Lawmaker Pushes Red Light Camera Bill…Again

Traffic cameras have brought in tens of millions of dollars for Ohio cities. Public safety officials say the main goal of the cameras is public safety; critics call them a revenue generator.(Photo: Flickr)
Traffic cameras have brought in tens of millions of dollars for Ohio cities. Public safety officials say the main goal of the cameras is public safety; critics call them a revenue generator.(Photo: Flickr)

Months after a ban on traffic cameras used by cities was passed by the House, it hasn’t moved in the Senate.

A new measure has been proposed, but for those who’ve been following the traffic camera debate over the years, it sounds very familiar.

The new bill would ban cities from using traffic cameras unless law enforcement officers are posted with those cameras to witness the violations, and it would set up a process by which drivers could appeal their citations to municipal court.

Its sponsor is Republican Sen. Bill Seitz of Cincinnati, a longtime critic of red light and speed cameras. He says this bill is quite different from a bill that passed the House last fall, which he says was an outright ban on traffic cameras.

“Under the Home Rule provisions of the Ohio Constitution, it is at least arguable that the state does not have the power simply to command cities not to do things. We can, however, provide a uniform statewide method of operation, and that then binds the cities as well as everybody else,” said Seitz.

But the group that lobbies on behalf of Ohio’s cities says in practical terms, the bill is basically a ban on traffic cameras. Sue Cave is the executive director of the Ohio Municipal League.

“I think that it’s a not-so-veiled effort to prevent cities from using photo-enforcement of traffic laws, because that really adds an enormous cost to the city to have stationed at every camera location – which is I think what they’re trying to get at – a uniformed police officer,” Cave said.

Cave says the cameras help the cities enforce the traffic laws that the legislature has passed, which make intersections safer. Seitz says he isn’t surprised at the Municipal League’s reaction to his bill, saying that he simply doesn’t believe that claim of safety.

“If you believe their argument that these photo-monitoring devices have reduced accidents and promoted safety, then my question is ‘Why is it that no photo-monitoring device has ever been removed?’ They only keep adding more.”

Cave says the cameras do make money, but they also save cities money on enforcing traffic laws while still ensuing other laws are also followed.

“If you had to station a police officer at every intersection where there have been a lot of accidents all the time, you would have to dramatically increase your force, because you also have to go out and patrol for the other crimes that are taking place.”

Seitz’ bill is almost exactly the same bill that he sponsored in 2006, which passed the House and Senate but was vetoed by Gov. Bob Taft on his way out of office.

Seitz says Taft has told him he now believes that veto was a mistake.

Comments
  • redwing

    Of course it’s just a money grab. The cameras are wholly owned, installed, and operated by private enterprise for the sole purpose of generating revenue. A private company decides your guilt and sends you a ticket. They have slick ways of generating the most tickets, such as keeping the yellow light as short as possible. (Research Dilemma Zone at Traffic Lights) Also go to http://www.thenewspaper.com for some truth about this scam.

  • ThinkMn

    A police officer makes the intersection safer AND makes the area safer from other crimes as well. The number of officers to citizens has drastically fallen. Now if the break-in is less than a few thousand dollars the police do nothing. Steal your car? Meh?

    They’re too busy raiding homes to find pot plants to deal with rape, robbery, assault, burglary, … Find drugs, they get to keep the house, car, cash, etc. so that’s where they concentrate their efforts.