New law means traffic cameras are here to stay. Will they boost safety, or just revenue?

A newly-enacted state law passed with massive bipartisan support seeks to regulate — therefore allow — the use automated traffic enforcement cameras by cities and counties in Iowa. Cedar Rapids, which for a number of years now has used speed cameras on Interstate 380 and red light cameras at various intersections around town, was the only city in the state to send lobbyists -- two of them — to advocate for the law. A number of legislators who previously called for banning ATE cameras also supported it, apparently seeing regulated cameras as the more pragmatic path.

I don’t favor the new law for one simple reason: I oppose automated traffic cameras outright. I always have.

Yes, that’s due in part to having received a few citations from the I-380 cameras over the last 11 years. Supporters of ATE cameras would be quick to tell me that if I don’t want to get cited, I should obey the speed limit. I do not dispute that.

Public safety officials in Cedar Rapids, which has reaped tens of millions in general fund revenue over the years, are quick to defend the ATE program as vital to traffic safety, pointing to statistics that show decreasing crashes in the area. That could be an overgeneralization, but I’ll dive into those statistics in a future column.

City officials are also quick to point out that ATE camera revenue provides vital funds for police officer positions. I don’t dispute the importance of a fully-staffed police force, either.

Traffic cameras are intended to prevent crashes by more easily, readily and frequently holding larger numbers of people accountable for violating certain traffic laws. My argument against them is that they in fact devalue enforcement by promoting volume over quality. And if cities continue to place more emphasis on ATE camera citations over standard traffic stops, public accountability for speeding and running red lights could dwindle when the whole point of traffic enforcement is the opposite — or at least, it’s supposed to be.

The problem with ATE camera enforcement is that it divides those accused of applicable moving violations into two separate classes. One is the accountable class; the other, the billable class. And the two are not equal. To consider how, let’s explore some hypothetical scenarios.

Suppose I’m caught driving in my little red car at 11 miles per hour over the speed limit on the highway. I’ll be caught in one of two ways: Either stopped by law enforcement or issued a citation from an ATE camera.

If I am subjected to a traffic stop, I will be pulled over and briefly detained by an officer who will verify my identity and eligibility to drive and then inform me of my infraction. If I haven’t any recent moving violations (and if I’m polite), the officer might exercise their judgment and cite me for a lesser violation — 6 to 10 mph over instead of 11-15, perhaps — or even send me on my way with an admonition to slow down. If I already have a recent violation (or if I’m a little snot,) the officer will issue a citation for the full 11 mph over the speed limit.

A speeding ticket is a “scheduled violation” under Iowa code, meaning I will be penalized with a fine with no risk of jail time. But I’m still accused of a simple misdemeanor, one which will go on my criminal record. My vehicle insurance premium is also going to increase. Swell.

Speeding is a criminal offense, so I must either plead guilty or not guilty when issued a ticket by law enforcement. Many Iowans don’t realize that everyone is faced with this choice when stopped and cited because they simply pay the fine — which acts as an automatic guilty plea — and call it good.

If I prefer to avoid paying my fine in full, I can plead not guilty and appear in court at a scheduled date and time listed on my citation. If I am found not guilty, my driving record is unaffected, my fine is lifted and I’m only responsible for the court costs portion of the original fine.

I could be found guilty of the violation, of course, and end up having to pay what I would have paid by acknowledging guilt and paying the fine right away. Or the court magistrate might allow me to plead guilty to a lesser violation with a smaller fine. Regardless of outcome, the experience alone will underscore the importance of safe driving.

However I choose to proceed, if my citation results in a fine, I have to pay it. If I don’t, the state will eventually suspend my driver’s license. Not only must I pay the fine in full to have the suspension lifted, I will then also have visit a driver’s license station to have a new license issued before I’m actually eligible to return to driving. If I’m foolish enough to ignore my fines and drive on a suspended license, getting pulled over again will earn me a much larger fine and a much longer suspension of my driving privileges.

Few people are foolish enough to let a speeding ticket lead to such a degree of seriousness. The very potential for such consequence is why they don’t.

In other words, traffic stops promote accountability for drivers that extends far beyond money. Because I have an actual encounter with law enforcement during my traffic stop, I’m likely to remember committing my infraction. Because the state will yank my license if I’m not good for it, I’m more likely to pay the scheduled fine (on time.) Because multiple violations will get me suspended from driving, I’m likely to be more diligent about following traffic safety laws in the future.

That’s hardly the case with camera-based traffic fines. By the time the notice arrives by mail, I’m not likely to recall the date and time I was speeding. A camera-based citation does not count against my driving record. It can’t — for a number of reasons, not the least of them being that Iowa’s new traffic camera law prohibits it. I could receive enough camera citations to paper the walls of my condo with no impact to my eligibility as a driver.

My admonition to better follow traffic safety laws is nothing more than a bland printed document bearing a grainy photo of my license plate, telling me I owe $75 to the city for allegedly speeding or running a red light. (In my hometown of Marion, that includes something as relatively harmless as a right turn on red before which a driver slows but doesn’t come to a complete stop. For crying out loud.)

What if I don’t pay the “civil penalty,” as the new law calls it? In Cedar Rapids, the obligation would be sent to the city’s contracted collection agency. My penalty for the supposedly significant act of careless driving would hold no more significance than a delinquent water bill. In fact, it would carry less — unlike delinquent utilities payments, delinquent traffic camera penalties can’t be reported to credit reporting agencies.

The worst ramification I would face with a camera citation would be the city utilizing the State of Iowa Setoff Program to essentially garnish the penalty from my state tax refund or game winnings — if I were owed money from any of those sources to begin with. Many Iowans aren’t.

Simply put, a traffic camera citation isn’t actually a fine. It’s a bill — a bill that can go unpaid with little (even zero) real consequences to the vehicle owner to whom it is assessed. Meanwhile, camera citations present a significant potential consequence to anyone who values safe roadways: traffic violations increasingly acting as a perverse incentive to fund city budgets.

It doesn’t matter that traffic camera revenue may only be applied for certain uses according to the new law. Funds are fungible. Camera proceeds can still replace an approved budget item’s previous funding source, freeing those funds to be diverted to new uses while a general fund grows in size.

No city elected official will ever actually say it, but deep down in places they don’t talk about at parties, city officials want you to run that red light. They need you to run that red light. Bonus points to readers who can identify the movie quote I paraphrase.

Once that revenue comes in, cities will fight to keep it. This isn’t (necessarily) out of greed. Once a revenue stream is established for any political jurisdiction for any length of time, permanent or otherwise, it’s hard to do without it. Revenue is almost always instantly gobbled up by budget line items. Losing any source of revenue means budget cuts. Instead, it’s always preferable to ensure the continued flow of that revenue.

Political jurisdictions have long treated fines and fees as revenue. Traffic cameras aren’t new in that sense. And millions from traffic cameras might seem like small potatoes when a city fund starts with a billion-dollar balance. But would the $7,210,000 Cedar Rapids has budgeted for ATE camera revenue in 2025 seem insignificant if people didn’t violate traffic laws frequently enough to generate it?

We can defend traffic cameras until the end of time. But as more cities become approved by the state to adopt the use of traffic cameras, don’t be surprised if those city officials start to feel the need … the need for speed.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com