I have been meaning to post a thread about this for months, but I kept forgetting to bring it up when I am home! Once I am home, I do not think about them. :lol: What prompted me to remember was that I just read a local article about them.

Anyway...Does your city/town/area have red light cameras installed? These are sophisticated cameras installed at intersections that are set to take a picture of speeding vehicles or vehicles that pass a red light. They are quite accurate because they take two pictures (one on each side of the street) with one of the front of the vehicle to show who is driving and another picture of your license plate brightened up. Two weeks later, you get a ticket in the mail along with both pictures. The first offense where I live is $100, $250 for the second time, and $500 for the third or more times. I haven't gotten a ticket because I don't like to speed, but I know people who have already gotten them. A couple of co-workers got one each, and two of my aunts already got two. Yikes!

Here's a picture of a red light camera that was shown on a local news channel website:

http://www.kobtv.com/kobtvimgs/miscellaneous/storyadmin/red_light_camera.gif

To those who have red light cameras in your area, what do you think of them? Do you think they are a good idea? Are they helpful? Why, or why not?

Personally, I think they're a good idea! It does make people slow down. People who purposely pass a red light or even speed can make it quite dangerous. I am all for these cameras.

We don't have those. I don't run red lights, so I have no problem with them.

We have them here and I completely support their use, if you are going to run a red light then you should get fined or your license suspended.

I like the concept. However, I suspect that in practice, they will simply be a waste of money. It's going to be a pain to keep them all running.

Although runners are a major problem, I don't think cameras will help much.

Yes, we have them. I think they are a good idea, in case of accidents and so on.

They've only installed a few of them in our city so far. I don't know of anyone
who has gotten a ticket yet. I'm sure I'll hear all about it if someone I know does get one.

They were just deemed illegal or something in a suburb here. It's been a giant controversy for months, a lot because the fines were higher if you got caught by the camera than they were if you got caught by a cop. Plus the town will never get the money back they spent on them.

A local article I was reading yesterday talked about lowering the high fines, but I think they are fine as they are. I am all for anything that's a high incentive to get people to slow down. They don't need to be going that fast and endangering innocent people.

The article mentioned there were already 20 of these red light cameras installed. Yeah, the fees are much higher than a human cop. Most indeed.

The only problem is, the person the car is registered to is ticketed not the driver. So technically you could get a ticket for something you weren't driving. They also had speed cameras here, and people that were no where near here were getting tickets mailed to them cause the license plate was read wrong. As far as I know its still innocent until proven guilty... yet with these cameras, its usually the other way around.

The only problem is, the person the car is registered to is ticketed not the driver. So technically you could get a ticket for something you weren't driving. They also had speed cameras here, and people that were no where near here were getting tickets mailed to them cause the license plate was read wrong. As far as I know its still innocent until proven guilty... yet with these cameras, its usually the other way around.
That's it...that was the other argument they had about them here.

Probably acts as a good deterrent.

Don't have them here....don't need them. Cops around here know cars speed. They could care less.

My town had them. Until some hotshot lawyer's wife got three tickets within a month, the guy took the city to court and won. They had to take down the cameras and refund every ticket that was issued by the cameras.

My town had them. Until some hotshot lawyer's wife got three tickets within a month, the guy took the city to court and won. They had to take down the cameras and refund every ticket that was issued by the cameras.
Just one more reason not to trust a lawyer. :rolleyes:

Dayton (where I live) has some red light cameras at a handful of problematic intersections, but there is only one or two through which I have traveled more than once, on US 35 and/or OH 49/the Trotwood Connector west of town. Fortunately they are very well signed, so you've been warned. (Aside: I used to think those cameras on masts over intersections were red light--or even speed--cameras. Needless to say, I was always on my best behavior driving through those intersections! However, I later learned they are used to monitor intersections to adjust the traffic lights accordingly. One of the news programs here had a story on such cameras in Beavercreek, which currently does not have any red light cameras.) Just for the record I have never been ticketed for running a red light.

Other cities in the area to have red light cameras include Springfield and Middletown.

There's a growing list of people who want to get rid of red-light cameras and push for refunds of millions of dollars to drivers who were issued traffic tickets.

Chief investigative reporter Duane Pohlman said the issue is headed for an Ohio State Supreme Court showdown.

"This one of the biggest cases I've ever filed and the day I filed it, I thought it was the smallest one I'd ever filed," said Akron attorney Warner Mendenhall.

He will be arguing against tickets received from red-light cameras before the Ohio Supreme Court.

"What the cities have done is unconstitutional and violates state law," Mendenhall said.

Mendenhall is representing his wife kelly who was angry over a $150 ticket.

"I was angry enough to say I'm not paying this ticket," Kelly said.

Mendenhall vs. Akron is now the case for hopes of removing red-light cameras across the state.

A long list of lawyers and even a lawmaker are supporting the claim that the cameras are illegal.

State Rep. Jim Raussen, a Republican near Cincinnati, signed his support to Mendenhall's claim.

"I feel very strongly, and that's why it's important to join the fight," said Raussen.

He said lawmakers have already voted to remove the cameras --- a bill that was vetoed by outgoing Gov. Bob Taft.

"I can't fathom why the governor at the time had problems with it. Perhaps he wasn't someone who used or drove his car a lot," Raussen said.

He said the court should rid Ohio of all red-light cameras.

Pohlman said if the case succeeds, the cities, including Cleveland and Akron would be forced to pay back millions of dollars raised at these red-light cameras.

"They took the money illegally. Now, they have to give it back," Mendenhall said.

A showdown is now set in the state's highest court.

"This is how this stuff comes about. What happens is somebody gets mad about what the government is doing and they take it on themselves to do something about it," Mendenhall said.

Officials from Cleveland, Akron and other cities contend the cameras are legal and are installed for safety.

The Ohio Supreme Court is expected to hear the case before the end of June.