Issues with robo-cop tickets have not been laid to rest

Potential problems and injustices connected with installation of red light cameras by the City of Heath have not been laid to rest, notwithstanding an Advocate report that would seem to make it so.

As background to a Heath council meeting last night, there has been a continuing show of dissatisfaction in blogs and comments to news items about robocop traffic tickets ever since the idea was announced.

Two blog entries in particular should have drawn followup by the media. The first was a reproduction of an article that appeared in thenewspaper.com “A journal of the politics of driving.”

The article, entitled “Red Light Camera Studies Roundup” was reproduced by Advocate blogger “nekekami’s page,” 6/2/09. It listed nine legitimate and important studies that cast doubt on the value and trustworthiness of robocop traffic enforcement.

Full reports by University of South Florida, the Virginia DOT, the Washington Post, and others of that stature are available for download. Findings, in part, were: "Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them;” “The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes;” “No change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections;” and “The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%.”

That much pertains only to the studies on one page. There are many other noteworthy articles at that web site regarding worrisome topics such as improper enforcement by governments seeking maximum revenue from these cameras.

The second blogger who should have earned some respectful attention from media is “RonnieMichael's page,” when on 6/13/09 he presented a list of 61 questions that concerned him about Heath’s robo-cop cameras - for instance: how the contract was negotiated, what the contract with Redflex says, and what opportunities, if any, will the public have for oversight.

Though his blog entry “Questions for the Heath Mayor and City Council” contains questions - such as the timing of the yellow light signals - already spelled out in Ohio law, there are many that are legitimate concerns not just of motorists, but of citizens interested in good government. Making Ronnie’s case considerably weaker is the fact that he failed to provide links to factual information which inspired his questions.

The Advocate article said the Heath Mayor answered many of Ronnie’s questions, and maybe Ronnie is satisfied with that; if not, likely we’ll hear about it in another blog entry. But whatever went on between the Heath Mayor and Ronnie, the fact remains that many of Ronnie’s important questions have not been publicly answered, at least not in the reports I’ve read.

For instance, Question 1: “What safety studies were used to justify installing the cameras? Who conducted the traffic study completed March 9, 2009? Was Redflex involved in any way with this study?”

Also, Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19* (see below), 24, 27, 33, 35, 38, 60.

Question 19: If citations are issued from issued from Arizona, then also germane are questions 21, 22, 26, 30, and 50.

The dialog needs to continue.