Ohio Judge Rules Speed Cameras Are a Scam

Hugh Pickens writes "The Columbus Dispatch reports that southwestern Ohio Judge Robert Ruehlman has ordered a halt to a speeding-ticket blitz in a village that installed traffic cameras saying it's 'a scam' against motorists and blasting the cameras and the thousands of $105 citations that resulted. 'Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3-Card Monty,' Ruehlman wrote. 'It is a scam that motorists can't win.' The village began using the cameras in September, resulting in 6,600 speeding citations in the first month, triple the population of the village of 2,188. Optotraffic installed the Elmwood Place cameras and administered their use, in return for 40 percent of ticket revenue — which quickly topped $1 million. But business owners and motorists struck back, charging in a lawsuit that the cameras hurt the village's image and said they were put into use without following Ohio law for public notice on new ordinances. 'This is the first time that a judge has said, "Enough is enough,"' said plaintiffs' attorney, Mike Allen, who called the ruling a victory for the common people. 'I think this nationally is a turning point.'"

Comments

Not true.

[nospam007]

" 'It is a scam that motorists can't win.'"

I'm sure they are also against the IRS using computers to catch revenue cheaters, because it gives them an unfair advantage.

Sure they can win, just don't speed. The motorists are just used to breaking the law and not getting caught most of the time.

Did somebody check how many tickets the judge got?

Re:Not true.

[Dasuraga]

You're not really wrong here, but there's something awful about being watched all the time and being busted for every minor and often harmless infraction.

I understand the sentiment but speeding is not an "often harmless" infraction. It endagers yourself and those around you. (Semantics about whether the speed limits are set at the right level or not are here as well, but still).

Re:Not true.

[EzInKy]

If you didn't see the light turn green, plan for it to go red at anytime and slow down accordingly.

Re:Not true.

[EzInKy]

If you didn't see it turn green, yes you should plan to stop.

Re:Not true.

[DerekLyons]

Like when you make a legal right turn on red, and stop again to make sure it's clear...

What part of "don't stop across or past the line" is so hard to understand? If you're not sure it's clear then don't pull out in the first place. That's the whole point of the lines - so you stop a safe distance back, and when you start moving the people behind you can reasonably expect you to keep moving.
 

.You missed the part where the judge said it was unconstitutionally difficult to challenge the fine.

That's true, but irrelevant to the issue of following the law. Don't break the law, and you'll never need to challenge a ticket or worry about whose mercy you are at.

Re:Not true.

[FileNotFound]

I've taken to tossing gravel at them as they race by while waiting to put my kindergartener on her school bus. People live on these streets and their lives are just as important as the one you have living in your mcmansion on a cul-de-sac.

Perhaps they ought to leave a little earlier for work in the morning

You're an idiot. Way to go - promote "saftey" by throwing stones at cars. Fuck you.

I hope the next car you throw gravel at is an undercover cop and they throw the book at you resulting in a felony conviction which you absolutley deserve.

Or the easy solution...

[wonkey_monkey]

Don't speed or run red lights. You'll put these guys out of business and make the streets safer. Everybody wins.