Traffic cameras face blurry future in Ohio

Sat, Aug. 19, 2006, MATT LEINGANG, Associated Press
via Akron Beacon Journal

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Judges, angry motorists and some sympathetic state
lawmakers are coming down on Ohio cities that use high-tech cameras to
catch drivers who speed and run red lights.

A judge in northeast Ohio ruled this summer that a camera program used
to catch speeders in Girard, near Youngstown, was unconstitutional and
ordered the city to stop using it. A driver later sued Toledo, saying a
$95 ticket she got for running a red light was improper because, among
other things, no police officer was present as a witness.

"I made a right turn on red. I gave ample time to stop. I did not run
through it," said the driver, Ann Lewicki, 24.

Also looming is a possible vote this fall in the state Legislature on a
bill that would restrict the use of cameras to the point where critics
say it won't be worth installing them.

"It seems to me that the Legislature, for whatever reason, is going to
destroy something that works and saves lives," said George Speaks,
deputy director of public safety in Columbus, which began using cameras
at four intersections in March to catch drivers who run red lights. The
number of citations fell from 1,408 to less than 700 over five months,
proving that the cameras are a deterrent, he said.

The cameras are used in about 200 U.S. cities, including eight in Ohio.
Akron, which experimented with a pilot program last year, intends to
launch a permanent speed-surveillance program in school zones by the
end of August, city officials said.

Most cities use the technology for red-light enforcement, not speed
enforcement, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a
nonprofit research group in Arlington, Va.

At least two states - Wisconsin and New Jersey - have banned the
cameras, and the National Motorists Association opposes their use,
saying intersections could be made safer by lengthening yellow lights
and improving lane markings.

Supporters point to the Federal Highway Administration, which studied
the use of red-light cameras at 132 intersections in seven cities for a
2005 report. The cameras reduced front and side crashes by 25 percent.
However, the same report noted a 15 percent increase in rear-end
crashes.

The cameras work by snapping photos of vehicles and their license
plates. In Columbus, like many cities, the fine is mailed to the
vehicle's registered owner. The ticket is considered a civil violation,
not criminal, so no points are recorded on a driving record.

If the vehicle's owner was not the driver, there is an appeals process.

Cleveland and Toledo are among a smaller group of cities that use the
cameras to also target speeders. Cleveland's program, which began in
December, generated $2.3 million in revenue as of July.

That bothers state Sen. Jeffry Armbruster, a Republican from North
Ridgeville who chairs the Senate's Highways and Transportation
committee. He calls Cleveland's camera program little more than a
high-tech speed trap.

"Cities are doing this just for money," Armbruster said. State
regulation is needed to set some standards and avoid an abuse of power,
he said.

A bill pending in the Senate bans cities from using cameras to ticket
speeders unless a police officer is present to witness the infraction.
Also, cities that use cameras for red-light enforcement must remove the
devices from intersections if accidents increase over a two-year
period, and the bill gives the Ohio Department of Transportation
authority to define the type of intersections that are dangerous enough
to warrant camera monitoring.

Critics say the bill violates a city's home-rule authority, and the
provision requiring an officer to be present is cost-prohibitive
because it duplicates services.

"I think cities should be able to run their programs in any manner they
see fit," said Speaks, the Columbus public safety official.

But cities are running afoul of the state constitution, argues attorney
Sam Kaplan, who represents Lewicki in her lawsuit against Toledo. Among
the problems: There's no provision in state law allowing cities to
decriminalize traffic offenses by treating them as civil matters, he
said.

In his July ruling against the city of Girard, Trumbull County Common
Pleas Judge John Stuard agreed. Girard scrapped its camera program and
will return $175,000 collected in fines, said city public services
director Jerry Lambert.

Steubenville in eastern Ohio suspended its traffic-camera program this
summer, pending the outcome of a lawsuit there. The city's cameras
nabbed about 3,000 speeders and red-light runners during the brief
month that it operated, said city law director S. Gary Repella.

"Frankly, we were shocked that so many people weren't obeying our
laws," he said.

And that's the point, said Sean Mentel, an attorney for
Scottsdale-Ariz.-based Redflex Traffic Systems, which supplies Columbus
with its traffic cameras.

"I think there's no disputing the safety benefits of these programs,"
Mentel said. "The legal issues, that's something for Ohio authorities
to decide."
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjourna...e/15314397.htm
-----

- gpsman