Speed camera

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,484
24,426
113
I'm thinking of one particular town of around 7k in North Central/Northeast Iowa that I frequently drive through which very recently put up 4 speed cameras. I can almost guarantee that there weren't any significant safety issues in the spots where the cameras are located and they won't have any significant affect on making those areas safer for other motorists or pedestrians. Off course the reason given that the cameras were needed was safety, but the honest answer would have been that they are there solely to increase revenue.

But the fact that there are people worked up about this should tell you that this is an issue. If everyone is driving near the speed limit in these areas, then those cameras won’t generate a dime. Again, these cameras aren’t giving tickets for just a couple mph over the limit. You have to be traveling at least 12 over to get a ticket. That feels very much like a safety issue.
 

dmclone

Well-Known Member
Oct 20, 2006
21,518
5,858
113
50131
But the fact that there are people worked up about this should tell you that this is an issue. If everyone is driving near the speed limit in these areas, then those cameras won’t generate a dime. Again, these cameras aren’t giving tickets for just a couple mph over the limit. You have to be traveling at least 12 over to get a ticket. That feels very much like a safety issue.
Or maybe the speed limit needs to be raised. I noticed recently while driving in California that their speed limits are a lot more aggressive. Places like 86th street in Johnston, which are set at 35, were 50mph in California. There were a couple times where I looked down and was going 5 mph under, which I don't think has happened in my lifetime in Iowa.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: alarson

nfrine

Well-Known Member
Mar 31, 2006
9,789
11,924
113
Nearby
Flock cameras are the next big thing...

Flock Safety, based out of Atlanta, Georgia, is a company that provides LPR technology to public and private entities throughout the country. Flock is currently being utilized by at least 16 Iowa law enforcement agencies. These agencies are West Des Moines PD, University of Iowa PD, Council Bluffs PD, Altoona PD, Clive PD, Ankeny PD, Marshalltown PD, Urbandale PD, Waukee PD, Glenwood PD, Camanche PD, Clinton PD, Polk County Conservation, Indianola PD, Johnston PD and Carter Lake PD. There are many additional commercial and private companies using Flock in Iowa.

You may know that there are license plate readers set up all around most cities, but these Flock cameras are different. They are special because of what they record, combined with the software that they use. The camera takes pictures of the back of each car that drives by them, both night and day. Why is that important? Because the Flock software is able to catalogue not only the license plate, but also the make and model of the car and the color. It can also note distinguishing characteristics like bumper stickers or roof racks. And this information can be shared nationally through a nationwide database that is updated multiple times a day.

1718665868730.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: NWICY

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,601
7,420
113
Because those mother ******* finally know we have a right to travel given by the 4th amendment and reinforced by the Supreme Court!

The officers took an OATH!! They don't have jurisdiction over a living human!
I always think this is such a stupid argument.

You have a right to travel, by horse, by train, by plain, by boat, by walking etc.

You just need a license to travel by driving a car on public roads, just like you dont have the right to fly an airplane, operate a train, etc without proper training and paperwork, etc.

Right to travel, is not the same as Right to operate, there is no right to operate, that is a privilege. Ones right to travel does not also supersede others rights either.

Similarly, people have the right to protest, but they do not have the right to impede others travel, ie block roads and walkways, and that right does not supersede others private property rights etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeloClone

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,484
24,426
113
I always think this is such a stupid argument.

You have a right to travel, by horse, by train, by plain, by boat, by walking etc.

You just need a license to travel by driving a car on public roads, just like you dont have the right to fly an airplane, operate a train, etc without proper training and paperwork, etc.

Right to travel, is not the same as Right to operate, there is no right to operate, that is a privilege. Ones right to travel does not also supersede others rights either.

Similarly, people have the right to protest, but they do not have the right to impede others travel, ie block roads and walkways, and that right does not supersede others private property rights etc.

I was hopeful the previous poster was saying this in jest. But yes, once you are operating in a public space such as a road or in the air, you are subject to regulations to protect those around you.

Actually, even all those things you mention such as boats and trains also require the operator to possess a license. Even walking on a public sidewalk requires you to follow basic laws for your safety and those around you.
 

3TrueFans

Just a Happily Married Man
Sep 10, 2009
63,205
61,820
113
Ames
Or maybe the speed limit needs to be raised. I noticed recently while driving in California that their speed limits are a lot more aggressive. Places like 86th street in Johnston, which are set at 35, were 50mph in California. There were a couple times where I looked down and was going 5 mph under, which I don't think has happened in my lifetime in Iowa.
Make the speed limit whatever you want, people will still complain about getting speeding tickets.
 

cedarstrip

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2013
631
632
93
Simple way to beat these cameras.

Drive less than 10MPH over the limit, and use cruise.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, cameras can issue tickets for 1 mph over and fine you whatever they want, there is no law against it. Just because they don't currently doesn't mean they won't in the future.

PS SLOW DOWN!!!! I haven't had a moving violation camera or not in over 25 years.
 

1SEIACLONE

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2024
2,508
2,346
113
63
Ames Iowa
I'm thinking of one particular town of around 7k in North Central/Northeast Iowa that I frequently drive through which very recently put up 4 speed cameras. I can almost guarantee that there weren't any significant safety issues in the spots where the cameras are located and they won't have any significant affect on making those areas safer for other motorists or pedestrians. Off course the reason given that the cameras were needed was safety, but the honest answer would have been that they are there solely to increase revenue.
Prairie City put them in to protect the kids, but not a lot of kids out there on 163, but sure are a lot of people traveling back and forth to Des Moines from the Southeast.
Bloomfield nails people on highway 2 where the speed limit drops down to 40 at the intersection of 63 and 2. Lot of out of staters make the paper every week for speeding in that area. What Cheer used to have police right at the bottom of the hill as you came into town from the South. Nailed you right at the city limit as you had gained speed coming down the hill.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
26,484
24,426
113
Correct me if I'm wrong but, cameras can issue tickets for 1 mph over and fine you whatever they want, there is no law against it. Just because they don't currently doesn't mean they won't in the future.

PS SLOW DOWN!!!! I haven't had a moving violation camera or not in over 25 years.

I believe the new state laws actually do specify that limit now. I think I saw 11 mph over was the minimum, but most cities have set that threshold at 12. This is why CR didn’t have to stop their usage to be reviewed with the new law.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,601
7,420
113
I was hopeful the previous poster was saying this in jest. But yes, once you are operating in a public space such as a road or in the air, you are subject to regulations to protect those around you.

Actually, even all those things you mention such as boats and trains also require the operator to possess a license. Even walking on a public sidewalk requires you to follow basic laws for your safety and those around you.
I assume it was in jest too, at least I hope so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeloClone

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,601
7,420
113
Correct me if I'm wrong but, cameras can issue tickets for 1 mph over and fine you whatever they want, there is no law against it. Just because they don't currently doesn't mean they won't in the future.

PS SLOW DOWN!!!! I haven't had a moving violation camera or not in over 25 years.
Yes, all people have to do is STOP SPEEDING.

I know where I live they are thinking about putting them in, because on the main 4 lane, they cant get people to slow down, they added electronic speed signs. They use the plane, local, county and state patrol it constantly, yet people still want to go 20mph over the limit.

So the city is looking at putting in cameras in multiple spots, because no one will slow down.

Im not saying oops' never happen, we all know we can accidentally not realize we are going too fast on once in a while, but when this is a regular occurance it is not an accident.
 

madguy30

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 15, 2011
57,161
55,057
113
That's a theory

Probably pretty accurate.

The interstate speed limit could be 90 in CR but people would complain about not being able to go 100 even if cars routinely went over the walls on those curves.

People like to break rules, or push the envelope, so any restrictions are going to at least get some pushback.

And people like to argue, so no matter what the rule is, there will be arguments to follow.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,601
7,420
113
Correct me if I'm wrong but, cameras can issue tickets for 1 mph over and fine you whatever they want, there is no law against it. Just because they don't currently doesn't mean they won't in the future.

PS SLOW DOWN!!!! I haven't had a moving violation camera or not in over 25 years.

I believe the new state laws actually do specify that limit now. I think I saw 11 mph over was the minimum, but most cities have set that threshold at 12. This is why CR didn’t have to stop their usage to be reviewed with the new law.
Then new law:

"Tickets could not be issued unless the driver was going more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit, and the bill would limit how much drivers can be charged for speeding tickets.

There would have to be signs posted notifying drivers of the cameras, and most data collected by automatic license plate readers would have to be deleted within 30 days. Cities would also have to review and approve a photo or video captured by a traffic camera system before a ticket is issued.

Local governments would have to provide an annual report to the state and the public including the number of traffic accidents at each camera location and the number of tickets issued. Cities would have to use the revenue from those tickets for transportation infrastructure improvements or for police or fire department services.

Cities with a population of 20,000 or less could only have mobile speed camera systems to issue warnings, not tickets. At least two cities, Buffalo and LeClaire, would have to remove their mobile systems, leading to revenue reductions of 33% and 20%, respectively."


 

NWICY

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2012
35,065
31,168
113
The biggest money grab of them all are speed cameras set up in smaller towns of 15k or less that are placed in 30-40 mph speed zones. I don't believe for one second that those cameras were put up for safety because I seriously doubt that there have historically been significant safety issues around the areas where they are placed.
There are a boatload of those up in NE Iowa. The 2 Webster City are set up for pure money grabs just east of the exit on Hwy 20 and S of town on 17.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: irish

NWICY

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2012
35,065
31,168
113
I'm thinking of one particular town of around 7k in North Central/Northeast Iowa that I frequently drive through which very recently put up 4 speed cameras. I can almost guarantee that there weren't any significant safety issues in the spots where the cameras are located and they won't have any significant affect on making those areas safer for other motorists or pedestrians. Off course the reason given that the cameras were needed was safety, but the honest answer would have been that they are there solely to increase revenue.
Damn it name the town, give us a chance to avoid them.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron