Institute of Transport Economics - TØI, Gaustadalléen 21, NO 0349 Oslo, Norway.
Accid Anal Prev. 2013 Jun;55:77-89. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2013.02.017. Epub 2013 Mar 4.
The present study has replicated the results from a previous meta-analysis by Erke (2009) [Erke, A., 2009. Red light for red-light cameras? A meta-analysis of the effects of red-light cameras on crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41 (5), 897-905.] based on a larger sample of RLC-studies, and provides answers to the criticisms that were raised by Lund et al. (2009) [Lund, A.K., Kyrychenko, S.Y., Retting, R.A., 2009. Caution: a comment on Alena Erke's red light for red-light cameras? A meta-analysis of the effects of red-light cameras on crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention 41, 895-896.] against the previous meta-analysis. The addition of recent studies to the meta-analysis and a more thorough investigation of potential moderator variables lead to a slight improvement of the estimated effects of RLC in the previous meta-analysis. The present study found a non-significant increase of all crashes by 6% and a non-significant decrease of all injury crashes by 13%. Right-angle collisions were found to decrease by 13% and rear-end collisions were found to increase by 39%. For right-angle injury collisions a decrease by 33% was found and for rear-end injury collisions a smaller increase was found (+19%). The effects of RLC are likely to be more favorable when RLC-warning signs are set up at main entrances to areas with RLC enforcement than when each RLC-intersection is signposted. The effects of RLC may become more favorable over time, this could however not be investigated empirically. Several results indicate that spillover effects may occur for right-angle collisions, but most likely not for rear-end and other crashes. If spillover effects do not occur for rear-end crashes, which increase at RLC intersection, this would be a positive result for RLC. However, the results seem to be affected to some degree by publication bias and the effects may therefore be somewhat less favorable than indicated by the results from meta-analysis.
本研究基于更大的 RLC 研究样本，复制了 Erke（2009 年）[Erke, A., 2009. 红灯对红灯摄像机有用吗？红灯摄像机对事故影响的荟萃分析。事故分析与预防 41 (5), 897-905.]之前的荟萃分析结果，并为 Lund 等人（2009 年）[Lund, A.K., Kyrychenko, S.Y., Retting, R.A., 2009. 注意：对 Alena Erke 的红灯对红灯摄像机的评论的评论？红灯摄像机对事故影响的荟萃分析。事故分析与预防 41, 895-896.]对之前的荟萃分析提出的批评意见提供了答案。将最近的研究纳入荟萃分析，并更彻底地调查潜在的调节变量，导致对 RLC 之前荟萃分析中估计效果的略微改善。本研究发现，所有事故增加了 6%，所有受伤事故减少了 13%，但均无统计学意义。直角碰撞减少了 13%，追尾碰撞增加了 39%。直角受伤碰撞减少了 33%，追尾受伤碰撞增加了 19%。当在设置 RLC 执法区域的主要入口处设置 RLC 警告标志时，RLC 的效果可能更为有利，而当每个 RLC 交叉口都有标志时则效果较差。随着时间的推移，RLC 的效果可能会变得更加有利，但这在经验上无法进行调查。有几个结果表明，可能会发生溢出效应，适用于直角碰撞，但最不可能发生在追尾和其他碰撞。如果 RLC 交叉口的追尾碰撞没有发生溢出效应，这将是 RLC 的一个积极结果。然而，结果在某种程度上受到发表偏倚的影响，因此，结果可能不如荟萃分析结果所示的那么有利。
