Anonymous
Apples to oranges and anecdotal at best. Of course getting t-boned at just the right spot, at just the right speed, will cause more severe injuries than many rear-end collisions. There is a lot more to take into consideration, however.
What are the two speeds involved? What are the sizes of the vehicles involved? Is it a motorcycle hitting a new SUV with side impact air bags? How often is a car being hit at the door as opposed to the front or rear panel? Does the rear ended vehicle have a passenger not wearing a seat belt? What are the ages, height, weight, and health of the occupants? How many rear impacts equal the damage of one side impact? The scenarios are endless.
What is known, is the cameras are there to generate income. Studies in the above cited article bear that out. What is also known, is that there are more accidents at intersections with cameras.
Washington DC:
“The District’s red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000 violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City officials credit them with making busy roads safer.
But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices.
Three outside traffic specialists independently reviewed the data and said they were surprised by the results. Their conclusion: The cameras do not appear to be making ANY difference in preventing injuries or collisions.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html
Key point, the cameras DO NOT reduce injury.
If any one would like to support this method of city revenue, they should by all means. But at least make your point for or against red-light cameras with facts, not with what sounds likely or probable.