Ohio Judge Rules Speed Cameras Are a Scam

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
3-11-2013

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/03...utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed

Ohio Judge Rules Speed Cameras Are a Scam



"The Columbus Dispatch reports that southwestern Ohio Judge Robert Ruehlman has ordered a halt to a speeding-ticket blitz in a village that installed traffic cameras saying it's 'a scam' against motorists and blasting the cameras and the thousands of $105 citations that resulted.


'Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3-Card Monty,' Ruehlman wrote. 'It is a scam that motorists can't win.'


The village began using the cameras in September, resulting in 6,600 speeding citations in the first month, triple the population of the village of 2,188.


Optotraffic installed the Elmwood Place cameras and administered their use, in return for 40 percent of ticket revenue — which quickly topped $1 million. But business owners and motorists struck back, charging in a lawsuit that the cameras hurt the village's image and said they were put into use without following Ohio law for public notice on new ordinances.


'This is the first time that a judge has said, "Enough is enough,"' said plaintiffs' attorney, Mike Allen, who called the ruling a victory for the common people. 'I think this nationally is a turning point.'"
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
They way they were used was considered to not be proper in this instance.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
It appears they got them more on a technicality that likely will be corrected and the cameras back up and operational shortly again.

I'd like to see these cameras thrown out for good, but it's probably not going to happen here.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
The cameras around here are rather bad at actually catching speeders because the technology is outdated.

The government is caught with its foot in its mouth because it still has to pay upkeep on the cameras but hardly anyone falls for that anymore nor can they afford to. They have to play the "We're so glad people aren't speeding anymore" line meanwhile the revenue is falling. Watch them take them down so they don't have to maintain them. Whoops wasn't about safety, never was.

Total foot in mouth moment, if they take them down around here.

It was a one-time revenue boost that they will now have to upkeep for years. Hah. They deserve it.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
I suspect the city will win the appeal and the judge's decision overturned.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/08/judge-to-village-no-cameras.html

The village argued that camera enforcement by other municipalities has been upheld in other state courts, including in Ohio&#8217;s Supreme Court.

It was the method of implementation.
Notices required for discussion and way of implementation.

And to have a 40% contract smacks of featherbedding.
Did they not learn anything from the Chicago parking meter fiasco?

Get the contracted voided; rework it so it is not intended to be a revenue generator and they will be good to go.
follow the rules instead of attempting to circumvent them on the sly
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
And to have a 40% contract smacks of featherbedding.
Did they not learn anything from the Chicago parking meter fiasco?

(1) The private company still retains the contract over the parking meter enforcement. The contract will never be invalidated unless the company breeches it.
(2) Not even Chicago will ever learn from their mistakes. They've sold an interstate and are currently trying to sell off their 2nd major airport to a private company.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
no suprise. In Chicago one of the big company's that runs the cameras got nailed for bribing city officials.

nothing will change though. its all about money
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,730
2
81
You have the right to face your accuser in court so that should automatically make camera caught infractions null and void.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,730
2
81
no suprise. In Chicago one of the big company's that runs the cameras got nailed for bribing city officials.

nothing will change though. its all about money

Yes it is, not only did they install cameras at a few of the busiest intersections in my town, they altered the light times so they yellows are much shorter and you have to wait much longer at red. This has caused backups at those lights to at least double what they were prior to the camera install. Which deliberately entices drivers to try and make the yellows and that of course increases number camera tickets being issued.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
It was the method of implementation.
Notices required for discussion and way of implementation.

And to have a 40% contract smacks of featherbedding.
Did they not learn anything from the Chicago parking meter fiasco?

Get the contracted voided; rework it so it is not intended to be a revenue generator and they will be good to go.
follow the rules instead of attempting to circumvent them on the sly

It appears the only thing they didn't do properly was placing signs.

I'll bet they will win the appeal if they prove that they will place signs as required and have someone (maybe police) that works for city witness the calibration/maintenance

The judge said that “the entire case against the motorist is stacked because the speed monitoring device is calibrated and controlled by Optotraffic.”

The village also didn’t adhere to rules mandating that proper signage accompany the cameras.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
You have the right to face your accuser in court so that should automatically make camera caught infractions null and void.

Challenge the video that it was not you or your vehicle. Not your plate, walk away.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Traffic court has been found to be exempt from the requirement to have a jury of your peers - this is due to the low fine amounts involved.