|
Yesterday the Ohio House of Representatives voted in favor of a new law (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_HB_56_RH) to restrict the use of so-called "red light cameras" and other devices that are used to monitor and enforce compliance with traffic laws. The new legislation would, if passed by the Ohio Senate and signed into law by Governor Taft, require a law enforcement officer to be present to confront the motorist and issue the citation for the alleged traffic law violation. If you're an Ohio resident, I encourage you to take a moment to write your state senators and the governor to voice support of the law and encourage him to sign it. Why? Studies have shown that while red-light cameras may (not "do") reduce some side-impact collisions at monitored intersections, they also tend to increase the number of rear-end collisions at those same intersections (probably because motorists want to avoid the ticket and brake their cars at the last second, causing motorists behind them to be unable to stop in time). If an officer is required to be present, as this new law would dictate, there would at least be immediate response when such a collision occurs. (See the government's own chart, Table 1, here:http://www.lbo.state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalnotes/126ga/HB0056HR.htm Quote: "While some research suggests that RLCs reduce intersection crashes, other studies show that red light crashes do not actually decrease; rather there are different kinds of crashes that actually increase (e.g., rear end crashes).") The state senator who introduced this bill did so because the city of Cincinnati saw these unattended devices as a way to replace a shortfall in their finances. In other words, they were not so concerned about public safety as they were about collecting fines. That's not the point of traffic law, and not an appropriate use of this kind of technology. Requiring an officer to be present to issue the citation would reduce the financial incentive (and potential for abuse) of the use of this technology and ensure that it's more likely to be used where it can improve safety than merely where it will generate revenue. (See the page linked above for a fiscal analysis showing that some Ohio cities are already making $200,000 a year or more with the devices.) If you loan your car to a friend or family member, and that friend or family member is observed by unattended traffic monitoring equipment committing a traffic violation, the citation would go to you as the registered owner of the car. You would then either have to pay the friend's fine and suffer the consequences on your driving record and insurance (note that the page linked above indicates that no points are issued against your license - but I have to think this ends up recorded somewhere), or you would have to report a good friend to the police, potentially straining your relationship with them. Neither is fair. Requiring an officer to be present would ensure that the officer identifies the correct driver of the vehicle and cites that person accordingly. One benefit to having a law enforcement officer stop a suspected traffic law violator is that the officer will generally make a routine check to see if the person is wanted, appears to be intoxicated, or is committing any other crime. If unattended traffic monitoring equipment were to be in widespread use, the number of traffic stops made by officers would likely decline drastically. As a result, many more criminals and drunk drivers would be able to roam more freely. Because unattended traffic monitoring devices don't involve a stop by a law enforcement officer, the violator has the opportunity to keep moving on his or her way to a destination. The violator may not even know they've been "caught" and may continue on to their destination committing the more of the same (and perhaps other) traffic law violations en-route. Requiring a stop by an officer might not change that behavior in some cases, but would in others give the motorist an opportunity to "sit and reflect" on their actions for a moment and potentially cause them to begin driving more responsibly. Don't think that can happen? Read this story.
While I am not against traffic law enforcement and don't object to the use of these devices when they are operated in the interest of public safety (for example, devices such as the one linked next serve a "safety" function without the "revenue" aspect: http://www.kustomsignals.com/product_body2.asp?product_id=25&cat_id=6&strpagename=speed ), I do object to traffic laws being used as a source of "roadway tax revenue" for state and local government. The manufacturers of the "red light cameras" and similar devices for speed monitoring sell them to state and local governments as "money making machines" that have the "potential" for improving public safety. The main emphasis is on the money. Governments whose budgets are tight will jump on these devices pretty quickly and (in my opinion) abuse them merely to generate money. There are better ways for governments to collect revenue that don't require damage to citizens' driving records and insurance rates. If you agree with this point of view, I recommend writing a quick note to your State Senator. If you aren't sure who your State Senator is, see:
http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators/ Governor Taft, telling him that you support House Bill 56 for Ohio Revised Code 4511.092, requiring state and local government to station an officer with any electronic traffic monitoring equipment to stop motorists and issue citations. In your message, include your reasons for supporting the bill and your contact information so that his office can verify that you're an Ohio resident who supports this legislation. An easy way to voice your support is to visit the following web page and enter your message to the Governor: http://governor.ohio.gov/contactinfopage.asp
Related Blogs:
Related Links:
|
