From Elizabeth Naughton: Once again the few "noise makers" win. The only reason to fear the cameras is because you are a red-light runner. I say keep the cameras. It is difficult to put a number on the the red-light runners I encounter everyday while I drive. It is dangerous and scary.
From Thomas Wolf: How about this take on the subject: since the good Governor eliminated an $8 billion deficit four years ago by deeply cutting state funding for cities, towns, townships and counties, I really cannot criticize those entities for trying to make money somehow. Also, I will trot out the old idea that if someone breaks the law, he or she should pay. So, what's the problem?
From Fred D. Burkhardt: I have no issue with the cameras. I have been ticketed by one, rightfully so. It's simple, if you are not speeding or running the light, there is no problem. The cameras don't care about the make or year of your car or who is driving.
From Terry Glaze: If you do the crime, expect to do the time.
From Jill Herman: I actually was the recipient of a ticket in West Carrollton; I habitually pushed the yellow light and would go through. The $100 ticket made me ensure I stop on yellow before entering the intersection; so it served as a lesson in safety for me and others. If you are breaking the law then you shouldn't be upset when you get punished; the police cannot be everywhere and this was a simple fix. I have since seen many accidents from people entering the intersection late and have been thankful for my wake-up call.
From Cornelia Tinkler: The only people that get mad about red light cameras are those people who get caught. Cities should be permitted to utilize them.
From Kevin A. Robie: My simple philosophy is that if you are not breaking the law, what is your worry?
From Mark R. Edgington: The issue should not be one of what makes the police jobs easy, or what is effective, or what brings in needed money, but we as a government at all levels need to operate within the constitution, which provides we have the right to face our accusers. The operation of the cameras for red lights or speed does not meet that and given the way the locals cried about the effects on their budgets, were really only there for the money.
From Doug Sorrell: At $85 per violation, this seems to be a cash cow for struggling city treasuries. Who decided $85 was the proper amount? Was it when actual officers were used and salaries and vehicles were involved? Would $50 per violation seem less greedy? I do fear the red light speeders. Last year … I witnessed a serious red light speeder cause a crash. I was the next vehicle back with the green light. I saw the vehicle speed up coming through the intersection. Scary incident. So I favor the statistics about making areas safer. I'm grateful for that. I think a better thought out process would gain favor, despite the constitutional issues.
From Don Liepold: I am for cameras 100 percent. I have almost been hit several times by drivers trying to beat or running red lights. In my option the people who violate traffic laws are the ones who don't want them.
From Garland Blackwell: As a former police officer I am a firm believer in the cameras. Contrary to what all the negative response has been from so many people, they do save lives.
From John Garrity: I have never set out with the intention of running a red light; but I have, on occasion, made bad judgment calls and run red lights. The sense of relief when I then look around and don't see any patrol cars is almost overwhelming. Red light cameras mean that if I screw up when approaching an intersection, if my judgment is bad for just a moment, if I feel that the pavement is too wet to safely stop in time, if any one of a hundred factors is misjudged or missed entirely, I am caught. There is no second chance. I am in favor of red light cameras. I see too many drivers who seem to feel that they are unlikely to be caught running a red light and so do it with impunity. If a camera catches me when my judgment is bad, then I'll pay (unhappily) for my error, but I will support the cameras because I believe that, by forcing drivers to pay attention and follow the law when approaching intersections, those cameras will eventually save my life or the lives of my family.
From Elizabeth J. Morris: I am conflicted about red-light cameras. I have heard from too many people whom I believe that the cameras are not accurate, and many people have been cited who did not run a red light. The safety factor is definitely a point in favor for them, but I am skeptical that the cities and towns are motivated by safety. I think they are more interested in increasing their revenue. My final observation is that there is no due process. It seems Orwellian for a United States citizen to be convicted by a camera.
From Pamela Kilburn: The people that do not like the red light cameras are the ones that do not follow the safety issues of the road. People have become very selfish about their rights for themselves not the other people on the roads.
From Steve Hamilton: My position has always been pro camera for several reasons: Traffic monitoring and control as well as accident videos for investigations, keeps the bad guys on their toes, frees up police to do real police work and cost savings and revenue for the cities which are cutting police and fire protection as we speak. Besides, if you are not breaking the law what is the worry?
From Gerald L. Miller: If you obey the laws, no problem.
From Eric Marcus: I hate watching people speed through intersections to beat the light. One of these days one of those people will hit me. Yellow means stop if you can — not drive very, very fast.
From Donna Walter: I have absolutely no problem with them. They are there to aid our police department in enforcing the laws that were put into place to protect us from ourselves and others. If I choose to violate and/or ignore those laws, I have earned the right to be punished for doing so by paying a fine.
From Linda Howard: Having narrowly missed being hit by folks running red lights, I am all for cameras! If they prevent one accident, they are worth the price.
From Barb and Denny Marchal: I feel that there is nothing wrong with these cameras, if you are not guilty, you have nothing to complain about. And yes, I have heard the arguments that our rights are being in violated. In what way: do you speed? Do you run a red light? Have you had too much to drink? Have you used illegal drugs? In what way have your rights been violated. If there were more police and state patrolman, maybe more violators would be caught, but as it is, how often do we really see our law enforcement officials? Unfortunately, they have been called to more serious or life threatening situations. What is your real reason for not wanting these cameras?
From Gary Brunner: I would like more details on what constitutes running a red light. Is being in the intersection when the light turns red count, or is there a delay, say until the cross traffic light has turned green? Most lights have a 1.5-2 second delay between red and green. Also, what is the definition of an intersection? Also, how long does a car need to be stopped before turning right on red, with no oncoming traffic? And is the camera saving video, or only still images, that make it difficult for a driver to prove a stop. I see many cars only slow down, not stop before turning. Is this safe? Likely yes in most cases, but it technically is a violation.
From Jeff Tingle: How do I feel about red light/speed enforcement cameras? Dishonest revenue enhancement scam by gutless politicians who don't have the courage to fund government honestly. But, beyond that, I'd like to put anyone who thinks that the cameras are a good idea in the driver's seat of my big truck. With an empty trailer. In snow/ice or rain. Let them, despite trying to anticipate the yellow, have to choose between hitting the brakes and hoping the trailer doesn't hit the vehicle in the lane next to them. Or getting a $150 fine they can't really contest. Some choice. Yes, I understand the emotion and the "wow" factor of showing the few idiots who blast through red lights or go too fast. There will always be the idiots. We could maybe start with longer yellow lights, more reasonable judging of "right on red' stops and sensible speed limits. But that wouldn't fill a city's coffers nearly as fast.
From Lynda Hackett: I think that video cameras should be all over in the schools, bathrooms included. Might reduce the ridiculous bomb threats that are appearing.
From Robert D. Heywood: I support the legal and ethical use of this technology as a tool to help make driving on our area roadways safer. However, judging by published opinions, it seems a lot of other folks are not inclined to agree. Their dislike is a clear case of "Don't confuse me with the facts." The arguments all distill down to fear or mistrust of civil authority. Nineteen Eighty-Four, Hollywood, and real life have made some very uncomfortable with the notion that you can't hide. Just remember how quickly the Tsarnaev brothers were identified after their bombs were detonated. So I guess the idea of a stationary drone like device monitoring our roads is too much for some to take. I, for one, don't know what being that scared is like. We have a very effective, flexible mass transportation system in America. It combines publicly funded roads combined with privately owned vehicles and operators. The point is that the roads are not the open range. They are part of a system. We expect the civil authority to keep the public part of the system up and running. We want the roads maintained in decent working order. We want snow plowed off right away. But then some want to operate their equipment with careless abandon. You can't have it both ways. The rules of the road must be followed. Unfortunately, the Norman Rockwellesque image of Officer O' Riley on his Harley or in his black & white, tucked behind a billboard, waiting for the local scofflaw isn't reality. Our police deserve to be able to employ technology to help them do their job. The public certainly won't pony up for the taxes it would take for individual officers to do what the cameras do for a pittance. What I'm really waiting for is the time when technology will be used that simply won't let people speed or run through an intersection. Brace yourself, it's not that far off.
From Ron Hollenbeck: I'm not from the area, but my wife is. After having lived in several states (Delaware, California, Maryland, Pennsylvania), we moved to Ohio in 2012. One of my first observations to my wife was that I'm amazed at how many motorists run "red" lights. I caution visitors coming to the area to not take off immediately after the light turns "green." I've observed that without exception, one to four cars will be running the "red" light. I've commented to my wife that if a police officer were placed at each intersection, they could write tickets non-stop all day long. As to looking for a root cause as to why so many people run "red" lights, I observed that the traffic signal for the turn lane comes on less than 50 percent of the time. There is no rhyme or reason behind it. Sometimes 10 cars can be in the turn lane, and the traffic signal for the turn lane does not come on. After sitting in the turn lane while traffic goes by, the light turns "red", and then several people run the light out of frustration. It would be helpful if the traffic control people took a hard look at the sequencing of the lights. However, now in Ohio, it's a moot point. People can now run the "red" lights with impunity. As your article points out, once the cameras are removed, traffic accidents/fatalities rise. Hopefully it won't take an increase in the death rate of Ohio motorists to get another review of this subject.
From Elaine Hellrigel: I think the cameras are a good idea. If you don't break the law, it won't affect you. If you feel the ticket was in error, appeal it. Anything that has been proven to save lives on the roads is a good thing.
From Dale Ford: How stupid the governor of this state was to push for stopping use of these cameras. I certainly hope that you or members of your family are not involved in a very serious accident caused by some idiot running a red light or speeding. We cannot possibly afford to position police officers at all of these dangerous locations to stop drivers from breaking the law.Tell me why we should discontinue use of these cameras! Is there any sensible, reasonable way to replace these cameras with something else?
From Harvey R. Tuck: Traffic cameras bring money to the police department. However they take money from the community. They may decrease accidents where they are installed, however drivers then take a different route. Do they decrease accidents in a community? Do drivers change their bad habits because there are cameras at a few intersections? If the statistics could be proven the camera companies would publish them.
From Tom Bohlander: I think that most people want to obey a reasonable law and will work with it. However the system that was just tossed out by the state was unreasonable. There was no reasonable way to "get your day in court" to defend. I believe you had to pay the fine and then seek redress in the courts. This means for most people taking half a day off from work which often costs more than the fine and then get shoved through a cash register system.
From Shirley Mikesell: I am in favor of them! I know that I am more cautious when approaching an intersection which has a camera. I feel that if you are caught, don't complain, you shouldn't have been speeding or pushing the light anyway.
From Larry Russell: I believe that red light cameras can help save lives and prevent accidents and injuries. Why some people object to them makes no sense! The police cannot be everywhere! There are too many distracted drivers on the road! (Most are talking on their mobile phone while driving).
From Bill Weldon: I am adamantly opposed to the use of red light cameras, as currently implemented. My reason is that the way they are currently used totally violates basic premises of the U.S. constitution. However, having said that, I would not oppose their use in a constitution-friendly manner, nor would I oppose their use in supplying collaborative evidence for an action by a police officer who is present at the scene of a violation. In other words, if I screw up and run a red light, I would prefer to be cited by a human being, not a machine.
From Maria Oria: I support red light and speeding cameras. I have been cited by these cameras and I believe they are a integral, non-biased way to make highways and streets safer.
From Eileen Birch: My opinion is, don't do the crime if you won't do the time. The only people who hate red light and speeding cameras are the ones breaking the law.
About the Author