Winter storm watch issued for Linn, surrounding counties
Corbett asks Cedar Rapids residents to ‘fall in love’ with city
Woman backs into Cedar Rapids police department’s red Jeep
Corbett announcing new naming rights deal with U.S. Cellular Center for arena, convention center
Subject of Hawk Alert at University of Iowa found in Washington County
Rod BoshartRod Boshart has been The Gazette’s Des Moines bureau manager since 1989 covering state government, the Legislature and political campaigns [...] |
|
Branstad says he would sign a traffic camera ban
Governor noted he was fined $200 in Arizona; said the cameras pose a “sense of unfairness”
Multimedia
Photo: Camera System Ruling
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad listens to a joint session of the Iowa Legislature, Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2012, at the Statehouse in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
DES MOINES – Gov. Terry Branstad said Wednesday he would sign legislation to ban traffic-monitoring devices if the General Assembly sent him a bill this session.
The governor made the comments on a day that a Des Moines radio talk show host and the executive director of the ACLU of Iowa delivered petitions bearing more than 10,000 signatures of Iowans opposing the red-light or speed cameras currently operated by a growing number of cities in Iowa.
Also Wednesday, 24 House Republicans introduced legislation to prohibit the traffic-monitoring devices effective immediately and to have all the automated traffic law enforcement equipment removed from Iowa roadways by July 1.
“If the General Assembly were to approve legislation banning this, I would be pleased to sign it,” Branstad told WHO-AM radio talk show host Simon Conway and ACLU of Iowa leader Ben Stone.
“It’s kind of a big brother thing. I think people don’t like that idea,” the governor said. “I’ve heard a lot of concerns, a lot of complaints about this.”
Branstad, who noted he was fined about $200 after being clocked by an electronic-monitoring device for going 10 mph over the speed limit while traveling through the Arizona desert driving a rental car, said there is a “sense of unfairness” that people feel in not being able to face their accuser – something that runs counter to the American system of justice.
“I believe we have other, better ways to protect public safety than the proliferation of these devices,” the governor said. “We’re seeing now a lot of communities are looking at this as a way to raise a bunch of money. I think there’s growing concern among the citizens that this is not really the right or fair way to do it.”
Branstad said Iowa has made dramatic progress in protecting public safety, noting that last year’s traffic death toll was the lowest since 1944.
“I will tell you that if the Legislature passes a law to ban them, I will sign it,” he said.
House File 2048, which was filed on Wednesday, prohibits the use of automated traffic law enforcement systems in Iowa.
The bill, which has been assigned to a House Transportation subcommittee, requires that a local authority currently using an automated traffic law enforcement system shall discontinue using the system on or before the effective date of the bill. The legislation, if passed by the House and Senate, would take effect upon the governor’s signature.
All automated traffic law enforcement system equipment would have to be removed from Iowa highways by July 1. A local authority’s ordinance authorizing the use of automated traffic law enforcement systems would be considered void on the effective date of the bill, but notices of violations mailed or citations issued under such an ordinance would be valid and processed according to the prior law.
Is this a new low for Branstad pandering? Or, is he seeking a kind of revenge for that speeding ticket he received?
This is the same guy who signed the stealth dove hunting bill last session (Just cross out the part where it says “machine gun” and write in “‘pizza oven”) … so,
no surprises.
lol, still a funny show 30 years after going off the air
Steve, I feel exactly the same way. I could not have imagined a position that Branstad and I would share, and yet, here we are.
If Branstad got a $200 ticket that’s his problem for doing something wrong. The data from the police seems to show the cameras are helping reduce driving dangers. I think we are all safer with the cameras. Just drive on I380 to see what I mean.
speed limit on I-380 is 55 mph going throught the S”s in downtown CR with the camers only out of state cars and trucks are still speeding, some speed up after they go through the cameras and slow down again before hitting the one at the end of the 55 Zone. still they makes 380 safer.
Branstad gets a speeding ticket, and what he learns from the experience is that the camera’s are unfair?
Maybe he should have learned the intended lessons that 1) breaking the law has consequences, and 2) speeding laws exist for safety. Not just the speeding drivers, but the safety of everyone else on the road.
People who think its “unfair” to suffer the consequences of their own actions, which put others in danger, need to “rethink”.
“People who think its ‘unfair’ to suffer the consequences of their own actions, which put others in danger, need to ‘rethink.’”
Hear, hear, Will! I wasn’t going to mention it, but this is the same Terry Branstad whose son Eric killed two people because of reckless driving, yet never faced real consequences.
HA! Can’t afford $200, double-dipping Terry?
Maybe the Governor needs a couple of more 200 dollar tickets so he will learn to read the signs that photo speed monitoring equipment is in use,
Normally, I am against cameras. However, now I am suspicious and confused.
Follow your gut, James. “If Branstad says it, it must be wrong.”
Speed camers are one of the few examples of efficiency in government and people are whining to ban them. As long as there are warning signs and a margin of error allowed before ticketing, I say keep them. And I will match my lifetime speeding ticket total with anyone, in case you think I’m one of those hazardous slow-pokes on the highway.
We seem to get the government and the politicians that we deserve.
Exactly, Neal! You have to be driving, what, an actual 67.5 mph to be ticketed in a 55 zone. I slow to 60 for the cameras, which is right with the flow of traffic, and go no faster than 65 downtown, conditions permitting. People, remember the old trooper adage: “Under nine, you’re fine, over ten, you’re mine.”
There are signs on the speed limit signs just before you reach the camera locations, and there are the “traffic laws photo enforced” on I380 before you hit town, so it’s not exactly a secret where the cameras are.
Admin won’t like it, but I’m posting it: if the lazy, inattentive slobs would pay attention to their driving, instead of being comatose or preoccupied with their cell phones, they wouldn’t get tickets.
I’m amazed that the Brandstad is siding with the Constitution on this one (as the repubs have been making laws recently that weaken the Constitution).
Watch out! Brandstad views all negative comments as hate mail.
The Governor sign he would sign the bill. Tell your state legislators to give the Governor a bill to sign.
Governor Branstad, one of the responsibilities of the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws, not break them.
Stop speeding and that feeling of unfairness will go away.
What most people don’t know is that these cameras don’t work. Arizona, California, Colorado and many other states have tried the cameras only to find out that they are costly to maintain and in Los Angeles they recently uninstalled them after violators found out that the tickets do not go against their driving records, 60,000 drivers simply ignored the violations. Many states were ordered to uninstall the cameras because federal laws stated that cities could not generate money for traffic violations using a third party. I see in time Iowa will follow the same route the other states followed.
Speed and red light cameras produce enough violations to pay at least their own costs ONLY when the engineering is deliberately and maliciously done in ways that reduce safety. Speed cameras only work when posted limits are set below the level that produces the most safety. Red light cameras only work when the yellow intervals are set shorter than the level that produces the most safety. MONEY is the purpose for traffic cameras, not safety. Citizens should call their legislators and ask for the earliest possible passage of the bill to ban all the cash register cameras. See the science on both issues on our website. James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, http://www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI
Ok, Gov. You have stated that you got a $200 speeding ticket ‘in the middle of the desert’ in Arizona because of a speed/red light camera. Since Gov Branstad is using this incident as a political tool, it is necessary for him to produce the details of the ticket so that we can see for ourselves when, where, and how he received this citation. Produce the ticket for public inspection, Governor Branstad.
I have yet to hear a compelling argument against the traffic cameras and Governor Branstad has not offered anything new. Traffic laws promote public safety and traffic cameras offer the most efficient and fair mechanism to enforce these laws. The statistics on the decline of accidents show they are working. The claim that a person is denied the right to confront their accuser is a spurious argument. There is an appeal process in place. What is the difference between a traffic camera and a radar detector or a breath machine? Why deny police the technology which aids in the efficient and fair enforcement of the law?
The compelling argument is in my post above. You will see traffic cameras installed ONLY when the posted speed limits and/or the traffic lights are deliberately mis-engineered in ways that reduce safety. Under posted limits cause less safe traffic flow and too short yellows cause red light violations. Cameras will ONLY pay their way and make profits in places that have these malicious and deliberate engineering errors. James C. Walker, NMA
This is almost comical. I’ve never seen this many posts in favor of the cameras. Now that Branstad said he wants to ban them, there seems to be a lot of flip-flop. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to worry about such technology. People would have enough respect for themselves and others not to drive like a bat out of hell, while eating, talking on the phone, and doing just about everything else but paying attention to the road.
I think we should “all” really be asking why would Bransted ever be wasting his (and all of our) time on something like this when there so many much more important pressing problems to be resolved at the state level?
Ending corruption is a pressing and important problem. So is getting improper revenue collection out of the way so that engineers can engineer for safety instead. Jim Walker, NMA