I wouldn’t believe any insurance company or local government studies either — or some from the anti-red-light crowd. I am talking about the ITE studies. They have been in the forefront of what is now taken for granted in traffic safety since the 1930’s.
And, yea, the local governments make money off of it. That does NOT alter the truth. They do improve safety. The only way to enforce safety rules is to make it hurt (cost money) if you don’t obey them. That is no different from any other traffic rule. If the police never gave a ticket for running a red light (that they personally saw), people would ignore them and run lights more often. The red light camera just puts a lot cheaper alternative to a cop at a lot more intersections.
I’d believe you if it weren’t so obvious that a lot of this is revenue raising pure and simple.
Not too far from where I live, the I-95 Interstate intersects 695, the Baltimore Beltway. They are in the process of putting in new lanes (at a cost of $700M) with tolls to “ease congestion.” I asked someone that works on highway engineering projects for the State about this and pointed out to him that toll lanes are not going to ease congestion, particularly when the other lanes remain in place and are free.
I asked him why all the effort for this? His reply was “revenue for the State.”
Check it out and tell me this is not being done to fleece the public: http://www.i-95expresstolllanes.com/
Yup, doesn't happen every day, but many Americans can tell you some of those Souvrn' speed traps were pretty much like that.
Collecting money for violating traffic laws, particularly speeding and running redlights, is quite progressive and humane compared to what could otherwise be done.