235 speed cameras Back On Monday

I go back and forth on traffic cameras.

They do seem intrusive and moving us towards a surveillance-state. BAD

They also seem effective in slowing motorists down and preventing motorists from running red lights (a particular pet-peeve of mine). GOOD

If the cameras didn't make money, they wouldn't be installed. If they cost a municipality MORE than they brought in, they wouldn't get installed. Since they bring in revenue, OF COURSE they are going to be installed.

Turnpikes have completely removed booths and gone to transmitters AND cameras. They mail motorists (or the license-holder of the vehicle, more accurately) a bill if they don't have an EZ Pass (for example) transmitter. This is not that different from traffic cameras. I haven't heard a lot of complaining about this use of cameras in a traffic situation.

That is one point that I had not thought of. I am assuming they don't mind it as it does not infringe on their ability to speed and travel as they please. Now if they did a SW update and added the speed camera functionality....
 
My worst fear is that other cities see this lost revenue and jump on board. Imagine how much money a small town could make by installing these and what's stopping them from handing out tickets for lower speeds?

Probably not much if people look up from their phones for long enough to just read signs and then stay at or below that number on the little dial or digital clock in front of them.

And actually even 25 MPH is too fast on some/narrower residential streets. You can get a ticket for driving too fast for conditions even if at that speed. Anyone arguing that should watch how little attention children pay to their surroundings.

If you can afford the fuel to constantly drive 10 MPH over, which likely leads to you following too closely (illegal and following space under 2 seconds isn't enough room to stop abruptly, especially at speeds over 50), which leads to you wearing your brakes and tires out faster, you can afford the ticket.

Stop b*tching.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: benjimill
That is one point that I had not thought of. I am assuming they don't mind it as it does not infringe on their ability to speed and travel as they please. Now if they did a SW update and added the speed camera functionality....

Oh yeah, that's absolutely coming. In fact, the one I travel on often, people slow down going through it.

Overall, I would just prefer that the speed limit be A) raised B) dynamically adjusted. Technology is so much greater in cars now making them safer and more capable, but we are stuck, for the most part, with a 1970s and 1990s defined "safe" speed.
 
Which is why I think they should be honest and say, "heck yeah...it is about the money! ". But then....we are talking politician and "safety" sells much better.

I say be honest and compare that to raising taxes instead...or cutting "X" services.

Frankly I wish they'd do the same and that there were more ways to capture revenue from dolts that can't follow the law. If the City needs one more Police Officer and the options are raise my property tax or install a speed camera that I know I won't break and thus have to pay, I know which option I'll support.
 
If these cameras were all about safety, then they should just lower the speed limit another 10 or 15 mph in those stretches. Everyone go 40mph and everyone arrives alive. Like driving in Chicago in traffic jam. Hard to have accidents when you are going 10 mph.
 
Initially these were sold as only being necessary for safety. We all knew that was complete BS and it was strictly a money grab and were proven right. I've been on this site long enough to even remember the thread from that back in the mid 2000s.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dmclone
I've been sucked into this argument too many times, so I'll just give my opinion and let it be. Regardless of the "just slow down" argument, particularly in Cedar Rapids, is the location chosen to install the cameras. On an interstate with plenty of out of state traffic. Why were no cameras installed near schools or busy arterial roads that go by parks or with heavy pedestrian traffic. Places where slowing down would absolutely benefit safety, for vehicles and pedestrians alike. Because those roads are traveled by locals who would loudly complain and would be available to fight those tickets. It's location of the least resistance.

I can accept that there was a safety component involved by installing them on I380, but it was not the primary motivation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JBone84 and dmclone
If these cameras were all about safety, then they should just lower the speed limit another 10 or 15 mph in those stretches. Everyone go 40mph and everyone arrives alive. Like driving in Chicago in traffic jam. Hard to have accidents when you are going 10 mph.

Hard to have serious injury causing accidents, yes, but there are plenty of fender-bender accidents at 10 mph caused by morons reading the paper, shaving, texting or putting on makeup during their morning commute.
 
If these cameras were all about safety, then they should just lower the speed limit another 10 or 15 mph in those stretches. Everyone go 40mph and everyone arrives alive. Like driving in Chicago in traffic jam. Hard to have accidents when you are going 10 mph.

When a road is designed to go 60, it doesn't make sense to post a 40 MPH limit. That simply isn't fair to the driving public. When we drive, the road ahead provides us clues as to what feels safe. Wide lanes, wide shoulders, few turns, etc. means it is safe to drive faster.

If you want slower speeds, you have to design the road or street accordingly.

slowdown.png
 
Maybe we need to put bike lanes on 235, they seem to fix all traffic problems/ . Oh a few roundabouts too.
 
I realize your comment is just tongue and cheek but since I'm a geek about this stuff, I'm going to respond anyway.

Roundabouts and bike lanes are solutions for streets, not roads.

I-235 is a road, not a street.



It all goes back to those evil suburbs that are all on the verge of bankruptcy.

I made the bike lane/roundabout comment with you in mind :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dosry5
You've convinced me - it is a money grab. If you are so incensed by it why don't you refrain from speeding or refrain from going more than 10 over so they don't get any of your money.
Everyone knows its a money grab. The police won't admit it. What I would like to happen is that enough people don't speed so the cost of operating the cameras exceeds the revenue of the tickets and they are forced to shut them down and give some ******** explanation why. But if course that will never happen.
 
Before they turned it off wasn't it 7+ mph you would get a ticket?

No, it was always 11 over.

Just passed by it this morning at 6:00am. You can tell people heard the news because a lot of break lights went on before the bridge and then everyone increased their speed 1/4 mile later (into the curves).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: bosco
I think a lot of people are confused where the cameras are at. They are attached to back side of the sign that has the brown "Art Center 1/4 mile". It looks like they have put up an additional sign/flags on the bridge before(56th).
 
Maybe we need to put bike lanes on 235, they seem to fix all traffic problems/ . Oh a few roundabouts too.

Roundabouts actually help lots of traffic issues. Anyone with about a 10th grade reading level can find that out.

My favorite part of the 'money grab' aspect is people that then turn around and applaud the *raising of speed limits.

Hint: *that's also a money grab.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron