The Columbus Dispatch

Leave red-light cameras alone

-

The Ohio Senate should occupy its time with legislatio­n that protects Ohioans, rather than waste a second longer debating an unnecessar­y bill that “regulates” trafficsaf­ety cameras by effectivel­y banning them.

These cameras work, preventing injury and death by deterring drivers from speeding or running red lights. More than 500 municipali­ties across the country now employ them to monitor dangerous intersecti­ons.

But as the cameras proliferat­e, so do the Ohio legislatur­e’s efforts to regulate or remove them.

On May 20, Sen. Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati, introduced yet another attempt to fix what isn’t broken: Rather than outright forbid the use of these cameras, as proposed by the earlier House Bill 69, Senate Bill 342 would impose restrictio­ns.

If passed, these restrictio­ns would have the same effect as a ban.

Seitz’s bill would require communitie­s to station a police officer at every red-light or speed camera to witness the law-breaking and write a ticket. This defeats the entire purpose of employing these cameras, which is to free up officers for other duties and stretch local tax dollars.

Stationing officers around the clock at its 47 cameramoni­tored intersecti­ons would cost the city of Columbus $15.4 million a year, the nonprofit Traffic Safety Coalition calculated. In Cleveland, with 46 cameras, the cost would be $15.1 million.

Springfiel­d, which has 17 cameras at intersecti­ons, would need to spend $5.6 million.

No one enjoys paying a traffic ticket, but the threat of financial consequenc­es prompts obedience.

These cameras fine only lawbreaker­s, not law-abiding drivers.

Just look at what happened when cities installed the cameras or shut them down: Columbus witnessed a 73 percent reduction in red-light traffic crashes at camera-monitored intersecti­ons. Toledo documented a 39 percent reduction in fatal accidents attributed to red-light running, and Dayton saw a 35-percent reduction in crashes from running red lights.

Conversely, consequenc­es were dramatical­ly bad in cities where traffic-safety cameras went dark: Collisions at these intersecti­ons increased 147 percent in Houston, and speeding and red-light running jumped 584 percent in Albuquerqu­e, N.M.

Yet, the Ohio legislatur­e wants to take away this valuable law-enforcemen­t tool.

Columbus Deputy Safety Director George Speaks said, “Senate Bill 342, if passed, would effectivel­y kill a technology that has changed driver behavior and saved lives.”

The General Assembly should yield to common sense. In some places, these cameras went in with few rules, a problem common as new technologi­es emerge. But other communitie­s, such as Columbus, have devised reasoned policies with proper safeguards. These rules, already test-piloted by our city, likely will guide other communitie­s as they review best practices for their own traffic-safety cameras.

For now, Ohio lawmakers should listen to safety experts, cease its tampering with this lifesaving technology and return their focus to doing what is good for their constituen­ts.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States