The national debate over the role, effectiveness, and legality of red light cameras is heating up.  States are fairly evenly divided on the issue of using red light cameras at intersections to prevent collisions that result in injuries and fatalities.  A recent article in the USA Today reported that currently 24 states have at least some red light cameras.  Some states are passing bans completely prohibiting the use of red light cameras while other states are expressly authorizing use of the cameras to take a picture of vehicles that fail to stop then issuing tickets by mail.  There are also many states that take an intermediate position.  At the heart of the debate over the use of red light cameras is whether they are a cost-effective means of reducing car accident rates and preventing motor vehicle related injuries and fatalities.

Many municipalities that are installing red light cameras are being accused of focusing on generating revenue rather than public safety.  There is little dispute that using red light cameras in intersections can be an enormous source of revenue at a time when many local governments are drowning in red ink.  Red light cameras in Chicago generate a staggering $60 million per year in additional public funds according to the USA Today article.  Critics that view the cameras as primarily a revenue source take various positions, including:

• Red light intersection cameras should not be used at all because they are ineffective at preventing car accidents.
• The cameras should be used only with transparency so that it is clear what the program costs, the results in terms of preventing car accidents, the amount of revenue generated by the cameras, and the ways the revenue is used.
• Red light cameras should only be installed in intersections with a history of significant car crashes.

One of the key issues involving the use of red light cameras is whether they play a significant role in reducing intersection collisions. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducted a study last year that found red light cameras reduce auto accidents by almost 25 percent.  However, many other studies have suggested that red light cameras are far less effective.  There have even been studies that suggest that red light cameras increase car accidents because drivers are overly cautious or focused on the presence of the camera.

The law is equally muddled on the appropriateness of red light cameras.  Some examples include:

• A Florida court has ruled that the cameras are unconstitutional.
• In Missouri, one court ruled the cameras invalid while another court found them permissible within a one month period
• A court in Washington determined that voters could not prohibit red light cameras via ballot initiative.

These diverging views reveal that courts are as conflicted about the legal status of red cameras as the public, government entities, and safety advocates on the effectiveness of the cameras.  While our car accident attorneys are staunch advocates of motor vehicle safety, we also realize that the resources to promote safer roadways are not unlimited.  One positive aspect of this particular vehicle safety tool is that the program is self-financing.

If you or someone you love was recently injured in a Mississippi car accident by a driver who ran a red light or otherwise was driving negligently, we encourage you to contact our experienced team of personal injury attorneys today.  At the Barrett Law Offices PLLC, our experienced Mississippi personal injury lawyers represent injury victims throughout Mississippi.  Our law firm has roots that reach back 75 years so contact us today for your free initial consultation at (662) 834-2376 to see how we can help.