Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
You—well, not YOU—race through an intersection as the light turns red. And then you notice the camera. They got you. And a ticket is on its way. Well, researchers have quantified the financial benefit of the cameras in one city. Turns out it’s from more than the speeding tickets.
In Barcelona, more than 12,000 people were being injured every year in traffic accidents. Making drivers slow down has proven to be the best way to reduce accidents—and these cameras succeed in getting drivers to lower their speed.
The researchers examined data from eight cameras installed on Barcelona’s beltways over two years. They compared the before and after accident rates for those highways, and compared those with highways that had no cameras.
Because of the cameras, there were 364 fewer accidents in the two years, and 507 fewer injuries. [Joan Mendivil et al., in Injury Prevention, "Speed Cameras in an Urban Setting: a Cost-Benefit Analysis"]
Even with the cost of the cameras and monitoring them, the city saved the equivalent of at least some $9 million—possibly much more. The biggest benefits were from vehicle damage that didn’t happen and medical bills that were never incurred. Not to mention gas money saved from not gunning the engine.
—Cynthia Graber
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentSince it is the affect on the behavior of drivers who were aware of the cameras' presence that reduced the incidence of collisions, easily visible dummy cameras should be equally effective...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI seriously doubt it saves lives. People running a red light don't even think if there's a car coming so why would they bother to think about a camera?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI actually bet it creates more accidents. Why? Because every time I come to an intersection where I know a traffic camera exists I feel nervous and wonder what I should do I don't know what kind of sensitivity the thing is set on. If I come up to a light and it turns orange just as I'm about to enter the intersection should I keep going like any person should? Or will I get a ticket for that? I can't afford a ticket...should I stop even though I'll have to hit the breaks really hard?
This is what is going through my head when I reach intersections with traffic lights. Indecision. Nobody should have to think like this when they reach a traffic light and if my reasoning were less than sound I might actually decide to break hard to avoid a ticket...depending on where you're driving this could cause a lot of accidents.
When good and honest citizens become afraid of the law...this is when you know the law has gone out of hand.
In the U.S. red-light cameras are more about revenue generation than safety. Typically when they're put in place the length of the yellow light is decreased -- even though longer yellows have been shown to reduce accidents -- because shorter yellows lead to much higher rates of violations, and hence more revenue for the local governments and the companies that market the red-light cameras (who get a share of the take).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe research isn't about red light cameras. It's about speed cameras. Why does this item open with a description of someone running a red light?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is about speed cameras, not red light cameras.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I wonder about is whether the study was controlled for traffic volumes. It was a 2 year study. Is it possible the economic slowdown caused lower traffic volume? Also, it would be nice to know how many accidents there were in total to be able to judge the significance of the reduction.
Which two years are we comparing? Because comparing accidents in Spain at 7% unemployment vs. accidents in Spain at 20% unemployment just doesn't seem like a good idea (what with fewer drivers on the road going to work). Just saying there were x fewer accidents means nothing, whereas x fewer accidents per y cars passing through the intersection is a touch more meaningful. Come on, SciAm, your quality is expected to be a touch higher than this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKate and Soccerdad are right. The cameras were installed on a beltway and nabbed speeders. In contrast, red-light cameras are installed at controlled intersections to catch drivers who proceed thru the intersection on red. Problem is, while they do catch the worst offenders, drivers who blow straight thru the intersection, they also ding the much more plentiful drivers making a right turn but may not come to a dead stop first. As a result the 'righties', though much less dangerous than the 'straight-thrus', end up funding the system. It ain't right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot real crazy about the Big Brother factor either.
I recently received a "ticket" from a red light camera. Only problem is I wasn't driving my car that day and had loaned it to a friend. On checking the video on the web, it was obvious that the person I had loaned my car to was making a "right on red" and didn't quite stop all the way. Apparently they don't care who is driving the car and don't bother to take pictures of the driver. The other problem is that a "real" officer would have had to I.D. the person driving the car and at least in this case, would not have issued a ticket anyway. Also, any officer with vision as bad as the red light cameras have would not be allowed to stay on the force. Chalk up another one for big brother......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this