Bill to regulate traffic enforcement cameras in Iowa advances out of committee

DES MOINES - A bipartisan group of senators Wednesday supported legislation to regulate rather than eliminate traffic enforcement cameras but still questioned whether the state was going too far in usurping local control of citing and revenue decisions.

Members of the Senate Transportation Committee voted 12-1 to send a bill to the Senate debate calendar that would subject fixed and mobile camera deployments to state approval and direct profits to infrastructure improvements within the jurisdictions operating cameras that issue revenue-generating tickets.

Senate Study Bill 1019 also would require advance signage at approved camera locations, weekly calibration of electronic traffic monitoring equipment, peace officer review of citations that are issued, and capped civil penalties so they do not exceed the existing fine schedule for speeding violations under state law. The amended measure also would 'grandfather” cameras at locations approved by the state Department of Transportation before Jan. 1 of this year.

'I do think this is a marked improvement over the current situation,” said Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Waterloo, the only committee member who opposed the bill on grounds that it was putting state elected officials and bureaucrats in the position of making decisions best left to local officials.

Sen. Tony Bisignano, D-Des Moines, expressed concern that revenue generated from citations issued for speeding or red-light violations could not be used to support local public safety operations, which he called 'a terrible intrusion on home rule.”

'We're telling them where they can put their cameras; then we're going to tell them how to spend their money. Why don't we just do a bill to get rid of city councils?” said Bisignano, who felt the impetus of the bill was 'a little bit of chatter” from people who got tickets for breaking the law.

'You've got people who just disregard the law, risk other people's lives and that's who we're protecting in this room. Why? Why are we protecting law-breakers and people that put our families and ourselves at risk because somebody got a ticket for going 11 miles an hour over the speed limit?” he said.

Sen. Dan Zumbach, R-Ryan, the bill's manager, said the measure attempted to balance citizen liberties with public safety while addressing citizen concerns that some of the cameras appeared to be more about revenue than focusing on high-crash or high-risk locations with documented safety needs.

'I think it's a good move for safety on Iowa's roads,” he said.

Committee chairman Sen. Tim Kapucian, R-Keystone, said the bill was designed to give an alternative to just deciding yes or no on traffic enforcement cameras.

'I think there was a feeling in caucus that zero might not be the right answer,” Zumbach said after the meeting. 'All of us had second thoughts if zero really was the right answer and so this opened the door for something other than that.”

Eventually, he expects majority Republicans will decide in caucus which approach best matches their philosophy regarding traffic cameras.

Sen. Tod Bowman, D-Maquoketa, said he supported the revised bill because he believed the electronic traffic enforcement devices do help prevent accidents and fatalities.

'It's simple psychology. If you know there's going to be a punishment, you're going to change your behavior,” he said. 'If you don't mind losing money, it won't matter if you speed or not.”

l Comments: (515) 243-7220; rod.boshart@thegazette.com