The cameras are there for the people — not the legislators

By Chuck Mincks

----

As a lifelong resident of Iowa and recently retired veteran of law enforcement, I am confused by the attempt by some Iowa legislators to ban red light and speed enforcement cameras statewide.

There is overwhelming evidence the cameras have slowed traffic and reduced intersection collisions in accident-prone areas of several cities - not the least of which is Cedar Rapids. There I witnessed several fatality crashes in a short period of time on Interstate 380 within the downtown area. Not one has occurred there since the speed cameras installation. And yet, we continue to hear sniveling from more than one legislator who was either caught by a camera somewhere in Iowa, or knew someone who was - usually a relative or close friend.

For years, many legislators have cheered on law enforcement agencies for seizing illicit property and cash from drug dealers to use for further drug enforcement actions. The philosophy was make the criminals pay for the common good of all.

The same intent was behind the cameras in Cedar Rapids when I first started looking into them as a member of the traffic enforcement bureau. Let me dispel some myths.

All of the camera systems I am aware of in Iowa only take rear photos of the vehicle in attempt to identify the owner by the rear license plate. No frontal shots that might catch a politician coming back from a lunch with his “girlfriend” are occurring at this time. Yes, you might be inconvenienced by the $75 to $100 fine, but you avoid the embarrassment of being stopped by a squad car in front of everyone - or is it that you cannot ply authority of your office to talk a camera out of ticket as you might try with an officer?

The photos are recorded by a private contractor; the video is viewed by a local sworn officer, capable of testifying in court if necessary, who agrees it is enforceable. Notice is sent by mail to the offender. If the officer disagrees, it is not pursued. The vehicle owner and/or driver have an appeal process available.

Due process should not be the question at hand. These “infractions” are not added to driving records and are not available to insurance companies as actual criminal traffic charges are.

These cameras can be a win-win for all. They encourage safer driving, with fewer injuries and deaths, with a minimum of inconvenience. They financially impact only those driving unsafely and the owners who allow unsafe drivers to operate their vehicles.

Rarely do I meet someone in Cedar Rapids who is not in favor of the cameras. I am appalled that some legislators are using a perceived “hot button” topic to rally the votes of more constituents to their general cause.

Since the use of seat belts was more strongly enforced beginning in the 1990s, there have been double-digit decreases in serious injuries and deaths. Yet, many still complain seat belts are a “nuisance” to their lifestyle. If we apply the same paranoid psychology, then Iowa should abolish the mandatory use of seat belts, right? Again - the bottom line is money. The state takes in revenue from criminal seat belt citations, but not from local camera infractions. Therefore, they do not feel as motivated to support the cameras.

Local voices, don't let a small number of paranoid legislators defy common sense. Do you value the cost of human life enough to support the cameras where they are used appropriately, or do you want to risk the lives of others - perhaps your own or a loved one - simply for the convenience of an outspoken few?

Chuck Mincks of Marion retired in 2010 from the Cedar Rapids Police Department after serving the city for 30 years. Comments: m8n3k2@gmail.com