Iowa Senate approves traffic camera regulations

[NorthernHawkeye]

While not the desired outcome, it's a start.

Towns under 20,000 are out of luck.

Iowa Senate approves traffic camera regulations

The Iowa Senate approved regulations for traffic cameras that automatically issue speeding tickets Monday, sending the bill to Gov. Kim Reynolds’ desk for her signature.

www.iowapublicradio.org

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I support this.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

New Webster City speed cameras issue more than $1 million in citations in first two months​

Webster City installed new speed cameras at four locations late last year. After a 30-day warning period, the cameras began issuing citations on Nov. 17, 2023.

Two of these traffic cameras were placed on rural Highway 20. We asked the city how many accidents occurred at the location of the cameras from January of 2020 until the cameras were put in place.

The answer? Zero.

Full article:

New Webster City speed cameras issue more than $1 million in citations in first two months - The Iowa Standard

Webster City installed new speed cameras at four locations late last year. After a 30-day warning period, the cameras began issuing citations on Nov. 17, 2023. Two of these traffic cameras were placed on rural Highway 20. We asked the city how many accidents occurred at the location of the...

theiowastandard.com

 

[Jimmy McGill]

New Webster City speed cameras issue more than $1 million in citations in first two months​

Webster City installed new speed cameras at four locations late last year. After a 30-day warning period, the cameras began issuing citations on Nov. 17, 2023.

Two of these traffic cameras were placed on rural Highway 20. We asked the city how many accidents occurred at the location of the cameras from January of 2020 until the cameras were put in place.

The answer? Zero.

Full article:

New Webster City speed cameras issue more than $1 million in citations in first two months - The Iowa Standard

Webster City installed new speed cameras at four locations late last year. After a 30-day warning period, the cameras began issuing citations on Nov. 17, 2023. Two of these traffic cameras were placed on rural Highway 20. We asked the city how many accidents occurred at the location of the...

theiowastandard.com

That is probably one of the most egregious things I have read today.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Lets just call a spade a spade, this was a money grab by municipalities.

 

[ICWestfan]

Lets just call a spade a spade, this IS a money grab by municipalities.

FIFY. 9 your fine, 10 your mine rule applies in this bill, which should be fine.

CSB, I was coming home from vacation down south, driving through Champaign-Urbana, they are fixing/building a new interchange for 1-55/74 and it is photo enforced. Speed limit is 45, I have a semi charging up my ass in the left lane, cars flying through the construction zone on the right. I told the no pic I am not paying any ticket.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Rep. Sami Scheetz, D-Cedar Rapids, supported the bill. He said traffic cameras are needed to improve traffic safety in some areas, and the bill would address “bad actors who wish to nickel-and-dime Iowans.”

 

[THE_DEVIL]

While I disagree with having speed cameras at all I think this is a case of government coming up with a solution to a problem. As stated earlier in the thread- Its a start.

 

[joelbc1]

Personally, I think too many Iowans drive too fast and create traffic problems for innocent folks. I believe there’s needs to be more aggressive and active traffic monitoring. A gain….drive the speed limit and no one gives a shit who you are or what your are driving. But I guess enforcing speed limits violates the new American and their FREE DUMBS!! I think banning “small towns” from monitoring the streets is criminals in itself…..I would have supported. Some sort of “fine schedule” for those who were caught in violation but I believe each Iowa municipality has a right to determine what is a safe/sane speed for them.

 

[BlIIlken2]

Republicans, party of small government my ass. Typical. What happened to freedom?

 

[LunchBox50]

New Webster City speed cameras issue more than $1 million in citations in first two months​

Webster City installed new speed cameras at four locations late last year. After a 30-day warning period, the cameras began issuing citations on Nov. 17, 2023.

Two of these traffic cameras were placed on rural Highway 20. We asked the city how many accidents occurred at the location of the cameras from January of 2020 until the cameras were put in place.

The answer? Zero.

Full article:

New Webster City speed cameras issue more than $1 million in citations in first two months - The Iowa Standard

Webster City installed new speed cameras at four locations late last year. After a 30-day warning period, the cameras began issuing citations on Nov. 17, 2023. Two of these traffic cameras were placed on rural Highway 20. We asked the city how many accidents occurred at the location of the...

theiowastandard.com

This was the first one I thought of when you posted this article. I personally know over a half dozen people who have received tickets from the cameras on Hwy. 20 there.

 

[LunchBox50]

That is probably one of the most egregious things I have read today.

The tickets are mailed by a company in Massachusetts that also processes the payments and then gives WC their cut. It has nothing to do with traffic safety.

 

[joelbc1]

This was the first one I thought of when you posted this article. I personally know over a half dozen people who have received tickets from the cameras on Hwy. 20 there.

Lunchbox….honestly….who would ever in their right mind drive 30-50 mph OVER the posted speed limit? “Late for dinner” is not a very strong argument…..”Running from the cops” isn’t much better..,..,.,.,

 

[Jimmy McGill]

The tickets are mailed by a company in Massachusetts that also processes the payments and then gives WC their cut. It has nothing to do with traffic safety.

Yep, its a scam

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Lunchbox….honestly….who would ever in their right mind drive 30-50 mph OVER the posted speed limit? “Late for dinner” is not a very strong argument…..”Running from the cops” isn’t much better..,..,.,.,

They were nailing folks for far less than that.

 

[LunchBox50]

They were nailing folks for far less than that.

Much less. There are people getting tickets from the cameras at Webster City that are going around 10-11 over.

 

[joelbc1]

They were nailing folks for far less than that.

Understand….but 10 miles over seems a fair number to me..,,.,.it may be chicken shit..,..but the beauty of small town Iowa is how each community justifies its own “chickenshit”…..As long as it’s CLEARLY posted and fairly monitored…and overseen/regulated, I say “Let the games begin!” 🤐

 

[LunchBox50]

Understand….but 10 miles over seems a fair number to me..,,.,.it may be chicken shit..,..but the beauty of small town Iowa is how each community justifies its chickenshit..,.,…As long as it’s CLEARLY posted and fairly monitored…and overseen/regulated, I say “Let the games begin!” 🤐

If these stretches of road near Webster City are so unsafe and littered with reckless drivers and incredibly risky, why isn’t WC policing them better, if at all? This stretch, per the article, has produced no crashes.

“As of Jan. 21, 9,479 of those citations have been issued, totaling a whopping $1,021,280. The city has collected payment for 4,136 of the citations, resulting in $444,680. The city’s portion is $299,920 while the rest of the $144,760 goes elsewhere.”

Why is WC surrendering $144,000 to an out of state company? Seems like they could hire more cops with all of this newfound money if safety is so important to them.

 

[Pinehawk]

What a surprise. Old man thinks other people drive too fast.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Understand….but 10 miles over seems a fair number to me..,,.,.it may be chicken shit..,..but the beauty of small town Iowa is how each community justifies its own “chickenshit”…..As long as it’s CLEARLY posted and fairly monitored…and overseen/regulated, I say “Let the games begin!” 🤐

Dude, I used to drive up there all the time to the Courthouse. I know folks in the community up there. This was a straight up money grab. If I was a WC citizen, I'd like to see where the money went

 

[joelbc1]

Dude, I used to drive up there all the time to the Courthouse. I know folks in the community up there. This was a straight up money grab. If I was a WC citizen, I'd like to see where the money went

That’s the right of the citizenry! I said there needs to be oversight. You don’t think the bakeries in Pella jack up the price of Dutch Letters for TT? That’s a money grab too.

 

[LunchBox50]

I’m not against all traffic cams. I have no problem with the ones along 380 in Cedar Rapids, or 235 in Des Moines. Places with heavy traffic congestion and ample opportunities for crashes make sense. But these cameras around Webster City are a cash grab under the guise of public safety, and they should be called out for it.

 

[joelbc1]

If these stretches of road near Webster City are so unsafe and littered with reckless drivers and incredibly risky, why isn’t WC policing them better, if at all? This stretch, per the article, also has produced no crashes.

“As of Jan. 21, 9,479 of those citations have been issued, totaling a whopping $1,021,280. The city has collected payment for 4,136 of the citations, resulting in $444,680. The city’s portion is $299,920 while the rest of the $144,760 goes elsewhere.”

Why is WC surrendering $144,000 to an out of state company? Seems like they could hire more cops with all of this newfound money if safety is so important to them.

Seems like a pretty reasonable return on their dollar, Lunch. “Good business”?

 

[Jimmy McGill]

That’s the right of the citizenry! I said there needs to be oversight. You don’t think the bakeries in Pella jack up the price of Dutch Letters for TT? That’s a money grab too.

I don't disagree with the latter part. But all I know about your first part is cities are forcing others to pay their community budgets. Not right. I'm pretty sure I could make a constitutional argument on it. Thankfully the legislature did something right this spring.

 

[LunchBox50]

Seems like a pretty reasonable return on their dollar, Lunch. “Good business”?

Then admit it’s a “business.” Stop pretending this is protecting and serving the public.

 

[LunchBox50]

I don't disagree with the latter part. But all I know about your first part is cities are forcing others to pay their community budgets. Not right. I'm pretty sure I could make a constitutional argument on it. Thankfully the legislature did something right this spring.

Exactly. If you’re at city hall in Storm Lake, Spencer, or Milford, get some cams up on Hwy. 71 and start raking in the cash from folks heading to Okoboji this summer. But it’ll TOTALLY be because they want to make sure everyone is safe on their trip.

 

[joelbc1]

Then admit it’s a “business.” Stop pretending this is protecting and serving the public.

Again…..that is a “community decision”……and I am no politician. But I am not apologizing either. I just dont have a problem with reigning in speeders on public roadways. Sadly, all this “FREEDUMB” is leading us on the road to anarchy and zero rules/responsibility….and we Americans are not smart enough to handle that responsibility.

 

[LunchBox50]

Again…..that is a “community decision”……and I am no politician. But I am not apologizing either. I just dont have a problem with reigning in speeders on public roadways. Sadly, all this “FREEDUMB” is leading us on the road to anarchy and zero rules/responsibility….and we Americans are not smart enough to handle that responsibility.

But they aren’t reining in speeders. They are still issuing thousands and thousands of tickets, and more than half of them are going unpaid and ignored by the offenders. The city is making some money, sure, but we aren’t talking about Webster City because it has a quaint downtown or nice schools, etc. We are talking about WC using faux safety for profit. If they are cool with that being their new claim to fame, so be it.

 

[joelbc1]

But they aren’t reining in speeders. They are still issuing thousands and thousands of tickets, and more than half of them are going unpaid and ignored by the offenders. The city is making some money, sure, but we aren’t talking about Webster City because it has a quaint downtown or nice schools, etc. We are talking about WC using faux safety for profit. If they are cool with that being their new claim to fame, so be it.

Every community has decisions to make…the decisions made are revealing about each locality. Small town Iowa has to make up its mind… street walker or whorehouse. As small town Iowa has made nearsighted decisions regarding their futures the past 50 years, thus us where we are. Sadly, there are very few areas in Iowa that show the spunk and drive to grow and thrive as most parts of Iowa are collapsing economically. This is a very sad reality of Iowa life. A very real part of Iowa life is rapidly disappearing while the new thriving Iowa consolidates is economic bases and continue to thrive.

 

[Hawkman98]

I'm on the city council of a town that is starting the process of obtaining speed cameras. I've done my research and have found out several things. One, I think we are the only town that is admitting we started looking into cameras as another revenue source. The camera company did a speed survey that showed over 2,200 speeding violations of 10mph or faster in town in 6 days. Obviously, there is a speeding issue that is not correctable by our local PD. The camera company said to plan for a 90% reduction in violators after the first year the cameras are installed. All at no cost to the citizens. The speeding problem would be solved in the areas of the cameras.

Two, because of our lovely Senators and Governor, the tax cuts have severely strained cities and counties. We are struggling to continue the services that our citizens are accustomed to. So we have three alternatives. Find another revenue source, raise taxes/utilities, or cut employees/programs. If we raise takes or rates that affects every citizen in town. Speed cameras can bring in an additional source of revenue that is violator funded. The amount of tax relief that would be available to us makes it a no brainer.

Of course, the state says not so fast, here are some speed camera restrictions. They screwed us with the tax cuts, prevented us from raising taxes to replace the lost funds and now try to place guidelines on speed cameras. Here is what we were told. It's not a camera ban, it just places certain guidelines the cities and camera companies must now follow. One that we were told is getting misunderstood is no cameras in cities under 20K. We were told that is for mobile cameras and not fixed cameras.

Regardless of how you feel about speed cameras, they do solve two problems. It does reduce speed and provides revenues to prevent having to raise taxes/rates. Don't speed and it cost you nothing.

 

[ISUBryceC]

If these stretches of road near Webster City are so unsafe and littered with reckless drivers and incredibly risky, why isn’t WC policing them better, if at all? This stretch, per the article, has produced no crashes.

“As of Jan. 21, 9,479 of those citations have been issued, totaling a whopping $1,021,280. The city has collected payment for 4,136 of the citations, resulting in $444,680. The city’s portion is $299,920 while the rest of the $144,760 goes elsewhere.”

Why is WC surrendering $144,000 to an out of state company? Seems like they could hire more cops with all of this newfound money if safety is so important to them.

Probably costs well over 144k for a police officer. Just don’t go 11+ over the speed limit and it’s not an issue.

 

[EasyHawk]

I’m surprised the article only mentioned Buffalo and LeClaire that will have to remove their systems since they are under 20,000 people. Prairie City will too and they have had them for many years.

 

[joelbc1]

I'm on the city council of a town that is starting the process of obtaining speed cameras. I've done my research and have found out several things. One, I think we are the only town that is admitting we started looking into cameras as another revenue source. The camera company did a speed survey that showed over 2,200 speeding violations of 10mph or faster in town in 6 days. Obviously, there is a speeding issue that is not correctable by our local PD. The camera company said to plan for a 90% reduction in violators after the first year the cameras are installed. All at no cost to the citizens. The speeding problem would be solved in the areas of the cameras.

Two, because of our lovely Senators and Governor, the tax cuts have severely strained cities and counties. We are struggling to continue the services that our citizens are accustomed to. So we have three alternatives. Find another revenue source, raise taxes/utilities, or cut employees/programs. If we raise takes or rates that affects every citizen in town. Speed cameras can bring in an additional source of revenue that is violator funded. The amount of tax relief that would be available to us makes it a no brainer.

Of course, the state says not so fast, here are some speed camera restrictions. They screwed us with the tax cuts, prevented us from raising taxes to replace the lost funds and now try to place guidelines on speed cameras. Here is what we were told. It's not a camera ban, it just places certain guidelines the cities and camera companies must now follow. One that we were told is getting misunderstood is no cameras in cities under 20K. We were told that is for mobile cameras and not fixed cameras.

Regardless of how you feel about speed cameras, they do solve two problems. It does reduce speed and provides revenues to prevent having to raise taxes/rates. Don't speed and it cost you nothing.

Hawkman and I agree very seldom. We agree here about what he wrote. Small town Iowa got screwed. The irony here is that Hawkman will support the very folks who phuqued his town. Obviously the FREEDUMB to drive like a friggin’ moron is a deeply held right here in Ioway.

 

[Hawki97]

I'm on the city council of a town that is starting the process of obtaining speed cameras. I've done my research and have found out several things. One, I think we are the only town that is admitting we started looking into cameras as another revenue source. The camera company did a speed survey that showed over 2,200 speeding violations of 10mph or faster in town in 6 days. Obviously, there is a speeding issue that is not correctable by our local PD. The camera company said to plan for a 90% reduction in violators after the first year the cameras are installed. All at no cost to the citizens. The speeding problem would be solved in the areas of the cameras.

Two, because of our lovely Senators and Governor, the tax cuts have severely strained cities and counties. We are struggling to continue the services that our citizens are accustomed to. So we have three alternatives. Find another revenue source, raise taxes/utilities, or cut employees/programs. If we raise takes or rates that affects every citizen in town. Speed cameras can bring in an additional source of revenue that is violator funded. The amount of tax relief that would be available to us makes it a no brainer.

Of course, the state says not so fast, here are some speed camera restrictions. They screwed us with the tax cuts, prevented us from raising taxes to replace the lost funds and now try to place guidelines on speed cameras. Here is what we were told. It's not a camera ban, it just places certain guidelines the cities and camera companies must now follow. One that we were told is getting misunderstood is no cameras in cities under 20K. We were told that is for mobile cameras and not fixed cameras.

Regardless of how you feel about speed cameras, they do solve two problems. It does reduce speed and provides revenues to prevent having to raise taxes/rates. Don't speed and it cost you nothing.

I commend your town for admitting that they’re getting cameras purely a cash grab.

Also, phuck your shit small town for having cameras.

 

[joelbc1]

Then admit it’s a “business.” Stop pretending this is protecting and serving the public.

The business is to “serve the public” Lunch. Sometimes there are conflicts but trying to control speeds on public byways seems certainly within the realm of serving the greater good if the public.

 

[abby97]

I'm on the city council of a town that is starting the process of obtaining speed cameras. I've done my research and have found out several things. One, I think we are the only town that is admitting we started looking into cameras as another revenue source. The camera company did a speed survey that showed over 2,200 speeding violations of 10mph or faster in town in 6 days. Obviously, there is a speeding issue that is not correctable by our local PD. The camera company said to plan for a 90% reduction in violators after the first year the cameras are installed. All at no cost to the citizens. The speeding problem would be solved in the areas of the cameras.

Two, because of our lovely Senators and Governor, the tax cuts have severely strained cities and counties. We are struggling to continue the services that our citizens are accustomed to. So we have three alternatives. Find another revenue source, raise taxes/utilities, or cut employees/programs. If we raise takes or rates that affects every citizen in town. Speed cameras can bring in an additional source of revenue that is violator funded. The amount of tax relief that would be available to us makes it a no brainer.

Of course, the state says not so fast, here are some speed camera restrictions. They screwed us with the tax cuts, prevented us from raising taxes to replace the lost funds and now try to place guidelines on speed cameras. Here is what we were told. It's not a camera ban, it just places certain guidelines the cities and camera companies must now follow. One that we were told is getting misunderstood is no cameras in cities under 20K. We were told that is for mobile cameras and not fixed cameras.

Regardless of how you feel about speed cameras, they do solve two problems. It does reduce speed and provides revenues to prevent having to raise taxes/rates. Don't speed and it cost you nothing.

What's amazing to me is that you fail to see the problems with speed cameras. In you above statement you admit your city wants to place the cameras to raise money. Then you say the firm that supplies the cameras tells you history shows there will be a 90% reduction in speeders after the first year. So what happens to the programs funded by the ticket revenue after the first year? I'll tell you want happens, you lower speed limits to catch more drivers, you place more cameras in other locations and you try more creative ways to bilk the citizens. Raise taxes or lower services until your population agrees taxes need to be raised. Stop trying to take the easy way out.

 

[Hawki97]

The business is to “serve the public” Lunch. Sometimes there are conflicts but trying to control speeds on public byways seems certainly within the realm of serving the greater good if the public.

“Serving the public” would also include getting the elderly off the road. Slower reaction times, diminished capabilities, etc…it’s time we tackle it. Can I get an amen?

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

I'm on the city council of a town that is starting the process of obtaining speed cameras. I've done my research and have found out several things. One, I think we are the only town that is admitting we started looking into cameras as another revenue source. The camera company did a speed survey that showed over 2,200 speeding violations of 10mph or faster in town in 6 days. Obviously, there is a speeding issue that is not correctable by our local PD. The camera company said to plan for a 90% reduction in violators after the first year the cameras are installed. All at no cost to the citizens. The speeding problem would be solved in the areas of the cameras.

Two, because of our lovely Senators and Governor, the tax cuts have severely strained cities and counties. We are struggling to continue the services that our citizens are accustomed to. So we have three alternatives. Find another revenue source, raise taxes/utilities, or cut employees/programs. If we raise takes or rates that affects every citizen in town. Speed cameras can bring in an additional source of revenue that is violator funded. The amount of tax relief that would be available to us makes it a no brainer.

Of course, the state says not so fast, here are some speed camera restrictions. They screwed us with the tax cuts, prevented us from raising taxes to replace the lost funds and now try to place guidelines on speed cameras. Here is what we were told. It's not a camera ban, it just places certain guidelines the cities and camera companies must now follow. One that we were told is getting misunderstood is no cameras in cities under 20K. We were told that is for mobile cameras and not fixed cameras.

Regardless of how you feel about speed cameras, they do solve two problems. It does reduce speed and provides revenues to prevent having to raise taxes/rates. Don't speed and it cost you nothing.

Hawkman,

Are you saying the law will still allow towns under 20,000 to have fixed cameras?

 

[joelbc1]

What's amazing to me is that you fail to see the problems with speed cameras. In you above statement you admit your city wants to place the cameras to raise money. Then you say the firm that supplies the cameras tells you history shows there will be a 90% reduction in speeders after the first year. So what happens to the programs funded by the ticket revenue after the first year? I'll tell you want happens, you lower speed limits to catch more drivers, you place more cameras in other locations and you try more creative ways to bilk the citizens. Raise taxes or lower services until your population agrees taxes need to be raised. Stop trying to take the easy way out.

Raise taxes? Abby….the Governor and legislature have mandated local communities do this with their stupid-asses tax policy of the past couple of years. This “tax shift” from the State to counties and municipalities is gonna happen…and it is not gonna be pretty. The money is gonna cone from somewhere. Or services will be gone.

 

[Pinehawk]

"Obviously, there is a speeding issue that is not correctable by our local PD."
That's quite a jump. The police can't enforce the issue? Of course they could if it was a problem they felt was a priority. Which is obviously not the case or the police would have stepped up enforcement.
Interesting that the camera company tells these cities that they have a problem...one so big that they never really noticed or cared enough to do anything about before.