The number of 16- and 17-year-old drivers who died in traffic accidents rose significantly in the first half of 2012, creeping back toward what traffic safety experts called "unacceptable" levels, according to research published Tuesday.

The report — a preliminary compilation of data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia by the Governors Highway Safety Association — found that 240 16- and 17-year-olds died behind the wheel from January through June 2012. That's a 19 percent increase over the same period in 2011 and a startling 26 percent more than in the first half of 2010.

It also outpaces the rise in overall traffic deaths last year, which increased by 5 percent, the National Safety Council reported last week.

The report identified no single overarching reason teen mortality jumped. Instead, it theorizes that two-decade-old state regulations on the youngest drivers haven't kept up with the teen driving population, which has been given more reasons to drive by the improving economy. And like numerous other traffic safety groups, the governors association warned of the distractions posed by cellphones and other electronics.

"We know from research and experience that teen drivers are not only a danger to themselves, but also a danger to others on the roadways," said Kendall Poole, chairman of the governors' safety organization and director of the Tennessee Governor's Highway Safety Office.

The rise in deaths last year is "unacceptable," he said.

Separate data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, peg traffic accidents as the single biggest killer of U.S. teens, accounting for more than third of all deaths among Americans 15 to 20 years old.

Read the full report, including state-by-state data (.pdf)

Until 2011, the number of deaths among beginning drivers had been falling since 2002, when it hit a modern annual record of 544. That was roughly a decade after states began adopting so-called graduated driver licensing laws, which impose restrictions on the youngest drivers in stages as they approach age 18. 

All 50 states now have such laws, and increases in deaths over the last two years could simply reflect officials' and parents' letting their guard down as the laws have become a part of everyday life, said Allan Williams, former chief scientist for the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute, who conducted the study.

The improving economy may also be an incentive for more teenagers to drive, statistically increasing their risk, Williams said.

Whatever the reason, "based on 2011 final data and the early look at 2012, it appears that we are headed the wrong direction," he said.

The report called on states to renew their focus on graduated driving laws and to establish programs to help parents keep their children safe.

"Parents have a huge responsibility to ensure safe teen driving behavior," said Barbara Harsha, executive director the governors group. "States can facilitate this by providing innovative programs that bring parents and teens together around this issue."

The NHTSA has proposed new federal grants to help states fine-tune and enforce their graduated driver laws. To qualify for the money, states would have to require new drivers to go through a learner's permit stage and an intermediate permit stage before they could get full licenses.

Public comment on the proposals closes April 23.

The proposals closely mirror a three-part program to restrict beginning drivers recommended by the governors safety group. That template calls for:

• A learner's permit beginning no earlier than age 16, lasting at least six months and requiring 30 to 50 hours of parent-certified supervision.
• An intermediate stage lasting at least until age 18, including a ban on driving after 9 or 10 p.m., with a limit of one teen passenger.
• A ban on all cellphones and other electronic devices.

"Our main goal is to save lives," said Jeff Bledsoe, sheriff of Dickson County, Tenn., whose state has already put most of those ideas in place.

Dickson especially stressed the ban on electronics behind the wheel, telling NBC station WSMV of Nashville: "With all of the technology we have these days — with cell phones and other items in the vehicle that could take our focus off the roadway — we have to be cautious and know what a huge responsibility it is when we operate a vehicle."

Related

National Safety Council: Traffic deaths surged in 2012

Red state, blue state divide reflected in fatal traffic accidents

Authorities could go even further in West Virginia, where a measure was introduced in the state House last week to require beginning drivers to pass drug tests — three of them, once before they could get a learner's permit, again before they could step up to an intermediate license and one last time before they could get a full license.

"Obviously, any time you can take an opportunity to try and eliminate drugs — and especially in driving — that's obviously a good thing," said Bernie Buttrey, a driver's education instructor in Parkersburg, W.Va.

Buttrey told NBC station WTAP of Parkersburg that he was hesitant because of the constitutional implications, but he said such tests may be reasonable to ensure that beginning teenage drivers remain safe.

"We've passed laws that some people think maybe are excessive in the use of your cellphones, but I think evidence proves that the less you use your cellphone, the less you're distracted," he said. "So this is just maybe another step in the right direction."

More from Open Channel:

• Horse meat in the US? Unlikely, but tests are rare
• Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders
• Expert: US in cyberwar arms race with China, Russia

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 

Drivers dread it -- that flash as they try to speed through a yellow traffic light. It’s a red light camera, and a signal that a ticket is on the way.

A rarity 15 years ago, red light cameras have become ubiquitous in many U.S. cities. Communities in 24 states and Washington, D.C., now use the cameras to try to decrease illegal -- and sometimes deadly -- traffic violations. Supporters say it’s worked.

"In the last five years we went from 54 traffic fatalities to 19,” said Cathy Lanier, police chief in Washington, D.C., which began using the cameras in 1999. “I mean, that's dramatic!”

Red light cameras are one piece of a growing network of automated traffic enforcement. Cameras now monitor speed, bus and high-occupancy-vehicle lanes and intersections with stop signs. Proponents like Lanier say they help to deter accidents, nab violators and allow states and municipalities to keep an eye on the roads for less.

But critics of red light programs worry about the Big Brother aspect of using cameras instead of cops. Many also say cameras, which are generally run by private companies, have spread not because they make streets safer, but because they mean profit for cities and companies.

“What the issue really comes down to is these companies are ripping people off by hundreds of millions of dollars, in the name of caring about our safety and our health and our kids,” said New Jersey Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, who has introduced anti-red light camera legislation to the state Legislature.

Recent news stories have fueled opposition. In Chicago, an alleged pay-to-play scandal led the mayor to ban one company from bidding for future contracts. Millions were spent on pro-camera lobbying in Florida and other states. In Iowa, doubts about the constitutionality of using cameras as traffic enforcers led a state senator to introduce a bill to ban red-light cameras – a move already taken by at least nine other states.

What does science say?
Red light violations were associated with some 700 deaths and nearly 90,000 injuries in 2009, according to a study based on data reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fatalities and injuries have decreased in recent years, the study shows.

Researchers, however, are divided on how much red light cameras increase safety.

Charlie Neibergall / AP file

Traffic passes a red light camera at an intersection in Clive, Iowa.

In 2011, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group funded by the insurance industry, released a study that found red light cameras decreased fatal accidents by an estimated 24 percent in large cities that use them.

But a 2005 Federal Highway Administration study painted a more nuanced picture. Data from seven jurisdictions showed a decrease in front-into-side crashes at intersections with cameras. But it also showed an increase in rear-end crashes. The researchers said that apparently was the result of drivers hitting the brakes to avoid a ticket. Overall, however, the research showed the cameras saved money by both decreasing the most serious accidents, and generating revenue.

However, the FHA says that red light cameras shouldn’t be a knee-jerk traffic enforcement option. The agency issued a number of recommendations regarding the implementation of red light cameras, saying cameras should be considered only after engineering solutions have failed in problem intersections. Among the possible solutions, it says: Give drivers more cushion. Increasing yellow time by one second, it found, can result in a 40 percent decrease in crashes in stoplight-controlled intersections.

“It all hinges on proper yellow light time,” said John Bowman, communications director of the National Motorists Association, a drivers advocacy group. “If yellow lights are set properly, based on established traffic engineering, red light cameras are unnecessary because you almost automatically have low numbers of violations and low numbers of accidents. If you shorten those yellow light times beyond bare minimums, that’s when you start to generate more accidents and more violations.”

Problematic cameras
A yellow light in Cary, N.C., had Howard Bond seeing red.

Last year Bond’s son was issued two different tickets for turning left on a red light at an intersection. But when Bond watched videotape of the alleged traffic offenses, he saw that in both instances his son had legally turned left on a flashing yellow light. The town had recently switched to a flashing yellow at the intersection, but Redflex, the private company running the cameras, kept treating it as a red, Bond said.

Each time, Bond, who lives in nearby Chatham County, went to the office that issued the tickets to complain. Each time, he said, his tickets were dismissed but the larger issue was ignored.

"I just basically stood there and said, ‘No sir, you’re going to look at the video,’” Bond told NBC News. But law enforcement officials told him he would have to attend a hearing to contest it.

"I said 'We’re not going through all that,'” Bond said. “He started hee-hawing around. Then he looked at the video and said, ‘This is wrong.’"

After a local television news station approached town officials with Bond’s tickets, details emerged about tens of other tickets wrongfully issued in Cary by faulty red light cameras last year. A review of its red light cameras found that cameras in one intersection had generated at least 31 false violations, many of which led to $50 tickets.

Town officials told the Raleigh News and Observer that Redflex had failed to report the error to the town. 

But Jody Ryan, spokesperson for Redflex, said the company took action as soon as it discovered the wrongful tickets.

“In this situation, changes were made by the Town of Cary to the traffic light phases without Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. knowledge,” Ryan said. “Because we were unaware of these changes, our systems triggered a set of false positives.  Once we were notified of the issue Redflex either dismissed or refunded all the affected citations on behalf of the Town of Cary.”

While major cities can make millions off red light cameras, in some contracts red light camera companies keep the majority of funds paid by violators. Redflex’s contract with Cary, for instance, allowed the company to keep 88 percent of the money generated by red-light camera tickets in Cary. Between April 2004 and July 2012, ticketed drivers paid $5.7 million to the company, and $646,000 to the Wake County Public School System, which received the city’s proceeds.

The controversy led town officials to abandon its red-light camera program altogether.

Cary is one of a number of communities, including large cities such as Houston, that have recently abandoned their camera programs amid opposition from residents.

Dollars and cents
About 700 municipalities in the country have cameras. One of the most prominent companies, Redflex, had about 2,000 cameras in operation around the nation in 2011, bringing in over $92 million in revenue, according to its annual report. American Traffic Solutions, another big player in the industry, reports more than 3,000 road safety systems installed in the U.S. and Canada, which include red light cameras.

Red light cameras can also pull in big revenues for cities. An investigation by NBC 4 in Washington, D.C., found the Capitol region drivers received tickets with at least $18 million dollars in fines in one year attributable to the cameras. NBC 5 in Dallas found a single camera in Arlington, Texas, generated $2.5 million over four years.

NBCDFW.com: Red light cameras make millions

Communities continue to adopt the technology. In 2011, East Cleveland residents voted to keep red light cameras. Last year, New Jersey’s Pohatcong Township voted to extend its contract with Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions.

“The bottom line is that those who oppose cameras are the minority,” said Charles Territo, spokesperson for American Traffic Solutions. He added that American Traffic Solutions doesn’t issue tickets: a police officer reviews each image before issuing a violation. According to ATS, about 50 percent of traffic “events” each year are rejected before a violation is issued.

“The majority of voters around the country know the dangers of red light running,” Territo said. “Nobody likes to get a ticket, but cameras are used in a number of places around the country and the world. They’re used to help police officers do their job.”

But cameras have faced increasing opposition from drivers who object to the automated systems for many reasons, including the inability to confront their accuser in court. Facing pressure from constituents, local and state politicians in Iowa, Florida, New Jersey and other states have recently introduced measures to change or end the camera programs.

Other controversies have raised questions about red light cameras. Problems with short yellow lights, which may increase the number of tickets issued, have surfaced in cities from California to Tennessee. Judges in Baltimore have castigated the city and thrown out tickets after finding the city had shortened yellow lights below recommended limits. Last summer, the New Jersey Transportation Department ordered 21 red light programs suspended after finding yellow-light timing issues. Meanwhile, camera companies have sued, or threatened to sue, cities who back out of contracts. And they’ve been investigated for possible pay-to-play schemes with local governments. 

“They’re very aggressive in terms of lobbying for favorable legislation or favorable court cases,” said Bowman of the National Motorists Association. “It’s big business, and there’s a lot of money at stake.”

Last October, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel barred Redflex from re-bidding on the city’s red-light camera contract after a Chicago Tribune investigation found that Redflex company executives and lobbyists had paid for hotel rooms and spent thousands on entertainment for the city official overseeing the red light program.

Chicago’s red light cameras raised big revenues for the city. Redflex has operated a red-light program in the city since 2003, generating about $300 million in fines for the city and $97 million in revenue for itself. Redflex. Residents in the city have long complained about discrepancies between yellow light times in the city and its suburbs.

“We authorized an internal investigation and, though the inquiry is not complete, have learned that some Redflex employees did not meet our own code of conduct and the standards that the people of the City of Chicago deserve,” said Ryan, Redflex spokesperson, of the Chicago case. “We will take corrective action and make additional information public.”

Automated traffic enforcement companies spend millions persuading local and state lawmakers to expand programs, using lobbyists, municipal partners and nonprofits to advance the cause. After spending $1.5 million lobbying Florida lawmakers over four years, American Traffic Solutions became the main-red light camera supplier in the state, winning contracts in more than 65 cities.

Territo, the spokesperson for American Traffic Solutions, defended efforts to expand red light camera programs, which he emphasized are above all about safety. “Just as opponents of red-light safety cameras fund efforts to remove cameras, we expend resources on efforts to defend them,” he said.

Recognizing growing opposition to red light enforcement technologies, companies are looking to new markets. Both Redflex and American Traffic Solutions have active speed cameras in various markets, though 12 states have banned the technology. Both companies have also started programs to enforce rules prohibiting drivers from going around stopped school buses.

Redflex recently became the nation’s largest provider of school bus arm cameras, which catch drivers who speed past the stop signs that swing out from the side of school buses. The company has launched 10 pilot programs in six states. 

More from Open Channel:

• Suburban Chicago cops allowed to work 'half drunk,' investigation shows
• GAO: Climate change poses big financial risk to federal government
• Death takes no holiday: Tracking gun violence over one long January weekend

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 

The nation’s red and blue states often are miles apart in social attitudes and, of course, in political outlook.  

It turns out that they also divide into distinct camps when it comes to a grimmer measure -- fatal traffic accidents.

To an extent that mystifies safety experts and other observers, federal statistics show that people in red states are more likely to die in road crashes. The least deadly states – those with the fewest crash deaths per 100,000 people -- overwhelmingly are blue.

In the absence of formal definitions for red or blue states, we labeled as red the states that favored Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and as blue those that supported the re-election of President Barack Obama.

The 10 states with the highest fatality rates all were red, while all but one of the 10 lowest-fatality states were blue. What’s more, the place with the nation’s lowest fatality rate, while not a state, was the very blue District of Columbia.

Massachusetts was lowest among the states, with 4.79 road deaths per 100,000 people. By contrast, red Wyoming had a fatality rate of 27.46 per 100,000.

When shown the pattern, author Thomas Frank -- who has examined the nation’s political culture in such books as “What’s the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America” – called it “amazing.”

“This is someplace where you would not expect to see a partisan divide,” Frank said.

Even the former federal auto safety researcher who brought the numbers to FairWarning’s attention, Louis V. Lombardo, couldn’t explain them. “It may be something we don’t have a definitive answer for,” he said.

Some observers offered the possible explanation that blue states tend to adopt stronger safety laws, while red states opt for looser regulation, presumably leading to more fatalities. For example, red Texas last month opened a toll road with a speed limit of 85 mph, the nation’s highest.

85 mph! Texas to open toll highway with fastest speed limit in nation

But the sweeping generalization doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

For one thing, federal pressure in many cases has prodded states to enforce similar safety rules, such as seat belt requirements. And states don’t always act along predictable liberal-vs.-conservative lines. As FairWarning has reported, blue Michigan in April repealed its requirement that all motorcyclists wear helmets, while some states with the toughest helmet laws are in the Deep South.

Traffic safety experts generally suggest that a mix of factors accounts for the varying rates. Possible variables include access to top-level trauma centers, weather conditions and how much of a state is rural, because rural residents may drive longer distances on narrow, winding roads. Lower income and education levels may also contribute to higher death rates.

"No matter how you look at fatal crash rates, there are some important things that explain why states are different, and they're not political explanations," said Anne McCartt, senior vice president for research with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Complicating things further is the possibility that deaths per 100,000 residents isn’t the best yardstick for comparisons. Fatalities per total miles traveled, some experts say, is better.

For his part, Lombardo says he’s less interested in the causes of the state differences than in reducing the toll of U.S. traffic deaths, estimated at 32,885 in 2010.

For instance, he advocates getting crash victims medical treatment more quickly by expanding air ambulance services.

The key question, Lombardo added, is, “How do we move the people, and (have) the people then move their politicians, to do the right thing?”

If he needs evidence that at least some parts of the country can do better, Lombardo can point to the striking red-blue divide in the accompanying chart.

FairWarning is a nonprofit investigative news organization based in Los Angeles that focuses on public health and safety issues.

More from Open Channel:

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook