Life in the cash lane
Speed cameras: A litigious issue in Ohio
Trending
WARREN -- Speed-camera litigation is making its way through the courts during the first quarter of 2022 as two class-action lawsuits at opposite corners of Ohio have drawn appeals.
Meanwhile, a survey released this month by Erie Insurance found U.S. drivers are divided over the use of speed cameras, but many would allow them under certain conditions.
Almost a decade ago, some 31,000 motorists driving 11 mph over the speed limit through the main thoroughfare of the southwest Ohio town of New Miami were caught on camera, and each received $95 tickets. The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments this month to consider whether the lawsuit can continue over the $3 million collected by the Butler County municipality in just 20 months of automated ticket writing.
About five years ago, more than 7,700 people who were driving on a stretch of Interstate 80 in the city of Girard were cited and billed for speeding as the speed cameras had been set for a construction zone limit of 55 mph, when in fact the construction had ended and the regular 65 mph was in force.
A Trumbull County judge late last year signed off on an out-of-court settlement from the camera company, but the judge absolved the city of Girard of any financial blame.
Attorney Marc Dann, who is representing the class, has filed an appeal with the 11th District Court of Appeals, reaffirming his request for damages from the city.
Meanwhile, Girard Mayor James Melfi said he has no problem with speed cameras because they provide income for his city mainly from the wallets of out-of-towners.
Girard Law Director Brian Kren acknowledged it wasn't a popular decision made by the judge.
"But we were pleased the city's position was deemed correct," Kren said.
Dann, who filed the lawsuit in July 2018, said the construction on the stretch of Interstate 80 was completed on Dec. 7, 2017, and the speed limit was raised to 65 mph.
"But for the next month the city and Blue Line (Solutions) continued to cite people for speeding through a construction zone that no longer existed," Dann said. "As a result, thousands of people paid fines of $100 to $150 they did not owe."
Dann said many motorists were hit with additional fees because of late collection fees and appeal costs.
"The whole situation was inexcusable and outrageous," Dann said.
According to the appeals court docket, attorneys for both sides have been given deadlines to file briefs, so a date for arguments before the panel can be scheduled. Dann said he hasn't seen any paperwork from the court.
BUTLER COUNTY CASE
In July 2012, the village of New Miami contracted with Opto Traffic of Maryland to install the speed-camera program. During the 20 months of operation, according to the terms of the contract, $1.8 million in fines went to the village with Opto Traffic keeping $1.2 million. Only 113 motorists from the 31,000 ticketed contested their fines, which totaled $10,728.
In 2013, the ticketed motorists filed a class-action lawsuit in Butler County Common Pleas Court seeking to declare the village's speed-camera program unconstitutional and to refund the citations paid.
The ticketed motorists also complained about the complicated hearing process to appeal the citations, citing it as time consuming and costly.
The village twice tried to block the class-action suit, stating the village was immune from this type of civil action and the class group was certified improperly. The 12th District Court of Appeals rejected the village's arguments and the trial court determined the village had violated the vehicle owners' due process rights. The village was ordered to repay the $3 million over 10 years time.
A third appeal was filed by the village in October 2020, and the 12th District that time sided with the village, saying the class failed to prove its due process rights were violated.
The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court, which last year agreed to hear the case.
SURVEY SAYS
A 2022 survey by Erie Insurance reveals that nearly 60 percent of U.S. drivers who generally oppose the use of speed cameras would support their use when there is documented speeding or crash problems on a particular roadway and on roads with heavy pedestrian and / or bicycle traffic.
The survey found 49 percent of U.S. drivers back speed cameras with 35 percent in opposition. It also found 1 in every 10 drivers admitted to driving at speeds 20 mph or more over the speed limit during the early months of 2020.
"Many lives could be saved if more drivers would simply follow the speed limit," Jon Bloom, vice president of personal auto at Erie Insurance, said.
The survey also found:
• Fifty-four percent of drivers believe speed cameras are an effective way to get people to obey speed limits, while 23 percent disagree;
• Forty-six percent of drivers disagree that speed cameras violate people's privacy while one-third of drivers say they do;
• Fifty-three percent think speed cameras are more about raising revenue for local governments than about improving traffic safety. Twenty-three percent disagree;
• Sixty-one percent think drivers who are caught on camera speeding should be cited only if they are traveling more than 10 mph over the speed limit.
According to data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, about 170 communities across the nation use speed cameras and automated enforcement legislation is pending in 15 states.
From 2015 to 2019, the city of Youngstown contracted with Opto Traffic for cameras placed mainly on Interstate 680 between Meridian Road and South Avenue exits. The cameras were removed at the end of 2019.
gvogrin@tribtoday.com