But Skrum argues that the cameras are not the only way to deal with dangerous intersections.
"Most drivers don't want to run red lights," said Skrum, "but due to engineering flaws at some intersections, they sometimes have no choice."
A number of studies have shown that by simply increasing the length of "amber" or "yellow" lights, dangerous intersections can be made safe.
"By increasing the length of yellow lights," Skrum explained, "you can cut down on the amount of violations and accidents at an intersection."
It's the moment for a driver when he must make a choice. As a light turns yellow, he has to decide between speeding up to get through an intersection or trying to stop in time to keep from running a red light.
Sinclair said that time of dilemma is shortened if a yellow light is too quick. "It might actually encourage people to try and run the yellow," he said. "It's that go, no-go decision time we worry about."
Studies show that lengthening the amber light gives drivers more time to make that choice and more time to brake.
But in some cash-strapped communities, shorter yellow lights at intersections equipped with red-light cameras means more tickets -- and that means more money.
The AAA supports the use of the cameras, but Sinclair agrees that their use needs to be monitored so drivers aren't taken advantage of.
"We've seen ambers as short as a second in those areas where they might be wanting to, let's say, enhance revenue," he said. "There needs to be a national standard for the length of amber lights."
A study released in January by the Texas Transportation Institute concluded that extending a yellow light by 1.5 seconds would decrease red-light-running by at least 50 percent.
The institute also found that cameras do have a positive impact: that intersections equipped with the devices saw a 40 percent decrease in violations on average. They also found that the cameras had a kind of "halo" effect, where nearby intersections also saw a drop in violations.