No surprise in this report

I've been against red light cameras on the basis that they don't do anything to improve the safety of drivers or pedestrians. I didn't think they were a good idea, but I clearly had the wrong end of the argument: they're very good at doing one thing . . . revenue generation:

[. . .] in a study published this month in the Florida Public Health Review, University of South Florida researchers did find that red light cameras are little more than revenue generators, and actually make intersections less safe than doing nothing at all.

"The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work," said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health.

"Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. If used in Florida, cameras could potentially create even worse outcomes due to the state’s high percent of elderly who are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs."

Okay, so they're bad for drivers . . . where does the revenue angle come in? Here:

Some studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained major “research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras. Insurers can profit from red-light cameras, since their revenues will increase when higher premiums are charged due to the crash and citation increase, the researchers say.

That'd be bad enough on its own, except that in many jurisdictions where they've introduced red light cameras, they've also shortened the amber light . . . because that pretty much guarantees an increase in revenue.

Okay, so it also absolutely guarantees an increase in accidents, but you know what they say about omelettes and eggs, right?