Study	Reason for exclusion
Blais and Carnis (2015)	RLCs not primary intervention of interest. Study examines the French Automated Speed Enforcement Program (ASEP)—cannot separate effect of RLCs from ASEP
Budd et al. (2011)	All intersections without RLCs located within the same postcode as a treatment sites
Dahnke et al. (2008)	No independent control group, non‐monitored approaches of RLC intersection used as controls
De Pauw et al. (2014)	Comparison group is database of all crashes in Flanders to control for trend, includes treated intersections
Golub et al. (2002)	No independent control group, used non‐monitored/unenforced approaches of RLC intersection as comparison.
Guerin (2010)	Speed cameras and RLCs activated at the same time ‐ cannot separate effect of RLCs from speed cameras.
Hebert‐Martinez and Porter (2006)	Focus on identifying and predicting characteristics of red light runner drivers after implementation of RLC program. Outcome measures not of interest.
Kent et al. (1995)	Ordinal logistic model ‐ not a CBA, no before data
Loftis et al. (2011)	No non‐RLC control intersection used. RLC intersections not selected at random. Study used simulation approach to model collisions with and without RLCs installed
Lum and Wong (2003a)	No independent control group—non‐monitored approaches of RLC intersection used as control. No examination of collision, only red light running. Study examines impact of RLCs on after‐red times—does RLC effect mean after‐red times on camera vs non‐camera approaches
Lum and Wong (2003b)	Same data as Lum and Wong (2003a), some of the same results reported. No independent control group—nonmonitored approaches of RLC intersection used as control
Lum and Wong (2003c)	Same data as Lum and Wong (2003a), some of the same results reported. No independent control group—nonmonitored approaches of RLC intersection used as control
McCartt and Hu (2014)	No before data. Only data during warning period at which time cameras and signs had been installed and public announcement made
McFadden and McGee (1999)	Report is a synthesis of other RLC studies. No new data provided
MVA Consultancy 1995	Some non‐camera approaches of RLC intersections used as controls (only 19 hr after monitoring)
Obeng and Burkey (2008)	Focus is on offsetting driver behavior—RLC intervention not the primary intervention of interest
Radalj (2001)	No control before after crash data. Excluded from previous review “no base data provided on control”
Shah (2010)	Not a controlled before after study. Mentions a report of a controlled before after study that was acquired but only reports percentage decreases and none of the data is included
Shah (2014)	Not a controlled before after study. Mentions a report of a control before after study that was acquired but only reports percentage decreases and none of the data is included
Smith et al. (2000)	Report is a synthesis of other RLC studies. No new data provided
Sun et al. (2012)	No before after comparison. Data collected using video‐based system set up by researchers. Intersections located 800 m apart (approximately 1/2 mile)
Synectics Transportation Consultants (2003; red light camera systems and stepped‐up police enforcement)	Study examines both RLCs and “stepped up police enforcement” (not clearly defined). Publicity campaign on RLR also conducted prior to and during the study. No signage used.
Synectics Transportation Consultants (2003; red light running evaluation)	Not clear whether data was collected on more than one day during each phase of the study. During the interim period, violation data were collected twice at the distant comparison sites but only once at the other locations
Vanlaar et al. (2014)	Study examines combined speed and RLC program—cannot separate effect of RLCs from speed cameras
Wang et al. (2015)	Study examines CMFs (crash modification factors), analyzed trends of CMF. RLCs not primary intervention of interest.
Walden (2011)	No independent control. Non‐red light crashes at treated intersections used as comparison group
Wong (2014)	Signal phasing changed concurrently with installation of RLCs so exclude as combined intervention
Yoo (2012)	No control group—location of study not specified