Ohio high court upholds traffic camera use

There must be something between eliminating traffic cameras & using them unfairly to get revenue.

Why don't the local jurisdictions simply hire impartial individuals who have nothing to gain either way & have them make the final determination?

Sounds like a good job for retired folks!

Fred

I volunteer!

The court only ruled on the legality of traffic cameras, not on whether they were being used "unfairly".

Laws are not always "unfair".

Blanket an area with cams, and have only 5% of them operating at any given time. Have them collect data to include movies and stills, and discard 95% of the violations. For the unlucky 5%, fine them $1,000 per incident, and have a sliding scale where it goes to $2,000. It's not a money grab because it will generate very little revenue, only 5% of all offenders pay anything.

After operating for about 3 years, turn the cameras off. If behavior eventually goes back to the way it was, which it will not for a while, then jump start the program.

The money grab is just sour grapes, but let's accommodate those folks so their feelings are not hurt.

Why would anyone (other than those that financially gain from it) want anything other than eliminating them?

That's like asking "who would not want to eliminate parking tickets, local speeding tickets, running red light tickets" since the local municipalities benefit from the revenue.

The city of new york is collecting a lot of ticket revenue, the most prolific camera was on the shore parkway in Coney Island, right off the belt parkway. It issued more than $ 2.75 milions in tickets last year, 55,000 of them , at $ 65.00 a pop. That's 120 times the tickets officers in that area's 60 th precinct wrote by hand .