Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Nov 10, 2026 09:42

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 09:27 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
From Aidplus in the anonymous submissons forum...

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/14/1484.asp
An item from Ohio which is creating a precedent!
Cameras found to cause accidents rather than prevent them...
Click on link

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 14:42 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Quote:
Ohio Senate Votes to Ban Speed Cameras
Ohio Senate adopts partial ban on speed cameras and restrictions on red light cameras.

The Ohio state Senate voted 18-13 yesterday to ban speed cameras and limit the ability of cities to profit from red light cameras. Senator Jeffry Armbruster (R-North Ridgeville) engineered the complicated compromise, reviving the effort to limit camera ticketing that had languished in the upper chamber for a year and a half.

In May last year the state House adopted an effective ban on both red light and speed cameras by a 72-23 margin. Representative Jim Raussen (R-Springdale) introduced the bill after seeing evidence that the devices lead to more, not fewer, collisions.

The new Senate version scales back Raussen's bill and allows the use of permanent speed cameras in school zones during school hours. Cameras could be used on other streets only if an officer personally pulls over the motorist and directly issues the ticket at the time of the offense.

Red light cameras will be authorized, but the most unique provision in the measure forces cities to monitor the accident history at each intersection using the devices. Cameras may not mail out citations from any location that sees a net increase in accidents after a year of use. The state of Virginia and Washington, DC both documented a large increase in the number of accidents where cameras were used.

Another provision prohibits cities from using intersections that have yellow signal times shorter than other similar intersections in the area. Cities will have sixty days to eliminate contingent fee contract arrangements that allow vendors to keep more money if they are able to issue more tickets. A similar provision enacted into law in California is routinely ignored by photo enforcement vendors and cities that have adopted "no risk" contract arrangements.

To protect the due process rights of motorists, the legislation places the burden of proof on cities and allows registered vehicle owners to mail a statement denying that they were driving the car at the time of the alleged offense. Cities may not use photographs of drivers to refute such statements.

The state House must now consider the compromise language.


Then follows a copy of the Bill itself.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
Quote:
In May last year the state House adopted an effective ban on both red light and speed cameras by a 72-23 margin. Representative Jim Raussen (R-Springdale) introduced the bill after seeing evidence that the devices lead to more, not fewer, collisions.

Do we know what the evidence is?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 10:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rewolf wrote:
Quote:
In May last year the state House adopted an effective ban on both red light and speed cameras by a 72-23 margin. Representative Jim Raussen (R-Springdale) introduced the bill after seeing evidence that the devices lead to more, not fewer, collisions.

Do we know what the evidence is?


No, I don't think we do. I'll email TheNewspaper...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 19:08 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
I flagged this up to a reporter at the BBC, highlighting the paragraph that only offences where the driver was STOPPED and ticketed would be allowed, and outside school cameras were to be school time ONLY.
One difference is the number of privately operated cameras, which clearly have a profit motive which surpasses any safety aspect.
Not had any response yet, other than an acknowlegement, highlighting and questoning the paragraph where drivers can deny they were driving, and photos' could not be used to rebut this defence :shock:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 21:01 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
No comment, blank posting just to keep track of development.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.014s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]