Citation

Langland-Orban B, Pracht EE, Large JT, Zhang N, Tepas JT. Eval. Health Prof. 2014; 39(2): 226-244.

Affiliation

Department of Surgery, University of Florida, Jacksonville, FL, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0163278714542245

PMID

25007792

Abstract

Evaluations of red light camera (RLC) traffic safety programs have produced mixed results. Some conclude RLCs were associated with significant increases in motor vehicle crashes and injury crashes, whereas other research reports safety benefits. To understand the difference in findings, the present analysis assessed whether standards required for internal validity in quasi-experimental public health program evaluations were adhered to in frequently cited RLC analyses. Four evaluation standards were identified and used to assess the RLC analyses: lack of bias in the selection of both (a) treated sites and (b) comparison sites, (c) integration of relevant control variables in the analysis, and (d) full disclosure of results of the statistical analysis. Six leading RLC studies were then critiqued. Only two of the six studies adhered to the four standards and both concluded RLCs were associated with significant increases in crashes and injury or possible injury crashes. A third study reported an increase in fatal/injury crashes but did not test for statistical significance. Three studies reported equivocal findings; however, each failed to adhere to most standards. Differences in findings were attributed to the evaluation methods used. If implementing an RLC program, communities should use sound public health evaluation methods to assess effectiveness.

Language: en