Why the fuss over cameras?

By Bob Elliott

----

What if someone proposed a plan to significantly decrease traffic accidents in Iowa City, while it also generated additional money for the city? Compound that with knowledge that a similar plan has already proven successful in Cedar Rapids.

Too good to be true? Unfortunately, yes. You can blame it on politics and the fact that people are sometimes their own worst enemies.

I refer to a plan to use red-light cameras at designated Iowa City intersections. It's been stalled by state politics since a traffic-enforcement camera ordinance was approved by the City Council early in 2012.

Last June, two Iowa City residents filed a petition seeking to ban the cameras. It was finalized this year and forces Iowa City to either approve an ordinance outlawing traffic enforcement cameras, drones and automatic license-plate recognition systems, or send the question to voters.

Because state politics is expected to stall traffic camera business for at least a year, Iowa City's city council probably will adopt the ordinance ban, which it could easily reverse in the future.

But why all the fuss in the first place? The most obvious reason for opposing red-light cameras is not wanting to get caught. Of course, the easiest way to avoid that is to not run a red light.

Then there's a red herring emerging from the pages of George Orwell's 1949 novel, “1984,” about omnipresent government surveillance and public mind control. Otherwise reasonable Iowa City residents apparently see invasion of privacy in public areas, where of course, there's no privacy. Why would there be at a public intersection?

Cedar Rapids has been successfully operating both red-light cameras and speed cameras since March 2010. Police statistics from January 2012 revealed traffic crashes involving personal injury on I-380 through the city down 75 percent, and crashes across the city down 19 percent. And yet more than 2,000 people in Iowa City signed the petition.

Some folks have said they can accept a policeman, but not a camera, nailing red-light runners. To me, the major difference is a policeman could be distracted, but a camera never blinks. Plus, who can afford an officer stationed at every dangerous intersection?

Perhaps it's the technology they fear. Camera photos are technological evidence; in that way, like finger prints and DNA. And speaking of technology, was it wrong to use helicopters with infrared lights to finally locate the Boston bombing suspect?

Perhaps even more surprising to me is that the American Civil Liberties Union opposes traffic-control cameras. I'd think the ACLU would support technology that takes the human element out of the law enforcement equation.

Bob Elliott of Iowa City is a former City Council member. Comments: elliottb53@aol.com