Even if no one attended the city council meetings, that is no reason to push through this type of scam on the citizens of Heath. This should of been an issue on a ballott. Voted in or out by the citizens. We all have been caught “accidentally” going through a yellow light.

Note: I am sorry for the delay in posting your comment. It got caught in my spam filter for some reason, even though you did not post a spam comment. Usually Askimet (my spam filter) is very good at allowing people to post and trapping spam, but it messed up this time.

As for these cameras only being a scam to those scared of being caught, we will see how the vote goes. There has never been a vote anywhere to keep these cameras. Every location that has put the issue before the voters has outlawed these cameras. I would not be against them IF the city had to prove that a crime (speeding or red light running) was committed AND that I did it, AND gave me the same legal rights that I have if a police officer issue a citation to me. Right now, no city in Ohio gives me the same constitutionally guaranteed rights that I have if a police officer pulls me over.

Redflex is THE largest photo-enforcement company in the U.S. if not the world, and regardless of the numerous problems and legal challenges they face, I’m not surprised the City of Canton chose them.

The red light camera systems themselves are flawed, dangerous, and illegal.

The prospect of an almost unimaginable sum of money, STOLEN from motorists, is the main attraction for these types of schemes. If the money had rolled in, and the Mayor increased the police force and balanced the budget, he would have been hailed as Canton’s hero. By all those who never drive in Canton. But the expense of these dangerous taxation devices would be his undoing. Every person ticketed immediately becomes anti-camera, especially when they do even cursory research into the subject and find out that Ohio cities have been violating the law (not timing the lights with a full extra second of yellow).

Hopefully, any council person reelected, or winning a seat in the coming election will continue the opposition to the red light and speeding cameras. Healy himself has stated that he wants to try again to get these stupid things put in, once he can be sure he’s got the council stacked against the wishes of the citizens. The same citizens who will be vehemently opposed to him in his next election unless he somehow fixes all of Canton’s problems before voting day. I will remain vigilant and fully ready to help stop these cameras no matter when or where they threaten to crop up around here.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out of Ohio, or Georgia, or Arizona, or the entire U.S. It’s not us, it’s you and your blatantly illegal actions. Worst of luck to you in the future, and please don’t come back.

I agree with you 100%. People need to call their state senators and flood the phone lines with calls. Let them know that if they vote yes on these speed cameras on freeways, they will not be reelected. I know that I will support a statewide ballot initiative to remove these cameras. I will donate space on my site to the cause. I will gladly circulate petitions for the removal of speed cameras, but I am like you in that I do not have the skills to head up this effort. Let me know how your calls go.

What’s really scary and infuriating is that the State Legislature has voted to ticket motorists with photo enforcement on all of Ohio’s highways. This cannot stand. On Monday I will be contacting every anti-camera group, every business association, every political party, and even the ACLU and NAACP to see about banding together to get a state wide ballot initiative started. I probably do not have the skills to head this effort, and we will need lawyers to draft the petition language, but I think we can fight and win back our freedom from surveillance NOW!

Here’s the story: TTAC Ohio House votes to implement freeway photo radar

Curious about some of Retting’s crash conclusions, the National Motorists Association’s Jim Kadison secured accident data for the red-light-camera intersections Retting used in his latest Oxnard report. Retting had estimated that the use of red-light cameras had resulted in a tiny 3 percent increase in rear-enders at all signalized intersections. But after expanding the definition of an intersection to include 100 feet into the approaches, where rear-end accidents would logically occur, Kadison found that during the time of Retting’s study, rear-end crashes at red-light camera intersections increased from 18 (before installation) to 156, for a total rear-end accident increase of 767 percent.