Camera situation is irritating

Excuse me while I vent on the speed camera saga.

This is one of those rare issues where I'm basically irritated by just about everyone involved. I'm irritated by the autopilot policing that the cameras represent, and I think it's a lousy trend. But I'm also irritated by people without sense enough to slow down to a reasonable speed driving through the heart of this city. I'm irritated that we feel the need to play Big Brother because so many see speed limits as a big bother.

Don't get me started on folks who get a ticket and then write a self-righteous letter to the paper proclaiming they will never visit Cedar Rapids again. Please, oh please reconsider. We're so sorry we didn't roll out a red carpet for your lawbreaking and toss you a bouquet as you blasted past us.

And yet, I'm also irritated by city officials who keep insisting that safety is the one and only reason the cameras exist, even as thousands of tickets are issued monthly and millions of dollars roll in the door. Sure, increased safety matters. But so does money.

Now, the Iowa Department of Transportation says two of the city's speed cameras on I-380 are in violation of state rules requiring that they be placed no closer than 1,000 feet from a point where the speed limit drops. The city received notice last month.

As for those rules, I'm irritated that after failing to get a camera ban through the elected Legislature on multiple attempts, the appointed Iowa Transportation Commission approved a set of camera rules clearly intended to make it exceedingly difficult for cities to install and maintain them. Even if you loathe the cameras, you shouldn't welcome this sort of backdoor lawmaking.

Still, backdoor or not, these aren't just 'rules,” like 'don't pass notes in class.” They were created through the state's administrative rules process, reviewed by a panel of elected lawmakers and have the full force of the laws they're intended to faithfully execute. Like them or dislike them, these rules rule.

So it's irritating when city officials act like failing to comply with them is no big deal, just a silly dispute. Also, as rules go, 1,000 feet seems entirely reasonable.

Once city officials were formally told in August that the cameras appear to be in violation of that rule, they should have shut them down until they could be further evaluated, placed in compliance or granted a waiver. Instead, more tickets, more bucks.

But, oddly. the DOT didn't order a shutdown. One side won't comply. The other won't enforce. That's also, you guessed it, irritating. Maybe they'll reach a deal, but I doubt this is our last camera clash.

Clearly, the state has the power to intervene on its primary highways, but was it really necessary? We've had multiple city elections here where the camera issue barely came up. No torches. No pitchforks. Some folks like the cameras, some don't, but at least we had achieved a lasting cease-fire.

Now, hostilities have recommenced. A class-action lawsuit has been filed seeking to shut down automated cameras and force the city to refund fines. Irritating? Nah.

After watching state and local officials handle this sorry saga, why not throw it to the courts? Maybe a judge can sort this out.

l Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@thegazette.com.