On NRA News today, host (and blogger) Cam Edwards interviewed my blogfather Jeff Soyer, and one of the subjects was the DC red light camera fiasco.

According to the WaPo story linked by Glenn Reynolds, the data make it overwhelmingly clear that not only don't the cameras deter red light running, they actually increase accidents:

The Post obtained a D.C. database generated from accident reports filed by police. The data covered the entire city, including the 37 intersections where cameras were installed in 1999 and 2000.

The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame. Traffic specialists say broadside collisions are especially dangerous because the sides are the most vulnerable areas of cars.

The number of crashes and injury collisions at intersections with cameras rose steadily through 2001, then dipped through 2003 before spiking again last year.

The results were similar or worse than figures at intersections that have traffic signals but no cameras. The number of overall crashes at those 1,520 locations increased 64 percent; injury and fatal crashes rose 54 percent; and broadside collisions rose 17 percent.

What particularly intrigued me about Jeff's radio discussion was the obvious logical anomaly in the Post's (and the DC government's) thinking: WHAT ABOUT THE DC GUN BAN? If it's clear that red light cameras increase accidents, then by the same logic, why isn't it also clear that the DC gun ban has increased crime in a place long known for being the nation's murder capital?

If public safety concerns are a reason to reexamine a failed bureaucratic scheme that causes accidents, then why not one that causes deaths?