Canton Red Light Cameras

People of Canton, Ohio, you have made your voices heard.  It appears that Mayor Healy wants to be reelected next time he runs, so he is pulling the red light camera and speed camera plans “for now.”  Mayor Healy blames it on the fact that “Council is not on board.”  Mayor Healy should have stuck to his guns.  He should have asked for a vote on Monday, so Council could be on the record as being against the issue of red light cameras.  Mr. Healy chickened out.  I wonder if any Redflex goons will be golfing in his next golf outing.  We will see how long until the issue comes back, but we can relax for now.  For more information see the Canton Repository article.

I would like to thank Nick of www.SexCpotatoes.com/blog for helping to get the word out.  His blog has had some very good information on it, please pay him a visit and thank him for his hard work.  I would also like to thank the folks at www.myrosscounty.com for some GREAT information, including the recordings of short yellow lights and sham hearings.  

Now that the Canton Ohio red light cameras and speed cameras are dead, we can turn our focus to the proposed speed cameras in construction zones that were included in Ohio HB2.  I have written my state senator, urging him to vote against these automatic traffic ticketing devices.

Ward 3 Councilman James Griffin will be holding a community meeting tonight, March 17, 2009 at 7:30 PM to discuss Canton’s red light camera and speed camera proposal.  Questions will be “answered” by City officials for residents who have questions about these traffic enforcement systems.  The meeting will be held at the Westminster Community Church, 171 Aultman Ave NW.  

If you would like to reach Councilman Griffin, you may call the council clerk’s office at (330)489-3223.

I think this is going to be more of the same high pressure sales tactics we have see from the City. Any answers to questions from City officials will be Redflex propaganda.  Mr. Griffin has been flip-flopping on the issue since he found out what a political hot potato it is. Mr. Griffin voted initially with all but one council member to allow the City to enter into an agreement with Redflex.  Mr Griffin then was quoted two different times in the Repository has “having reservations” and he said of his constituents “they just don’t want it.”  I am sure that this meeting will be a way to tell us that we really do want red light cameras, but we are just not smart enough to realize it.  

I hope that Mr. Griffin hears a lot from angry residents at this meeting.  I would love to go to it, but my work schedule will not allow it.  Maybe SexCPotatoes will be there, if he is, he will write about it.

Red light cameras, speed cameras, delaying the vote on the legislation to allow these red light and speed cameras, it all sounds simple enough.  At the city council meeting last night in Canton, Ohio, some of the motivation was revealed for Mayor Healy pushing so hard for Redflex to be allowed to install their red light cameras and speed cameras to ticket canton residents for profit.  

At the meeting last night, Canton City Council president Allen Schulman questioned Mayor Healy about two associates of Redflex that contributed to his campaign.  The two Redflex associates purchased tickets to Healy’s golf outing, each contributing $125.00.  Mayor Healy says there is nothing wrong with this, and that he knew that each was a Redflex associate.  

I have a few serious questions that need answered.  If Redflex sent two of their associates to Healy’s golf outing and everything is above board, why did Rice (a Redflex associate) feel the need to lie about his occupation and list “self employed” when he registered online?  What other contributions were promised if Redflex is successful in pushing its red light camera and speed camera systems onto the residents of Canton, Ohio.  

Mayor Healy says that the Council president is the one who looks bad after last night’s meeting.  I have to disagree with you Mr. Mayor.  The Council president is not the one who asked for a vote to be delayed so that he could try to buy time to ask for political favors when it was looking bad for a political contributor of his.  Mr. Mayor, give up on the red light cameras and speed cameras before you completely ruin your political career.  Do you really want your legacy to be these red light cameras and speed cameras?   You know that it is easy to have residents sign recall petitions at the same time they are signing petitions to let the voters decide the fate of red light cameras.  Nobody is saying the contributions are illegal, but they certainly explain why the mayor is so insistent that these red light cameras be installed.

Read the Canton Repository Story Here

The following text is from HB 2 which was passed by the Ohio House last week. Read it carefully, that is more than the members of the House probably did.  This was attached to a highway spending bill that was called “must pass.”  What that meant was, “There is stuff in here that we do not want to discuss, because it will never pass on its own.”  Anyway, here is the text of the provision for erecting speed cameras (photo radar) in construction zones.

 

Section 755.30. (A) As used in this section:

(1) “Automated speed enforcement system” means a device that has one or more sensors and, as a motor vehicle proceeds through an area on a road or highway, is capable of determining the speed of the motor vehicle and producing a photographic or digitally recorded image of the motor vehicle, including an image of the vehicle’s front or rear license plate.

(2) “Citation” means any traffic ticket, citation, summons, or other notice of liability issued in response to an alleged violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code that is detected by an automated speed enforcement system.

(3) “Construction zone” has the same meaning as in division (C) of section 5501.27 of the Revised Code.

(4) “Interstate highway” has the same meaning as in division (H) of section 4519.01 of the Revised Code.

(5) “Motor vehicle leasing dealer” has the same meaning as in section 4517.01 of the Revised Code.

(6) “Motor vehicle renting dealer” has the same meaning as in section 4549.65 of the Revised Code.

(7) “Operator” has the same meaning as in division (Y) of section 4511.01 of the Revised Code.

(8) “Owner” has the same meaning as in division (V) of section 4501.01 of the Revised Code.

(B) There is hereby established the Construction Zone Automated Speed Enforcement System Pilot Project. Under the Pilot Project, a violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code that occurs within a construction zone that is located on an interstate highway and is detected by an automated speed enforcement system shall constitute a civil offense for which a civil penalty is assessed against the operator of the motor vehicle that was involved in the offense. For purposes of this section there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the owner, lessee, or renter of the motor vehicle is the operator. This presumption may be rebutted by providing evidence that another person was operating the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation in accordance with this section. The Pilot Project shall consist only of properly marked construction zones that are located on interstate highways and no other locations. An automated speed enforcement system that is located within a construction zone that is part of the Pilot Project shall be operational only when workers are present within the construction zone. The Department of Public Safety, with the advice and assistance of the Department of Transportation, shall administer the Pilot Project.

(C) Under the Pilot Project, if an automated speed enforcement system determines that a motor vehicle has violated section 4511.21 of the Revised Code while traveling within a construction zone that is located on an interstate highway, a State Highway Patrol trooper shall view the motor vehicle image and its speed as recorded by the automated speed enforcement system to determine if a violation of section 4511.21 did in fact occur. If the trooper determines that the violation did occur, the trooper shall inform the Department of Public Safety or the Department’s designee of that fact. The Department or the Department’s designee shall issue to the motor vehicle owner a citation for the offense, which shall include at a minimum the date, time, and location that the alleged violation occurred, the fact that the violation is being processed under the Pilot Project not as a criminal offense but as a civil offense, and the amount of the civil penalty. The citation also shall state clearly the manners in which the motor vehicle owner is able to challenge the citation.

(D)(1) A motor vehicle owner who is issued a citation under the Pilot Project is liable for the violation and for payment of the resulting civil penalty unless the owner does either of the following in a timely manner:

(a) Files an objection to the citation and any resulting civil penalty and appears in person at a nonjudicial, administrative hearing to challenge the citation;

(b) Submits sufficient reliable, credible evidence that shows that, more likely than not, at the time of the violation the motor vehicle was in the care, custody, or control of another person. Such evidence is required to be submitted by the motor vehicle owner to the Department of Public Safety or the Department’s designee not later than 30 days after the date the owner is notified of the violation in order for the evidence to be considered submitted in a timely manner. The Department shall adopt rules specifying what evidence is sufficiently reliable and credible. Upon determination that the owner of the motor vehicle has presented reliable and credible evidence that the motor vehicle was in the care, custody, or control of another person at the time of the offense, the Department or the Department’s designee may issue a citation to the operator in accordance with this section.

(2) A motor vehicle leasing dealer or motor vehicle renting dealer that receives a citation for an alleged violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code that was detected by an automated speed enforcement system is not liable if the citation was issued for a motor vehicle that was in the care, custody, or control of a lessee or renter at the time of the alleged violation. A dealer that receives a citation for such a violation shall notify the Department of Public Safety or the Department’s designee of the motor vehicle lessee’s or renter’s name and address, and the Department or the Department’s designee may issue a citation in accordance with this section. In no case shall the dealer pay such a citation and then attempt to collect a fee or assess the lessee or renter a charge for any payment of such a citation made on behalf of the lessee or renter.

(E) The Department of Public Safety shall establish a nonjudicial, administrative hearing procedure at which a motor vehicle owner or operator who receives a citation under the Pilot Project is able to appear in person to challenge the citation. At the hearing, the owner or operator shall be able to view all the evidence that served as the basis for issuance of the citation against the owner or operator, to introduce evidence on the owner’s or operator’s behalf, and to produce, examine, and cross-examine witnesses.

(F) An owner or operator of a motor vehicle that is involved in a violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code that is processed under the Pilot Project and who challenges the citation in accordance with division (D)(1) or (2) of this section may appeal a decision of the Department of Public Safety or the Department’s designee that imposes liability on the owner or operator and the civil penalty, within thirty days of the date of the decision, to the municipal court or county court within whose territorial jurisdiction the violation occurred. The municipal court or county court shall affirm the decision of the Department or the Department’s designee if the court finds that the decision is supported by sufficient reliable, credible evidence and is in accordance with the law.

(G)(1) No owner or operator of a motor vehicle that is involved in a violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code that is processed under the Pilot Project is liable for the violation and payment of the civil penalty if notification of the violation is given to the motor vehicle owner more than 90 days after the date of the violation.

(2) No owner or operator of a motor vehicle who is issued a ticket, citation, or summons by a law enforcement officer for a violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code or a substantially equivalent municipal ordinance that occurs within a construction zone on an interstate highway and is a criminal offense shall be liable for the same violation and payment of a civil penalty under the Pilot Project if the violation also is detected by an automated speed enforcement system.

(3) If the owner or operator of a motor vehicle that is involved in a violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code that is processed under the Pilot Project fails to pay the civil penalty or to respond to the citation within the time period specified in the citation, the owner or operator shall be deemed to have waived any right to contest liability for the violation and payment of the civil penalty by law.

(H)(1) A violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code that is detected by an automated speed enforcement system and is processed under the Pilot Project is a civil violation for which a civil penalty not exceeding $250 shall be assessed. The Department of Public Safety shall establish the amount of the civil penalty.

(2) Of the civil penalties collected under the Pilot Project:

(a) Fifty per cent shall be paid into the treasury of the municipal corporation in which the violation occurred, or if the violation occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of a municipal corporation, into the treasury of the county in which the violation occurred;

(b) Forty-five per cent shall be deposited into the state treasury to the credit of the General Revenue Fund;

(c) Five per cent shall be deposited into the state treasury to the credit of the Trauma and Emergency Medical Services Fund created by division (E)(4) of section 4513.263 of the Revised Code.

(3) In addition to the civil penalty that is imposed for a violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code that is processed under the Pilot Project, the Department also shall impose an administrative fee in every such case. The Department shall determine the amount of the fee by rule, and all such fees shall be deposited into the state treasury to the credit of the Automated Speed Enforcement System Fund created by division (M) of this section.

(4) The Department of Public Safety shall adopt rules establishing procedures for collection of civil penalties imposed upon persons under the Pilot Project. The rules may provide that, in the event of nonpayment of a civil penalty or administrative fee by a person, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles may suspend the person’s driver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit or nonresident operating privilege until all outstanding penalties and fees have been paid.

(5) Each citation issued under the Pilot Project shall indicate clearly the amount of the civil penalty that is referenced in divisions (H)(1) and (2) of this section and the amount of the administrative fee that will be paid to the private entity, as referenced in division (H)(3) of this section, that operates the Pilot Project, if any.

(I) No owner or operator of a motor vehicle that is involved in a violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code that is detected by an automated speed enforcement system and is processed under the Pilot Project shall have any points assessed against that person’s driver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit under section 4510.036 of the Revised Code for the violation.

(J) No municipal corporation, county, or township shall enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution authorizing the use of an automated speed enforcement system on any interstate highway within its boundaries. Nothing in this division shall be construed as prohibiting a municipal corporation, county, or township from enacting an ordinance or adopting a resolution authorizing the use of an automated speed enforcement system on any street or highway within its boundaries that is not an interstate highway if the municipal corporation, county, or township otherwise has the power to do so.

(K)(1) The Department of Public Safety may enter into a contract with a private entity for the establishment and operation of the automated speed enforcement system of the Pilot Project. For purposes of this section, if the Department enters into such a contract, the private entity is the Department’s designee.

(2) The Department of Public Safety and the Department of Transportation shall enter into an agreement whereby the Department of Transportation shall grant to the Department of Public Safety or the Department’s designee access to any property of the Department of Transportation and any permits as may be necessary for the Department of Public Safety or its designee to implement the Pilot Project.

(L)(1) The Department of Public Safety shall not use an automated speed enforcement system at any construction zone location unless the proper signs have been erected as required by division (L) of this section.

(2) The Department shall erect signs that shall inform traffic approaching a construction zone that is located on an interstate highway that the construction zone contains an automated speed enforcement system to enforce section 4511.21 of the Revised Code. The Department shall erect the signs not less than one thousand feet and not more than five thousand three hundred feet before the boundary of the construction zone. The signs shall be so erected in each direction of travel on the interstate highway. The Department is responsible for all costs associated with the erection, maintenance, and replacement, if necessary, of the signs. All signs erected under division (L) of this section shall conform in size, color, location, and content to standards contained in the manual adopted by the Department of Transportation pursuant to section 4511.09 of the Revised Code and shall remain in place for as long as the Department of Public Safety utilizes the automated speed enforcement system to enforce section 4511.21 of the Revised Code within the construction zone under the Pilot Project. Any citation issued by or on behalf of the Department for a violation of section 4511.21 of the Revised Code based upon evidence gathered by an automated speed enforcement system device after the effective date of this section but before the signs have been erected is invalid; provided that no citation is invalid if the Department is in substantial compliance with the requirement of division (L) of this section to erect the signs.

(3) The Department is deemed to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of divisions (L)(1) and (2) of this section to erect the advisory signs if the Department does both of the following:

(a) First erects all signs as required by divisions (L)(1) and (2) of this section and subsequently maintains and replaces the signs as needed so that at all times at least 90 per cent of the required signs are in place and functional;

(b) Annually documents and upon request certifies its compliance with divisions (L)(1) and (2) of this section.

(M) There is hereby created in the state treasury the Automated Speed Enforcement System Fund, consisting of the administrative fees collected pursuant to division (H)(3) of this section. The Department of Public Safety shall use the money in the Fund only to pay expenses associated with the Automated Speed Enforcement System Pilot Project, including paying a private entity to establish, operate, and administer the Pilot Project.

(N) The Construction Zone Automated Speed Enforcement System Pilot Project shall terminate on July 1, 2011, and no citations shall be issued under the Pilot Project on or after that date. Citations that are issued under the Pilot Project before that date may be processed after that date, and citation processing and administrative hearings regarding such citations may continue after that date until all citations issued under the Pilot Project have reached final resolution. Upon certification by the Director of Public Safety to the Director of Budget and Management that all citations issued under the Pilot Project have reached final resolution and all payments that are due the Department’s designee have been paid, the Director of Budget and Management shall transfer all remaining money in the Automated Speed Enforcement System Fund to the General Revenue Fund.

(O) The Department of Public Safety, in consultation with the Department of Transportation and in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, shall adopt all rules necessary and proper for the establishment, implementation, and administration of the Pilot Project.

What does this mean for you?  It means that your constitutional rights are being thrown right out the window again.  The legislation to build speed cameras in construction zones clearly states that if the owner of the car was not the driver, it is up to the owner to prove that the car was in the care, custody, or control of another.  Once again, a camera system that does not have to prove that you were driving the car.  

The “civil penalty” is not to exceed $250 per infraction.  On top of the “civil penalty” there will be an “administrative fee” that is yet to be determined.  Since the penalty is not to exceed $250, you know that it will be $250.  That is a lot of money when the state doesn’t have to prove that YOU were speeding through the construction zone.  You could probably line up 15 witnesses that said you were in Idaho with another vehicle, and the State will say that you are guilty because your car sped through the construction zone.  If a speed camera ticket goes unpaid, your license will be suspended.

You see, the legislators in Ohio know that these cameras could never be passed on their own merits, so they bury it in a 350+ page document.  Take a look for yourself http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText128/128_HB_2_PH_N.html  

I urge everybody to contact their State Senators and ask them to vote against this legislation that denies Ohioans of their constitutional rights to due process.  You can look up your State Senator’s email address here.

Senior Citizens of Canton, City Council is planning on taking more of your money if they move forward with plans to install red light cameras for ‘traffic enforcement.’  City Council know that it is political suicide to say so, but that is exactly what red light cameras do.

The ‘average’ driver driving an average car at 35 MPH requires 2.57 seconds from the time the brakes are applied until they stop.  Add to this the time it takes to perceive that a green light has changed to yellow, and then the time to react.  Studies have shown that it takes 1 second for the ‘average’ person to perceive the yellow light and as much as another second for the ‘average’ person to react.  We will use 1 second for perception and reaction times combined, as the Traffic Engineering Manual does.  If the ‘average’ driver requires one second to react, and they are traveling on a 35 MPH road, they require a minimum yellow light time of 3.57 seconds.  I have been traveling around Canton for most of my life, and I seldom see yellow lights this long.  These numbers are for ‘average’ drivers.  These numbers were calculated using 20 FPSPS deceleration rate, which is faster than the Traffic Engineering Manual calls for, but I am demonstrating a bare minimum possible without loss of control.  The yellow lights in Canton are already too short at some intersections for this.

I have shown you the numbers for the ‘average’ driver.  Studies show that elderly drivers can take 40% longer to stop, due in part to longer perception times.  If the ‘average’ driver needs 3.57 seconds, an elderly driver can require a five second yellow light to stop in time to keep from getting a red light camera ticket.  This calculation does not take into account the clearing of the far side of the intersection.  This is just how long it can take a senior citizen to stop before the stop line from when the light changes to yellow. Add to this the 1 second extra yellow time REQUIRED by Ohio law if the intersection has a red light camera installed.  Do you really think that Canton will have a six second yellow at any intersection?  The answer is “No.”  They will set the yellow to bare minimum or even less.  Senior Citizens will be the ones suffering the most when these red light cameras are installed. 

There have been some senior citizens in cities that have red light cameras involved in crashes because they stop at a stale green light, scared of a red light camera ticket.  Senior Citizens are at risk of rear ending a car that stops suddenly when a light changes to yellow.  Senior Citizens are at higher risk for injuries when they are involved in crashes, so these red light cameras are endangering the lives of senior citizens.

All residents of Canton need to contact their City Council member and voice their opposition to these red light cameras in Canton Ohio.  City business owners will suffer, you need to contact your council members.  Why would I risk a red light camera ticket to do business in Canton, then have to pay for parking and put up with panhandlers when I can drive to Belden Village and park for free, not have cameras ticketing me and I have never been hit up for money in the Belden Village area.  If I do not feel like going to Belden Village, I can drive to New Philadelphia, where people are walking outside in downtown at 9:00 PM without any fear of being robbed, mugged, or having their cars broken into.  The way I see it is these red light cameras will only contribute to the decline of the City of Canton.

For some great information, see Stopping Distance Website.

Canton City Council agreed to table the proposed legislation until March 23, 2009.  Council did so at the request of the mayor.  Mayor Healy said that he was going to “make adjustments” to the legislation to make it “more palatable for people.”  

Many people attended the meeting and were disappointed to find out that there would be no vote on the issue.  I hope that all of those people, and more, attend the meeting on March 23.  We cannot let these red light cameras and speed cameras be installed.

The changes the mayor wants to include are cosmetic, designed to make people think that the cameras are actually doing good.  Who would be against funding for community patrols and bicycle cops?  The mayor says that there may be a cap on the number of red light cameras and speed cameras in the City.  

Credit must be given to councilwoman Mary Cirelli, D-at large, she opposed tabling the measure, as many people had attended the meeting for the vote, some taking the day off work.  

The bonehead of the day award goes to Council Majority Leader Donald Casar, D-at large, who said he  supports the cameras. “Why are the people so upset?,” he said after the meeting. “If you obey the law, you don’t go through red lights, you don’t speed — what’s the problem?”  Well Mr Casar, the problem comes when people like you in city after city install the red light cameras and speed cameras, shorten yellow lights, cause an increase in collisions (746% increase in collisions in Chillicothe within 100 feet of red light camera intersections), and Redflex breaking countless laws in city after city.  Redflex recently admitted streaming 24 hour video and having the ability to track movements of individuals based on the cars passing through several cameras that are streaming video.  You see, councilman, if I am not speeding, and I do not run a red light (after you shorten the yellow light to try to make me run the red), I will still be just as dead when the guy behind me slams into my motorcycle because I had to brake hard to stop in time to not get a red light camera ticket.  Again, the system in Chillicothe led to a 746% INCREASE in collisions within 100 feet of red light camera intersections (this is the approach, where people brake hard to keep from getting a ticket).  Reflex will tell you that there is no, or next to no increase, but that is because if the car does not come to rest in the middle of the intersection, they do not count it.  People are braking hard in the approach to the intersection, not after they have already entered it.  Mr. Casar, this is what I have to worry about, you putting me at risk, then if I am forced to run a red light, knowing the guy behind me cannot stop, knowing that I will be killed if my motorcycle stops faster than his 18 wheeler, you deny me my due process rights at your “administrative hearing.”  You shift the burden of proof from the City to the accused.  This, Mr. Casar, is more to worry about.

To all of City Council, vote how your constituents feel.  Most people, when informed, are opposed to these cameras.  You have been hearing that, you said so at the last meeting.  Any people that vote for these cameras will not stand much of a chance of being reelected.  If these cameras are installed, there will be petitions circulated to remove them.  While these petitions are being circulated, there may be petitions circulated to recall council members who vote for these cameras.

Good Citizens of Canton, you read the headline right.  With Canton’s plans to install red light cameras coming up for a vote, it is important that you call your councilman and voice your opposition to these devices.  Not only do these red light cameras and speed cameras rob you of your money, but also your constitutional rights.

The people of Arizona did not fight the red light cameras and speed cameras initially, as they were only going to issue civil fines.  No points would be issued and the violation would not show on a person’s driving record.  Does this sound familiar?  It should, it is the same thing that Redflex and the City of Canton are proposing.  People of Canton, you need to know something.  It turns out that the Attorney General of Arizona now wants people JAILED for red light camera tickets and speed camera tickets.  Get a ticket for doing 46 in a 25 by a speed camera and look out.  Your are guilty until proven innocent as in the Chillicothe Recording (if you listen to this, the hearing officer states that the burden of proof is on the appellant, or accused).  If Canton allows these cameras, it is only a matter of time until they start giving points on your license, and maybe the threat of jail time for a red light camera ticket or speed ticket.

Politicians and Redflex promise that the cameras will only hand out tickets resulting in fines, no points, and no threat of criminal action.  Once they get the cameras installed, they begin taping 24 hours a day, keeping track of movements of motorists, and then threatening jail for a simple ticket generated by a machine.  With the violations of Constitutional rights that have been documented by Redflex and the cities who invite the Trojan Horse of red light cameras in, I want no part of this.  I have made my voice heard.  I hope that you will contact your Council member and tell them to vote no on red light camera tickets.  The vote is set to take place this Monday 3-9-09.  Show up and make your voice heard.  We do not want Redflex and the fraud and organized crime they bring.

While browsing the web looking for information on Redflex and their red light cameras, I came upon an interesting page dealing with an illegally short yellow light and a hearing over a red light ticket.  In the audio recording, you can hear these supposedly educated people (the hearing officer and the prosecutor, or equivalent) have trouble with something as simple as timing a yellow light accurately.  This was all for show so that they did not have to admit that the City shortened their yellow light to a time so short that it violates Ohio law.

The website also has the same video that the hearing officer and the prosecutor (or whatever she is known as in a administrative hearing) have trouble determining is less than four seconds.  The yellow light, in fact, was shortened to UNDER THREE SECONDS.  Take a look at this website run by William “BigKid” of the MyRossCounty forum.  William’s website is here: Chillicothe Red Light Camera Hearing and Short Yellow Light.  

I had trouble viewing the page in Safari browser, but Firefox worked great, just a note to Mac users.

Take a look at William’s site.  He does a great job explaining why Redflex and cities that have red light cameras shorten yellow lights, putting lives in danger for a few extra dollars in tickets.  If a yellow light is short enough, it is guaranteed that people will run the light, resulting in more red light camera tickets.

After voting to enter into a contract with Redflex, it appears that Canton City Council may end up voting down the legislation that would put red light cameras and speed cameras in Canton, Ohio.  The city administration wants these cameras for revenue safety.  

During a finance committee meeting on Monday, there were four council members that said they would vote against red light cameras and speed cameras in Canton, Ohio.  These Canton City Council members cited strong opposition by residents in their districts as the reason for their decision.  Three more Canton City Council members stated after the meeting that they were either opposed to red light cameras or they were “leaning” against the installation of red light cameras and speed cameras in Canton.  

The sudden opposition to the red light cameras in Canton, Ohio comes just days before the legislation necessary to proceed with installation of red light cameras and speed cameras is to be voted on.  The vote on the new civil traffic code section is expected at the council meeting on Monday.  

The Canton City Council members who are planning to vote against Canton’s Red Light Cameras are: Jim Griffin, Democrat Ward 3, Joe Carbenia, Democrat Ward 9, Karl Butch, Democrat Ward 8, and Greg Hawk, Democrat Ward 1.  After the meeting, Greg Hawk, Democrat Ward 1 announced his plans to vote against the legislation that would allow red light camera installation in Canton, OH.  Patrick Barton, Democrat from Ward 7, and Bill Smuckler, Democrat at Large said they will vote against the red light camera and speed camera legislation.  Terry Prater, Ward 5 Democrat said that he will probably vote against the red light cameras.  

Several of the Canton City Council members said that their phones have been ringing off of the hooks with people upset over the proposed red light cameras.  Keep up the good work people.  Contact your council members and voice your opposition to photo enforcement.

I would urge Canton City Council members to all vote no to the Redflex red light cameras and speed cameras.  I would then urge the Canton City Council members to vote to lengthen yellow light times at dangerous intersections.  Longer yellow lights have been proven time and time again to reduce accident rates at intersections.  Longer yellow lights eliminate the dangerous dilemma zone where a driver cannot make a good choice when the light turns yellow.

I would like to thank the Canton City council members who are willing to vote against the red light cameras and speed cameras.  I have typically been a Republican, but I will give support on this website to anybody who stands up to Redflex and votes no to these red light cameras.

It looks like the red light camera kept these motorists safe.

I find it funny that when cities install red light cameras and the rate of accidents increase, we are told that they are “non-significant” rear end collisions.  It looks like this “non-significant” collision happened when the first car, probably in the dilemma zone where a motorist has no good choice as to what action to take, made a panic stop to keep from getting a red light camera ticket.  The second driver, knowing that the first was past the critical point, fully expected the first driver to proceed through the yellow light.  Had the first driver proceeded, he would have received a red light camera ticket.  

My guess is that nobody was hurt in this “non-significant” crash caused by a red light camera.  The reason that I think nobody was hurt is because we are told that red light cameras will keep us safe.  You see, the truth is that these red light cameras will not keep anybody safe.  These red light cameras will not apprehend a bad guy that robs a bank, they will not push a pedestrian out of the way of a speeding car, nor will they render life saving care after the crash that they cause. The only thing that a red light camera can do is take a photo of the crash when it does happen.

On another note, I have received a few emails from another guy in the Canton, Ohio area that is also against the plans to install red light cameras and speed cameras in Canton, Ohio.  Please visit his red light camera blog.  Be sure to read his “about me” page.  I get a kick out of how he chose his domain/username.