This was an interesting article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844_pf.html
It seems that accident rates have drastically increased (in some cases, by as much as 50%) where cameras monitor vehicles running red lights and issue citations based on photographic evidence.
Federal research suggested that they'd trade off more dangerous broadside accidents for less dangerous rear-end collisions.
The police response to news that the cameras didn't work was perplexing:
"I'd rather have them than not have them," Ramsey said. "They make people slow down. They reduce the number of traffic violations, and that's a good thing."
That's all dandy, but weren't the cameras installed to reduce accidents?
Terrance W. Gainer, then the second-highest ranking D.C. police official, said the cameras would "get people to stop at red lights and avoid crashes. . . . Hopefully, we'll have a few less messes to clean up."
Hmm, they weren't intended to make people "slow down", they were intended to make people stop. And they were ment to reduce "crashes" and "messes" - not "violations".
I think a lot of violations are bullshit anyway. Safety laws should have an impact on *safety* - not rules someone dreamed up. If your goal is to reduce traffic violations there are better ways to go about it.
