For all the Iowa traffic camera haters

https://www.thegazette.com/state-government/majority-of-traffic-cameras-nixed-by-iowa-dot-under-new-law/

I didnt read the whole article because of all the ads, but are these the ones that capture speeders too or just other violations?

The new law does not ban traffic cameras, but does require communities to provide data-driven proof that they are needed to increase traffic safety

Cedar Rapids’ annual report on traffic cameras notes that crashes on the Interstate 380 S-curve through downtown have decreased since the cameras were deployed there.

In the three years before the cameras were deployed, an average of 5.3 crashes per month were recorded on the S-curve. Since 2019, the average has been 2.8 crashes per month, according to city data.

This is stupid allowing some and not others. It should be a all or nothing thing. To me the whole issue hinges on the fact that a ticket needs to be issued to the driver of the violation, Not the auto owner. The traffic camera’s have no way of proving who was the driver. Not a fan of them at all. I remember it being a expensive tax payer expense when they tried them here in Minnesota.

fishthumper wrote:

I remember it being a expensive tax payer expense when they tried them here in Minnesota.

They never allowed cameras to detect violations and then issue citations as a result in Minnesota. Some local city authorities tried, but the state said nope. It has to become state law before anyone can do it, and its currently not state law.

The first location they wanted to do it was in St Cloud at the intersection of hwy 15 and 23. Apparently that was the most-run red light in the entire state. There are traffic cameras there, they just can’t use them for citations.

gimruis wrote:

The first location they wanted to do it was in St Cloud at the intersection of hwy 15 and 23. Apparently that was the most-run red light in the entire state. There are traffic cameras there, they just can’t use them for citations.

No doubt it is! There will be 6 cars going through a red light nearly every time.

Next time you go through there, look for the cameras. They are mounted HIGH on the poles like they’re surveilling the border wall or something lol

gimruis wrote:

They never allowed cameras to detect violations and then issue citations as a result in Minnesota.

Minneapolis had a traffic cam program where they issued photocop tickets in 2007. It only lasted a few weeks and then the state supreme court shut it down.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/01/29/minneapolis-asks-lawmakers-to-ok-traffic-enforcement-cameras

Ahhh, so mpls did try to buck state law, briefly.

gimruis wrote:

Ahhh, so mpls did try to buck state law, briefly.

That’s what I though. They were in use for a short time. They ended up having to refund all the citations they collected I believe. About like all the Emissions test sites they set up with tax payer money. Lasted a real short time.

CaptainMusky wrote:

There will be 6 cars going through a red light nearly every time.

Wow, it’s up to about 3 per red light by me and I thought that was bad.

The amount of people getting t-boned in light controlled intersections is also getting ridiculous. One time an intersection was closed due to accident and the next intersection on detour also had a t-bone accident in it

I think Duluth had cameras for citations during that same period (early 2000s) also. Then it was struck down because you could not face your accuser in court.

Having lived in the UK and Europe where since the 1990s there are traffic ticket cameras on basically every signpost, I am generally against the use of these devices. At first, in the UK, they were justified by the need for traffic/road safety, which their use can have an important role in improving. However…

In the UK, branches of local government became addicted to the revenue these ticket machines generated. In smaller jurisdictions where revenue was limited, these photocops became major sources of cash income. Counties and cities became complete crack addicts to the steady stream of fines and, of course, it wasn’t long before they decided that “public safety” dictated the use of more and more of these cameras to feed their newfound addiction to “free money”. And soon there was a camera on practically every signpost.

This situation repeated itself around Europe, the cameras are sold as improving safety, but if left unchecked, they quickly just become another stealth way for local yoko politicians to raise yet more cash from an unsuspecting public.

I think Iowa’s approach is very sensible. Force the local bureaucrats to justify the “need” for a camera based on actual public safety studies and data. Then the permit for the camera should be time-boxed such that it is removed when goals are met. IMO there should also be a “tax” on each camera that the local jurisdiction has to pay to the state. This would make the cameras unprofitable, removing the temptation for cities and counties to use them as revenue enhancers.

To put it in perspective for the City of Cedar Rapids. Cedar Rapids took in $7.2 million from the traffic cameras and the company that monitors the cameras took in $1.8 million in 2023. This was strictly a cash cow for Cedar Rapids.

Funny timing. In Ia City for a wedding last weekend, forgot about the cameras in Cedar Rapids until I was through (went 10 over). Been sweating bullets hoping the lady doesn’t get ticketed since I was driving.

Commies

hartridge wrote:

To put it in perspective for the City of Cedar Rapids. Cedar Rapids took in $7.2 million from the traffic cameras and the company that monitors the cameras took in $1.8 million in 2023. This was strictly a cash cow for Cedar Rapids.

They wouldn’t get any of that if motorists simply obeyed the rules. Tells you right there how many people don’t give a sh** about following traffic laws.

Been traveling through Northeast Iowa for nearly 50 years. I know all the towns and where cops loved to set up speed traps on most of my route, and when to slow down in the small town 20 mph zones.
Last year, I spotted a sign saying there was cameras in use in Postville- I had already slowed down. About 200 yards later is the radar and camera. Geez nothing like a heads up. I’d say that one’s a money maker.
Apparently Strawberry Point has one too. A relative found out the hard way there.
Anybody know of a map showing speed camera locations throughout the state?

kidfish wrote:

Been traveling through Northeast Iowa for nearly 50 years. I know all the towns and where cops loved to set up speed traps on most of my route, and when to slow down in the small town 20 mph zones.
Last year, I spotted a sign saying there was cameras in use in Postville- I had already slowed down. About 200 yards later is the radar and camera. Geez nothing like a heads up. I’d say that one’s a money maker.
Apparently Strawberry Point has one too. A relative found out the hard way there.
Anybody know of a map showing speed camera locations throughout the state?

West Union has 2, Strawberry Point has 2, Fayette -1, Hazelton -2, Postville – 2, Oelwein has 3

DANIEL BERGER wrote:

West Union has 2, Strawberry Point has 2, Fayette -1, Hazelton -2, Postville – 2, Oelwein has 3

I have seen both cameras in Postville. Are the rest marked as close as Postvilles so you don’t even have time to brake before you smile for the camera?
If them put them at the bottom of the hill in Guttenberg, I’ll be sending them a check.

As of October 1st the State of Iowa has removed 128 of the 139 fixed cameras. The cameras in Strawberry Point, Postville, Oelwein and Hazelton are no longer in service.

They wouldn’t get any of that if motorists simply obeyed the rules. Tells you right there how many people don’t give a sh** about following traffic laws.
[/quote]

I agree cameras are a cash cow for the cities.
My understanding is you only get a ticket IF you were doing at least 12 mph over the posted speed limit. If you’re doing 77 in a 65 you have nothing to complain about if you get a ticket.JMO

I wonder how many dollars in fines a day they’d get if a few of these cameras were placed in both directions on I35 above Forest Lake, to Duluth?

mxskeeter wrote:

They wouldn’t get any of that if motorists simply obeyed the rules. Tells you right there how many people don’t give a sh** about following traffic laws.

I agree cameras are a cash cow for the cities.
My understanding is you only get a ticket IF you were doing at least 12 mph over the posted speed limit. If you’re doing 77 in a 65 you have nothing to complain about if you get a ticket.JMO
[/quote]

I didn’t know that. Thanks

Glad cameras aren’t used here. I’d have alot of tickets.
I did notice Cambridge has new cameras on the lights, I’ll have to quit using that light like a stop sign.

gimruis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>hartridge wrote:</div>
To put it in perspective for the City of Cedar Rapids. Cedar Rapids took in $7.2 million from the traffic cameras and the company that monitors the cameras took in $1.8 million in 2023. This was strictly a cash cow for Cedar Rapids.

They wouldn’t get any of that if motorists simply obeyed the rules. Tells you right there how many people don’t give a sh** about following traffic laws.

Can’t follow all the rules that would just be boring

In August the WSP issued 28 tickets in 1 day for drivers doing at least 100mph. How many do you think they missed?

mxskeeter wrote:

In August the WSP issued 28 tickets in 1 day for drivers doing at least 100mph. How many do you think they missed?

6

Bearcat89 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mxskeeter wrote:</div>
In August the WSP issued 28 tickets in 1 day for drivers doing at least 100mph. How many do you think they missed?

6

I’ll bet more than 6

5
I was passed in a residential block in north Minneapolis by a kia going almost 100 about 10 minutes ago. Imagine getting your car stolen by the homies and then getting a ticket shortly after for them speeding

fishthumper wrote:

To me the whole issue hinges on the fact that a ticket needs to be issued to the driver of the violation, Not the auto owner.

Why are parking tickets allowed then? The owner of the car might not be the driver.