Do red light cameras "improve safety or just raise $?" That's the question state Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-Seattle) tweeted after witnessing an almost-accident at a red light camera intersection in Ballard. I suppose it's a legitimate question for a legislator to ask, considering that it is the Legislature that authorizes municipal governments to approve and install red light cameras. And according to Carlyle, that's all he was doing. Asking.

"It just got me thinking," said Carlyle, after witnessing a driver nearly cause an accident by hesitating in response to a stale yellow. Carlyle says he's had long conversations with Rep. Chris Hurst, a kinda-sorta Dem from Pierce County, and staunch opponent of the cameras, but was ultimately pulled in their favor by research conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the same organization that issues the widely publicized vehicle safety ratings. "The insurance industry wouldn't get behind it if red light cameras didn't reduce accidents," Carlyle figures.

And that's exactly the reasoning that won my support, despite the annoyance and expense of having received a red light camera ticket myself, and the relentless accusations by camera opponents that I'm somehow a shill for the red light camera industry. According to a recent IIHS study, red light cameras save lives. As I've previously summarized:

Comparing crash statistics between 1992—1996 and 2004—2008 in the 99 US cities with populations above 200,000, researchers found a 35 percent reduction in red-light fatalities in cities that implemented red-light-camera programs, versus a 14 percent reduction in those that did not.

But the cameras' benefits actually proved to be much bigger. When all crashes at signaled intersections were tallied, not just those due to red-light running, total fatalities dropped 14 percent in cities with cameras, while rising 2 percent in cities without. Overall, researchers estimate that while red-light cameras saved 159 lives between 2004 and 2008, a total of 815 deaths could have been prevented had the cameras been installed throughout.

So why would I trust data from the infamously greedy and self-serving insurance industry? Because it's greedy and self-serving. The insurance industry strongly supports red light cameras because their research has convinced them that it will save them money by reducing serious accidents, and thus expensive claims. The fact that it saves lives too, well, that's a bonus. So while I don't trust the industry to look out for my best interests, I'm pretty damn confident they're looking out for their own. And unlike with health care reform, in this case our interests pretty much coincide.

Thus, the answer to Carlyle's questions is "both." Red light cameras both improve safety and raise dollars. And while those being ticketed may find the latter irritating, the fines are a helluva lot less painful than being run down in a crosswalk.