Eliminate camera enforcement

By Gary A. Hughes

----

Even when a semi hauls a trailer behind it with a rear-facing plate, should a non-motorized trailer be cited for a moving violation through a traffic camera system?

Likewise, should the owner of the trailer be cited if not the same person as the semi-owner, as is often the case?

This makes for a dangerous situation, because those legally without a rear-facing license plate are thereby empowered to speed and/or run red lights knowing they will never be cited by a traffic camera that only photographs a rear (i.e., non-existent) plate. Doesn't this inequitable treatment negate the claim by some that camera enforcement is valid for local discretion vs. state jurisdiction?

Another reason to eliminate camera enforcement is that it does nothing to modify infrastructure issues that contribute to accidents. As an example, take the signals at First Avenue and 10th Street in Cedar Rapids, where crossing during a red light is an alleged safety issue. In this case (as probably in others), wouldn't it make sense to increase the yellow cycle preceding red to provide additional caution time? Another option readily available at this location is that the intersection is already equipped with countdown “don't walk” signals that indicate in advance when the yellow caution (i.e., don't enter) will commence.

But, instead of allowing continuous automation to provide additional warning preceding a red light, (as at other city locations), they only operate when a pedestrian is present to manually push the activation button. This is a change that should be easy to accommodate.

Even if not, the city certainly has collected more than enough in fines to afford any cost for modification. Why hasn't it? The implication is that money from fines has a higher priority for allocation to the general fund than improving safety where collected. Millions collected from fines, but what infrastructure improvements have been funded to improve safety from that source?

A Gazette review last year asserted traffic cameras had improved safety by reducing accidents. However, closer investigation of site-specific data for seven red-light locations showed the total count skewed results. In fact, only three of the seven locations had fewer accidents, while three others had more, and one remained unchanged. It is hardly an endorsement of effectiveness.

It is also troublesome that those who live and work in the metro area, and are familiar with “photo” locations, know where they can speed and run red lights largely without fear of citation, because stationary cameras inherently inform drivers where they likely can and can't get away with violations. Doesn't this increase, if not encourage, the potential for more accidents citywide?

Even if “big brother” behavior alteration should ever prove to be effective at least for area residents at camera locations, they still accomplish nothing to improve safety for unwary out-of-towners. Unless incredibly observant of scant signage posted by the city, this is because they won't be cognizant of camera locations and, again, no effective infrastructure improvements have been implemented.

The importance of monetary gain over safety is further reinforced by extraordinarily high fines imposed.

Surveillance suppresses freedom.

Gary A. Hughes of Marion was employed by the City of Cedar Rapids in various planning positions for 30 years after earning a bachelor's degree in urban planning and is currently a grant writer/administrator with the East Central Iowa Council of Governments. Comments: ghughes@q.com