Lewiston and Auburn have a problem at traffic intersections.

During a six-month test, cameras at five intersections in the Twin Cities caught almost 5,000 cars running through red lights. That number is entirely too high.

The cameras were placed as part of a pilot program to see if their presence would reduce the number of scofflaws barreling through intersections. But because the Legislature does not allow fines for violators captured on film, only warning letters were sent out, making it difficult to judge whether the cameras do their job.

But the evidence in other locales is convincing.

According to the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, a strong advocate for red-light cameras, a study in Oxnard, Calif., shows that red-light violations across the city dropped by 42 percent after the equipment was installed at nine intersections. The number of crashes citywide also declined significantly. Another study in Fairfax, Va., found similar results. After a year of camera enforcement, violations declined by about 40 percent.

Researchers from the University of Maine are studying the results from the pilot program in Lewiston and Auburn and are expected to release a report in August. If the evidence shows the same level of success that has been found in other cities, the Legislature should quickly pass a law allowing municipalities to install red-light cameras and use the photographic evidence to issue citations.

Opponents of the technology wrongly argue that it’s an invasion of privacy. Driving, however, is a heavily regulated, public activity. Drivers must be licensed and register their vehicles, and are expected to obey the law. Using new technology to enforce laws already on the books is not an unusually or overly intrusive way to improve highway safety. The practice of camera enforcement has a long history of success in Europe and around the United States.

The photo system isn’t perfect. Another IIHS study shows that about one-quarter of the time, the wrong person is issued a citation. The system identifies the vehicle that runs the red light; the registered owner of the car then receives the citation. As much as 28 percent of the time, the wrong person has to pay the fine. It’s a serious concern, but could be addressed with a system that allows drivers to contest the ticket without having to appear in court.

The addition of cameras at red lights, however, isn’t enough if municipalities really want to reduce the number of people running red lights. There’s legitimate concern that local government can become addicted to the flood of revenue generated by red-light cameras. In just the six-month pilot, Lewiston and Auburn would have received about $300,000 in new money.

Research shows that most drivers, about 80 percent, who run red lights enter the intersection less than a second after the signal changes. Longer yellow lights can be an effective means of reducing violations and, despite the argument that drivers simply adjust to the longer lights and keep on running, the research shows the number of violations don’t rebound with time.

Finally, the punishment for running lights should be more harsh. As it stands, running a light can cost a driver $126. Upping that to $200 might add enough sting to be a deterrent while also helping to finance the installation of the camera equipment.

Ultimately, it’s a question of public safety. We aren’t prepared to accept so many drivers risking their own safety and the safety of others by running red lights. New technology can give police the help they need for better enforcement and its use should be supported.