The Iowa House gives red light cameras a red light

On Tuesday night, after milling around the chamber while a hazmat crew analyzed and cleaned a mysterious white powder, the Iowa House passed a ban on red light cameras, culminating the measure’s whirlwind tour through the Legislature. There was a lot of support for it at the beginning of the session in January, but then it was forgotten on the back burner. Then it supposedly died. Miraculously, it was recently resurrected and now sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. However, according the DMR, it “may be dead on arrival in the Senate.”

With red light and speeding cameras popping up in the state’s major metro areas, lawmakers have gone back and forth regarding the camera’s ultimate purpose and effectiveness for the past couple years. Blue republicrats generally support the cameras, citing improved safety. Red republicrats think they stink to high heaven; they are municipal “money grabs” and an unconstitutional infringement on personal freedom, due-process rights, and privacy. And I think it is safe to say that average Iowans do not like them.

Personally, I am ambivalent. I have a heavy foot but stop at red lights. Sometimes my Californian comes out and I expect yellow lights to last longer; I cross the limit line when the lights are deep orange or — I’ll admit — red. It’s rare, but it happens to all of us. We do not want to stop, even for the 30 seconds or so it takes for the light to turn green again, which is a sad testament to our national patience and lifestyle.

I understand their stated purpose (to catch red light runners and speeders) and am all for people obeying laws, especially for everyone’s safety and benefit. What pisses me off, though, is that most red light and speeding systems are operated by private companies that get the lions share of the profits. Sure, the operators are kind enough to install and get everything rolling, but it is nothing compared to the bonanza of fines. I have no doubt the red light lobby is working hard to protect that windfall.

I have never been caught by a red light camera and was always aware of where they were when I was in California. They were everywhere in Los Angeles and at the Adams/Harbor intersection in Orange County, but I never had any problem with them. Though the lights and camera boxes were menacing, I will admit they were reassuring, too. Any selfish idiot who temped them would receive a $350 fine (or something around there) in the mail. Traveling 380 through Cedar Rapids since speed cameras were installed takes a little more time, but at least people are not driving like madmen. While on my way to Northwood last year, I drove through at a snails pace. The speed limit through the monitored area is 55, but I was tooling in the slow lane at 52 like an old man. I learned later that the upper speed threshold is 67, which seems insane.

Perhaps I have not followed the debate closely enough, but one thing no one is talking about is how red light and speeding cameras affect car insurance premiums. (You know: that insurance every car owner is required by Iowa law to have.) The Blue republicrats tout their supposed safety benefits, but are they reflected in insurance savings? Are insurance rates lower in cities with cameras? I do not think so. Time will tell if they do improve safety (maybe), but the only way everyone will be convinced of their effectiveness and necessity is if their State Farm, Geico, or Progressive bills are lower.