatalities at those intersections, were not immediately available for comment.

But program operators at the LAPD and city transportation department have been unable to conclusively document safety improvements, the audit found. A more comprehensive means of evaluating the effectiveness of cameras is needed, the report says.

-- Rich Connell

Comments

[factor]

i am noticing an increased disparity between the headlines and the actual article contents in the times. in this case the headline is grossly misleading. if, as per the 4th paragraph of this article, the cameras have increased traffic safety at 50 percent of the intersections - that is clearly a net increase in safety. unless of course there was something said that isn't stated in the article. pretty bad journalism/editing that's going on here.

[Fitzgerald]

Ha! Face...

[Pizzedoff]

There you have it! Just ANOTHER filthy abuse of overexercised commerce clause powers and RE-venue raising scam! If you people knew the full truth about the limits of government power, you'd start a revolution by morning... EXCEPT, that you're all too cowardly!
YOU; ARE NOT required to have/use a "DRIVER LICENSE"!
YOU; ARE NOT required to register your cars! There's SO much more to this.
I deliberately hyphenated "RE-venue", as in; you are MOVED by police power threat (see: http://www.landrights.com/UCC_1-207.htm) from your protected Bill of Rights status into THEIR corporate jurisdiction. You would also do well to read UCC 3-305: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-305.html. This references failure to disclose the nature(s) of agreements; i.e. as in "Licenses", "applications", SIGNING TRAFFIC TICKETS, etc. Look up "re" and look up "venue", understand the words you all take for granted.
Look up CVC 260 (California Vehicle Code) then ask yourself if you indeed use the PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY for COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.. IF NOT, you ARE NOT required to "register" your four-wheeled property (or two, or three wheels either) IF YOU ARE NOT IN COMMERCE! the word "traffic" IN A LAW DICTIONARY. Look up all these key words.
Don't be stupid all your life. ...well, then again, if you're too damn lazy to know and enforce your rights, go ahead be as stupid as you can, it won't affect me one way or the other.

[David in Culver City]

The cameras could well be a zero-sum game. Even if they reduce the number of red light runners, cautious drivers braking early and unexpectedly in heavy, fast traffic have a higher likelihood of being rearended or causing chain reaction collisions behind them.

[Joe]

Red light cameras are money traps for local govts. They don't work, and they cause traffic accidents.

[John]

[sarcasm] Shocking.

[Lauren]

There's a freaking shocker.

[Greg Maragos]

These cameras are designed to do one thing, and that they do: make money.

[bob]

Anyone that thinks these cameras were about anything other that generating revenue is a fool.

[Stacey]

Well, we know some of the city council members took campaign contributions from Redflex.

[Tom]

For those who don't understand statistics...

If the red light cameras had no impact on accidents, you'd expect about half to have a reduction in accidents compared to previous years and half to have more.

So the most likely interpretation is that the cameras do jack-squat for safety, not a marginal improvement that can be built upon.

[LA_Joe]

Red Light cameras are a rip off! More than half of the fine goes to a private company not to our city's coffers. Take them all down and put those companies ripping off the taxpayers out of business!

[Paul]

And yet, nothing will be done. No way can a politician admit that something didn't work, pull out all the cameras, and quit throwing money at it!

Instead, they will somehow try to spin this into a "we're obviously not doing enough" situation, and double or triple the number of intersections with cameras. All on our dime...

http://www.progressivespin.com

[S.A. Wright]

Lets try and get honest for a minute,If that is possible any more The reason for the invention of red-light cameras is for revenue generating the premise of safety is just something they stuck to the back end of the arguement as to give it a feel good explanation

[J. Priest]

In the face of increasing evidence they don't work or are counter-productive, cities insist on putting in red-light cameras.

As this audit suggests, it doesn't even result in more revenue... it *cost* Los Angeles $2.5 Million more to have such a program!

Let's not let reason and experience influence us, we'll be swayed like sheep by the siren song of high-tech "enforcement."

That's sure to make a more law-abiding community.

:(

[James Jackson]

Chief Beck will assert that the study failed to effectively measure safety improvement and suggest installing another 32 of the evil devices. It does not really matter what any study shows, the LAPD will get their way, study and the public be damned. It has always been that way.

[Sam]

If anyone want a more safe intersection (from a known unsafe intersection), just delay the light transition with the average time that most driver run the intersection...this should save lives and accidents.

Also who can we get a story about the 650fwy transition to the 10fwy...who thought it was a good idea to have freeway traffic weave together for a transition.

Also the 110fwy transition to 5fwy...white lights does not stop drivers from using the lane (when the sign is not on)...can we just make that lane optional at all times...that sign does not even make sense.

Also the runabout in Pasadena...who thought that intersection was a good place to put it...come on, that is not efficient at that intersection with that kind of traffic.

I got more...

[Peter]

The city controller is late to this party...

Here is a quick article from last year detailing a report that the red light cameras actually increased accidents in some intersections:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/city-news/las-stoplight-cameras-can-incr/

Here is another and more in depth report from a journalist who got a red camera ticket and did some follow up to get the full story including the cost and who gets paid:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/city-news/las-stoplight-cameras-can-incr/

People who blatantly run red lights are stupid but I'm willing to bet that most of the people that have been fined by these cameras misjudged the timing of the light by half a second or probably knew the yellow might turn soon but felt it was unsafe to slam on the brakes (see the articles above - this is the reason why there was actually a rise of accidents in some intersections with cameras installed).

I'd like to see a proper study done by the city to see what is the percentage of red light accidents. If they control for other factors like driving drunk then I'm willing to bet that the number is very marginal and not worth spending $2.5 million in 2 years. I'm sure the police can use that money for more urgent issues.

[Security Cameras]

The administrators should have to take this issue seriously and replace the whole security camera systems with one having new technology.

[Red-Light]

They will never be able to prove the revenue. It's something like 50% of the red light violators use community service to pay for their ticket (especially in this economy). This means the state/local government pays the private company 50% of the cost. It's a failed model to generate money.

As for accidents, I see it all the time, people slamming on their breaks the second it turns yellow, because they are not sure if its a short-adjusted yellow light to increase revenue. So rear-end accidents go up, more serious accidents are reduced. The number of accidents overall either stays the same or goes up.

[Bill]

Red light cameras are a racket. --- A much better investment on city street intersections would be more left-turn lanes with a clear and delayed green arrow. --- The worst wrecks I have seen in Sherman Oaks involve the guy who has been waiting for a chance to make a left turn vs the oncoming jerk who is trying to blow the yellow while talking on the phone. --- Its hard to guess what the other guy is doing, if he's going to stop, brake lights come on at the rear, but no sign at the front lets you know. --- Maybe the car builders could put a flashing yellow on the front when brakes are applied.

[Scamera Opponent]

These cameras are, and always have been, a lucrative Band-Aid solution to a problem that has existed since the three-color traffic light was invented: The yellow light is, all too often, not enough for a driver to make a decision. We've all been in the situation where the light changes to yellow when one is at a distance from the intersection where a split second decision is required: "Gun it" and try to make the light, or slam on the brakes. Human nature is to try and pass, so that is the type of thing that these cameras are fine-tuned to catch.

What motorists need costs much less than the cameras and will greatly improve the city driving experience. Aside from the obvious (synchronized signals so that more greens are encountered), we need countdown timers that tell the exact number of seconds before the yellow light.

It's time to, as is already happening in much of Arizona, give these camera systems a proper burial, install motorist-friendly improvements, and rely on traditional methods of law enforcement for ensuring public safety.

[August]

Sure has made a lot of people VERY WEALTHY!

[August]

Pizzedoff, I quit paying taxes, fees, fines, licenses 19 years ago and I'm still going strong.....

[TwoCents]

And I think I read somewhere that the cameras actually cost more in administrative costs than they produce in revenue....way to go, L.A.!!!