Chattanooga officials are challenging assertions made about red-light cameras in a study that calls the photo enforcement program “unsafe, unconstitutional and unnecessary.”

A report released Monday by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research claims that cities implementing red-light cameras are concerned more about revenue than safety and also infringe on the rights of residents. Such cameras take photos when someone runs the red light, then the city mails a ticket to the auto owner.

“People get pretty outraged about this because of the whole issue surrounding money, where the money goes, safety issues, the legality of these things,” said Justin Owen, the center’s director of legal policy and one of the study’s authors. “It’s kind of like Big Brother, always watching you.”

The report states that, while some intersections in Chattanooga had fewer accidents between January 2006 and May 2008, others had more.

But local officials say the study misrepresents information provided by the city of Chattanooga and incorrectly suggests the city tampered with the duration of yellow lights before it refunded money to defendants after an improperly timed red-light camera at the intersection of M.L. King Boulevard and Pine Street was discovered earlier this year.

“There are some errors made in their conclusions because they took things out of context; they don’t have all the facts,” said city Traffic Engineer John Van Winkle. “We can respond to any criticism they have.”

Data was provided by the city under the condition that the statistics be used only as preliminary numbers. Since the red-light cameras were installed on Jan. 18, 2008, the city has only raw data, Mr. Van Winkle said.

According to the report, 56 percent of all fines collected by cameras in Chattanooga are paid to the camera company, LaserCraft.

Money from Chattanooga’s system is placed into the community to pay for traffic-related safety education and initiatives, said Richard Beeland, spokesman for Mayor Ron Littlefield.

Before choosing a red light camera company, the city researched its options to ensure it didn’t choose a company only in the business of making money, Mr. Van Winkle said.

“Our issue was about making the streets safer,” he said

The report states that while red-light cameras may decrease certain types of accidents, such as T-bone collisions, it increases the number of rear-end collisions. However, the report does not provide numbers for that claim for Tennessee cities.

Data on those collisions is difficult to find, especially because many cities only recently implemented red-light cameras and because other factors such as weather can play a role in wrecks, Mr. Owen said.

Cities may see a spike in rear-end collisions immediately after cameras are implemented because drivers who used to run lights now are braking suddenly, Mr. Van Winkle said. But those collisions decrease as people become accustomed to the cameras, he said.

“I wouldn’t say it’s a chronic thing,” Mr. Van Winkle said.

Mr. Owen suggests doing away with red-light cameras and lengthening yellow lights to 4 or 4.5 seconds. Tennessee state law requires yellow lights to last a minimum of 3 seconds.

“That can make a tremendous difference because it gives people more time to make a decision,” he said.

A study published in 2007 by the national Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research and communications organization funded by auto insurers, found that, while both red-light cameras and lengthening yellow lights helped reduce the number of red light runners, red-light cameras were more effective.

Comments