Should Iowa’s traffic cameras be more strictly regulated?
Related Stories
Opponents of traffic enforcement cameras are going to take another run at banning the devices statewide this legislative session.
Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, filed three bills Wednesday dealing with red-light and speed-monitoring cameras – one that would ban the devices effective July 1, and others that would seek to place new restrictions and regulations on local governments to cap fines for violations and commit some of the revenue from the automated enforcement to other uses.
“I’m hearing from more and more Iowans,” said Zaun. “I think the support to get rid of these is growing rather than shrinking.”
Zaun said he expected the 2013 session at least would produce some limitations and restrictions on the operation of traffic-enforcement cameras.
Zaun said his preference is to ban the devices outright, but he also is looking at options to limit how much camera operators can receive as a share of the proceeds, as well as ways to require that the excess revenue generated by traffic enforcement cameras be deposited into trust accounts that fund local nonprofit organizations or provide money for people involved in accidents with uninsured drivers. He also favors putting the excess proceeds after contract obligations are paid to the camera operators should flow into the state road use tax fund.
Do you think Iowa should more strictly regulate the local use of traffic cameras for speeders and red-light runners?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
If these cameras are about safety and not money…then why not have the money go to the state from the money generated from the cameras on I 380… The state built the road…the state maintains the road…and the state owns the signs the cameras hang on…or would the city cry if it lost that revenue…because we all know its about safety….
Didn’t the Federal Government build the Interstate Highway System ? As far as “maintaining” I’d think that the Federal Government would fund that but I’m not sure nor do I know who pays for snow and ice mitigation. Maybe someone has the time to research the FACTS. ( As far as cameras, perhaps they should be more regulated, at least to the extent the manner of their use is uniform throughout the state, but I favor their continued use as an enforcement tool. )
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm
I’m sure the Feds helped pay for a portion of your streets too…so what’s your point Cedric…
If there’s a “point” I’d say it’s trying to establish fact versus fiction. As far as your “I’m sure . . . ” comment, if you’re sure then you have evidence to support that you’re sure. Right ?
If these cameras are about safety and not money, then why the camera over the J Ave bridge on 380 northbound, mere feet before the speed limit increases? The police claimed that the speed cameras on 380 are there to make sure drivers keep their speed down in the 55 mph zone around the curves downtown, but this revenue machine, I mean, speed camera is located beyond that area, just before traffic is allowed to speed up.
Please, someone explain to me how this enhances safety. I’ve asked in previous forums dominated by the simple-minded “speed kills” and “the law is the law” folk, but none has ever attempted to defend this.
Maybe if they can’t defend it, then Cedar Rapids can’t. And if Cedar Rapids can’t defend it, maybe it should be taken down or relocated to somewhere more appropriate.
I dont think Gatso should get as much as they are getting! The camera’s pay for themselves very quickly then its all profit! They are getting way to much. They should get like 10% or less! The remander of the money,and i mean the other 90% should be used to fix and maintain roads,hwys,etc. in the city and state!
the cameras should be banned, but if they aren’t the money needs to be put into the states highway fund the same as the gasoline tax is. That would insure the cameras are all about safety and not about being a cash cow for the cities.
Why doesn’t the media report where the camera income is going?
In Cedar Rapids the lion’s share is going directly into the Police Pension Fund. Now, I support the Police at all times but let’s be honest and upfront about why the cameras got installed. If they are such a good thing then why isn’t there cameras at each mile marker all along the Interstates? Then State Patrol could focus on accidents and not speeding and not need to hire back to previous rates.
Now if the camera income was replacing property tax payments into the pension fund it might be more acceptable. But it is not. It’s just another example of bigger Government getting bigger, just what got voted for.