Judges crack down on controversial traffic cameras in Ohio

COLUMBUS - 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 other noted problems, Kaplan said there's no provision in state law allowing cities to decriminalize traffic offenses by treating them as civil matters.

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, a city 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://media.www.bgnews.com/media/storage/paper883/news/2006/08/21/State/Judges.Crack.Down.On.Controversial.Traffic.Cameras.In.Ohio-2222317.shtml