Even if they are not meant to, they do. Especially in a place like this, where it's not a huge transient population like other places. They key is, do they drop so low that they stop being profitable? Or does it get down to a base level of violations that stays in the black? If you are commuter community with lots of pass through traffic, you can see where that would be possible. Same with tourist areas (VA Beach, I'm looking at you). Here in MD, there are quite a few places where it did just that, the amount of violations dropped down to where it wasn't profitable. What happens then is one of a few of things. Either the city/county decides maybe all that safety wasn't needed after all and the contract doesn't get renewed, or they add more locations, or they decide to go after right on red and stop line violations. After the screaming about the need for safety, they look silly saying they need to go after right on red, but they usually just stick with "Well, it's a violation".
http://www.mddriversalliance.org/search/label/Red Light Cameras
Do some reading. One reason why arguing violations vs crashes is a sucker bet. And why I would love to see what data the Sheriff is using to justify his move towards the cameras. I suspect it's a vendor produced violation count, not a statistical study of actual crashes. Because an actual count of crashes might be pretty slim pickings to base such a program on. I know when I did a PIA request for crashes due to running red lights, I was told by both the State and the County that the data couldn't be searched that way, they would be lumped into all the failing to obey traffic device crashes, so picking red lights out of the others was impossible. Oh, Mrs Morgan and that person who died at First Colony will be mentioned. But a sample size of two over who knows what timeframe is pretty hard to work with. Oh, and there's this.
http://www.fox10tv.com/story/16590192/red-light-cameras-center-of-discussion-at-police-board-meeting
Cliff notes. Kansas City police actually had data, and it showed that the cameras actually increased rear end collisions. But oddly enough, they followed that up with "Well, might be more data, so we won't recommend trashing them".
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/fphr12.pdf
What's funny about this one is that it specifically analyzed the IIHS report I believe is the center point in our Sheriffs argument for the cameras.
"Our review reveals the 2011 IIHS study is logically flawed and violates basic scientific research methods that are required for a study’s findings to be valid. It has neither internal nor external validity. More importantly, the IIHS did not fully explain the results of its analysis. Correctly interpreting its model’s results actually shows that cities using RLCs had an estimated higher rate of red light running fatalities, specifically 25%, than cities that did not use RLCs in the period “after” cameras were used."
"The red light running fatality rate as well as the total fatality rate at all signalized intersections in cities that used cameras was higher in both the “before” and “after” time periods, which affirms that superior interventions exist. Also, we explain the IIHS’ financial conflict of interest regarding photo enforcement."