More cities and states are fighting back against the use and misuse of red light cameras.

Opponents of the cameras often argue that they are really just revenue engines for struggling cities and towns, silently dinging motorists for mostly minor infractions. And while guidelines issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration say revenue is an invalid justification for the use of the eyes in the sky (see box at right), camera-generated citations do spin off a lot of money in many cities — the nearly 400 cameras in Chicago, for example, generated more than $64 million in 2009, the last year for which complete figures were available.

Los Angeles hasn’t been so lucky.

The city gets only a third of the revenue generated by camera citations, many of which go unpaid anyway because judges refuse to enforce them, the city controller’s office reported last year. It found in an audit that if you add it all up, operating the cameras has cost $1 million to $1.5 million a year more than they’ve generated in fines, even as “the program has not been able to document conclusively an increase in public safety.”

Studies have shown that red light cameras increase accidents. Lengthening the time of a yellow light actually decreases accidents. Unfortunately, most places that install red light cameras decrease the yellow light time in order for more tickets to be produced, thus making driving around the red light camera more dangerous.

Red light cameras continue to be a bane to drivers. There is no right to face your accuser, you are guilty until you can prove your innocence, and little due process.

Red light cameras have been and always will be money generators. They are not about safety. Until this actually changes, cities are going to be hard-pressed to convince people they are about anything except revenue.