Get the facts before banning speed cameras

Republican state lawmakers preparing to take control of both the Iowa House and Senate are making noise about banning traffic enforcement cameras in Iowa. One lawmaker, Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, calls them 'scameras,” insisting their placement is all about raising revenues, not reducing speed-relatd crashes.

Leaders in Cedar Rapids, where a series of speed cameras monitor I-380 through the middle of town, disagree. They point to no fatalities on the infamous 'S-curve” downtown since cameras were installed and a reduction in serious accidents.

Our feelings about the cameras always have been mixed. We've concluded that it makes sense to allow for locally controlled cameras subject to some reasonable statewide guidelines. We oppose a knee-jerk blanket ban.

We've always been perplexed by Statehouse angst over Cedar Rapids' camera program, mainly because there's been so little ongoing controversy here. Certainly, the cameras are not universally loved. But there's even less love for drivers ticketed after being clocked cruising 12 mph or more over the posted speed limit. No city elected official has been tossed from office for supporting cameras. Rarely have cameras rated mention during city elections.

We've been willing to accept the argument that Iowa Department of Transportation has the authority to regulate cameras installed on primary highways. The city, over our objections, has joined a multicity lawsuit questioning that authority. We've also been skeptical of the city's insistence that $3.5 million in annual revenue has no bearing on its fight to keep its cameras as-is.

But we'd like to see the legal action run its course and determine the DOT's jurisdiction. If, as we suspect, the DOT has regulatory authority, state officials and local leaders can work out a compromise that balances safety with concerns about 'scameras.”

Pushing ahead with legislation without all the facts, and with little regard for the sort of local control Republicans generally extol, would be a mistake. If lawmakers insist on banning cameras, maybe the legislation can include additional funding for equipment and personnel needed to expand the difficult, dangerous work of enforcing speed on the S-curve. We're not optimistic.

This should be a serious safety and regulatory issue to be approached with diligence and caution, not a political slam dunk intended to draw partisan cheers.

' Comments: (319) 398-8469; todd.dorman@thegazette.com