Ohio Legislator Fighting Traffic Cameras

TheNewspaper.com: A Journal of Driving and Politics

Home >Camera Enforcement > Red Light Cameras > Ohio Legislator Fighting Traffic Cameras

Subscribe via RSS or E-Mail

Back To Front Page

2/12/2005

Ohio Legislator Fighting Traffic Cameras
Ohio state legislator is fighting back against cities using cameras to balance the local budget.

State Rep. James Raussen

Ohio state representative James Raussen is fighting back against city lawmakers looking to use red light cameras to balance the city budget.

He has introduced legislation (full text) that would prohibit use of the devices unless an officer was present to witness the incident and issue the summons near the time and place of the incident. Similar legislation in Utah had the effect of eliminating cameras as they began to lose money.

Raussen cited studies showing increases in accidents from red light camera use as the motivation for his bill.

Raussen is joined at the local level by Chris Monzel, a newly appointed member of the Cincinnati City Council. Monzel failed in his attempt at a council vote to overturn the program on Wednesday, saying: "This City Council should roll up its sleeves and find other sources of revenue, control spending and expand economic opportunity instead of depending on traffic control devices that are contingent upon citizens breaking the law."

Article Excerpt:

H. B. No. 56, As Introduced
Ohio 126th General Assembly, 2005-2006, Regular Session

Representatives Raussen, Seitz, Brinkman, McGregor, D. Evans, Fessler, Aslanides, Koziura, Barrett, Reidelbach, Gilb, Buehrer, Hood, Daniels, Taylor, Martin, Gibbs, Faber, Raga, Blessing, Schneider, Uecker, Bubp, J. Stewart, Schaffer, Webster

A BILL
To enact section 4511.092 of the Revised Code to generally prohibit the use by law enforcement agencies of traffic law photo-monitoring devices.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

Section 1. That section 4511.092 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 4511.092. (A) As used in this section:

(1) "Law enforcement agency" means the state highway patrol and any law enforcement agency of a local authority.

(2) "Law enforcement officer" means a state highway patrol trooper and any law enforcement officer employed by a law enforcement agency of a local authority.

(3) "Local authority" means a municipal corporation, county, or township.

(4) "School zone" has the same meaning as in section 4511.21 of the Revised Code.

(5) "Traffic law photo-monitoring device" means an electronic system consisting of a photographic, video, or electronic camera and a means of sensing the presence of a motor vehicle that automatically produces photographs, videotape, or digital images of the vehicle, its operator, or its license plate.

(B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, no law enforcement agency shall use a traffic law photo-monitoring device to determine compliance with, or to detect a violation of, a municipal ordinance or any provision of the Revised Code that governs or regulates the operation of motor vehicles.

(2) Division (B)(1) of this section does not apply to the use of a traffic law photo-monitoring device when a law enforcement officer is present at the location of the traffic law photo-monitoring device and issues tickets, citations, or summonses at the general time and general location of the traffic law violations.

Source: Bill would prohibit traffic cameras (Dayton Daily News, 2/10/2005)

Regional News:
Other news about Cincinnati, Ohio

Permanent Link for this item
Return to Front Page

theNewspaper.com: A journal of the politics of driving