For every study you find that shows a decrease in accidents, I can post one that shows either a non-change or increase. Red light cameras are a REVENUE raising ploy and they don’t have a damned thing to do with public safety.
It is all about money.
I have few qualms about govt security cameras in general if they are used to solve crimes - but the traffic cameras are about generating revenue. They tend to get placed at poorly designed interestions rather then places that have had accidents.
In DC they have one in the tunnel that routes 395N to New York Ave. - no intersections and no pedestrians - just open road - it is about making money.
You are selectively reading only what you want to hear (just like the moonbats do). Among ITE researchers, it has already been proven to cut the overall severity of accidents (in my job, I have read all of them — not just the ones that say what I want to believe). That is fundamentally no different from what traffic signals do now.
By the way, if you are bothered with “costs”, you should be reading what is planned 15 to 20 years down the road. It is called “congestion pricing”. Civil engineers have given up trying to build our way out of traffic congestion. Gas taxes (which substantially pay for new construction) have not kept up with costs for years and the infastructure is declining.
The solution is the force people off the road by making it too expensive for them to use it. It is already used in several places in Europe (and London). When Bloomberg tried it in NYC recently, it was slapped down (this time), but it will keep coming back until the politicians decide it is the right time.
That is the choice. Either build more (with more costs that you actually get something for — a street) or drive people off the road with congestion pricing (which you get nothing for). Which do you think is going to happen in the long run?