Iowa City bans red light cameras and drones — for a while
On Tuesday night, the Iowa City City Council passed an ordinance that bans the use of red light cameras, license plate readers (unless a police officer or parking attendant is on the scene), and drones. Apparently, it is the first of its kind in the nation and has received applause from across the country. However, as Bobblehead points out, passage of the ordinance is mostly symbolic and meant to “avoid a potential legal battle” regarding a citizen-initiated petition, according to yesterday’s CRG:
The ordinance apparently puts the petition ordeal to bed and the majority of the council still favors red light cameras. In the long run, the measure serves as a symbolic stopgap.
The pointless symbolism made Bobblehead boil over (understandably, and much to my amusement). I agree the ordinance is useless since the council will inevitably revisit the issue of red light cameras in a couple years, when they hope the DOT has written guidelines for the use of cameras on state routes. (Most of the intersections Iowa City has targeted for red light cameras are along state highways.) But while I am not a fan of automated eyes in the sky keeping us in line, sending fines to vehicle owners weeks later instead of issuing citations to drivers on-site, and private companies operating the whole system and keeping the lion’s share of the profits, I appreciate the practically of red light cameras. Call me naïve, but I think people who break the laws we have established should be disciplined. I do not think I would have as much of a problem if the police used cameras to supplement in-person enforcement (e.g.; someone monitors the live video feed for violators and an officer is nearby to issue citations). (Can I reconcile that with the queasiness I feel regarding the NSA’s domestic surveillance? Do I need to?) I think that would probably be the best solution to have it both ways: it appease opponents who disagree with the an automated system and uses cameras at the same time.
But in regards to red light and speed cameras and their supposed safety benefits, one question has gone unanswered (though I have yet to pose it to anyone): do they lower insurance premiums? I wondered that in a post about red light cameras last year and I have yet to read whether or not there is any affect on insurance costs. If red light and speed cameras improve driver safety, then driving in cities where they are installed should present fewer risks; the probability of getting hit by someone running a red light or driving too fast is less, which means my insurance company is taking less of a risk by insuring me. That is how it works, isn’t it?
Regardless, I do not have to worry about red light cameras or FBI drones in Iowa City for the next two years. Phew! What a weight off my shoulders! All I have to worry about now is the NSA making notes of the people I call and email, and keeping track of my Internet habits.
That petition, submitted this spring, sought to either force the City Council to ban the devices or send the matter to voters in an election.
The city attorney ruled that the portion or [sic] the proposed ordinance dealing with traffic-enforcement cameras was not timely and therefore the council did not have to act on it. The ACLU of Iowa earlier had said it would consider suing if Iowa City did not allow the whole petition to move forward.
But city staffers recommended that the council ban all three technologies anyway. Part of their reasoning was that cameras would not be installed until at least next year and the council can reconsider the ordinance two years after it is adopted.
The ordinance apparently puts the petition ordeal to bed and the majority of the council still favors red light cameras. In the long run, the measure serves as a symbolic stopgap.
The pointless symbolism made Bobblehead boil over (understandably, and much to my amusement). I agree the ordinance is useless since the council will inevitably revisit the issue of red light cameras in a couple years, when they hope the DOT has written guidelines for the use of cameras on state routes. (Most of the intersections Iowa City has targeted for red light cameras are along state highways.) But while I am not a fan of automated eyes in the sky keeping us in line, sending fines to vehicle owners weeks later instead of issuing citations to drivers on-site, and private companies operating the whole system and keeping the lion’s share of the profits, I appreciate the practically of red light cameras. Call me naïve, but I think people who break the laws we have established should be disciplined. I do not think I would have as much of a problem if the police used cameras to supplement in-person enforcement (e.g.; someone monitors the live video feed for violators and an officer is nearby to issue citations). (Can I reconcile that with the queasiness I feel regarding the NSA’s domestic surveillance? Do I need to?) I think that would probably be the best solution to have it both ways: it appease opponents who disagree with the an automated system and uses cameras at the same time.
But in regards to red light and speed cameras and their supposed safety benefits, one question has gone unanswered (though I have yet to pose it to anyone): do they lower insurance premiums? I wondered that in a post about red light cameras last year and I have yet to read whether or not there is any affect on insurance costs. If red light and speed cameras improve driver safety, then driving in cities where they are installed should present fewer risks; the probability of getting hit by someone running a red light or driving too fast is less, which means my insurance company is taking less of a risk by insuring me. That is how it works, isn’t it?
Regardless, I do not have to worry about red light cameras or FBI drones in Iowa City for the next two years. Phew! What a weight off my shoulders! All I have to worry about now is the NSA making notes of the people I call and email, and keeping track of my Internet habits.
