Installing red light cameras at major intersections would be a drain on London taxpayers and end up trading one kind of car crash for another, a city politician warns.

Coun. Michael van Holst says the city should look at other options instead of installing the devices.

If the cameras get the green light early next year from city council, they would generate $4.5 million annually, city staff say in a report that goes to council’s civic works committee Jan. 5.

But van Holst points out nearly $3 million would be shipped out of London. An estimated $1.25 million would go to the U.S. company that installs and maintains the cameras, while the city of Toronto would receive $1.1 million for issuing fines on behalf of London and the province would rake in $600,000 in fines.

When all costs are factored in, that would leave about $200,000 for the city — not enough, van Holst said, to justify the work and limited effect the cameras would have on traffic safety.

London police and other supporters of red light cameras say they reduce the number high-speed right-angle collisions at intersections. Drivers brake when the light changes instead of racing through, they say.

Though right-angle crashes would decrease, rear-end collisions could increase by 15 per cent, van Holst says.

“People will slam on the brakes to avoid a red light ticket and get nailed from behind. We are trading one accident for another.”

Some U.S. cities are unplugging red light cameras after a spike in serious crashes, he said.

Van Holst also believes the city’s annual $200,000 take from red light cameras would shrink because the cost of processing and other costs will increase.

A road safety committee with members from the city, Middlesex County and London police is recommending London get the cameras that are used in several Canadian municipalities, including Toronto.

London police cite a Toronto police study that said red light cameras reduced right-angle crashes by 40 per cent.

But van Holst said the cameras would be an expensive fix for a problem that accounts for about 100 of the 3,000 traffic citations a year in London.

Improving intersections and cracking down on aggressive drivers should be priorities, he said, citing results of a road safety study.

Or London could follow Detroit’s lead, van Holst said. Instead of red light cameras, Detroit improved its intersection infrastructure by adding larger lights, resulting in a 50 per cent drop in crashes, he said.

Ron Harper, who owns OTD Legal, a firm that fights traffic tickets, said the safety argument for red light cameras is a red herring.

“It is ultimately a tax and it does not do anything for road safety,” he said.

“You get tickets for red light cameras weeks later. It’s too late, it doesn’t change behaviour. You need boots on the ground to do that.”

Media reports south of the border suggest the cameras are little more than another tax grab.

Studies conducted in Florida, ­California, Virginia and Illinois and by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration conclude that red light cameras almost always lead to a steep increase in rear-end collisions.

With more people braking hard when the light turns yellow, there was a 22 per cent increase in rear-end crashes at intersections in ­Chicago with red light cameras, an investigation by the Chicago Tribune revealed.

That same report states that in 12 years the lights have generated $500 million in revenue for the city that is facing a class-action lawsuit by ticketed drivers.

In 2011, Houston banned red light cameras after a study by police showed a 116 per cent increase in total crashes and an 84 per cent rise in major crashes at intersections with cameras between 2010 and 2014.

--- --- ---

Red light cameras

Here’s how they’d work in London