Possible Camera Ban in Iowa??

Emperor Gronstall won't allow a ban to pass.

I love this comment,

"Colton Krumm · UNI
I want to buy the red jeep and hold an event "One Dollar Per hit."
Reply · · about an hour ago"

It very well may swing as the state at first is trying to get it's hands on some of the revenue, especially from cities who have cameras on the highway/interstates.

Davenport mayor said they will lose $700,000 per year if cameras are banned.

Part way there?????
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/House-Panel-Approves-Ban-on-T...

RT

The big push came when our brain dead governor got a ticket from Arizona. Whatever the Iowa house dominated by the Republicans pass must go through the Democratic Senate so it will not pass unless there is some backroom politics for if you check the Republican Caucus votes you can see that they have a problem counting votes.
Those cameras on I235 have really slowed the speed down for no longer am I passed by cars doing over 75 mph in a 60mph zone.
When a store camera catches a shoplifter stealing the photo is legal evidence and so is a camera catching a speeder/redlight camera person breaking the law. Do not break the law or pay the price.

Big difference ... one is on private property, the other is on public property!

This would be true if everyone would be honest. We're in AZ for the winter. I can show you at least two 'school speed signs' within 5 miles that are planted behind bushes. They then set up their mobile van radar close enough so they can catch the speeders as they pass the sign. Fair? I don't think so.

The people here have had enough of the 'crooked cameras shenanigans' ... they got most of the cameras removed. (If you do a search on this website, you'll find many instances of illegal activities by the crooks running the camera companies; then telling the people ticketed they had to pay the fine when notified by 'plain mail' when the state law required that 'they be legally served'.)

Here are a few:
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/18450
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/9269
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2464.asp
http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2008/...

Be sure to let us know when you get your camera ticket. It isn't a matter of IF, rather a matter of WHEN ... regardless of how careful you are.

RT

This sounds like picking fly droppings from a pepper jar.
Whether it is on private property or public doesn't matter for you will pay the fine to the government under whose jurisdiction you broke the law and the store/bank etc does not get to charge you with the crime.
I do not intend to get a speeding ticket by a camera for I know where they usually are and I watch the road for signs telling me there is one ahead. If I do then it is my fault for speeding and not the camera.

If you're a firm believer of....

Why do you have to....

You're not breaking the traffic laws now, are you??

If you think there's no difference in the law as it applies to 'private property' and 'public property', you best get yourself an attorney.

When the 'Camera companies' have free rein to break the law whenever necessary in order to issue tickets, 'you' don't have to break the law to get ticketed. Apparently you did not read the links in my last post!

FAMOUS LAST WORDS! Keep us posted!!

RT

They will buy out everyone in the office.

I do not see anywhere where I said I do not speed and I have seen all those posts you mentioned. My last speeding ticket was last year while returning from Arizona on 54 in Kansas doing 77 in a 65 and paid the fine. I would have paid the fine also if it was a camera that caught me. Unlike some people I know I was wrong and will take the consequences.
I can gather that you have not read the exceptions in the bill. It will keep cameras in school buses so that a private driver can photograph cars passing the bus while the stop sign is out. Then the "private" person takes the photo of the car and hands it to the police and they charge the owner of the car. There is no difference in the photographs whether its private property or public. I understand quit well.
I understand that there are some bad apples out there but I would not throw away a whole bushel of them because of several bad ones.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Traffic-Camera-Ban-Could-Come...

RT

But after that, it will be Gronstalled to death.

Possibly true, but at least it's a start. Few bills of any kind get passed the first time around. It has to start somewhere ... may be a bit closer than it was 6 months ago!

RT

Wait wait I thought the red light cameras were about safety not revenue??????

Have I been miss led?

Can't it be both? Excellent source of revenue and attempting to force people to drive "safer" through the threat of bankruptcy.

I can see how the various municipalities would call this a win-win situation.

Huh?

Photo enforcement tickets are sent to the registered owner of the vehicle, not the driver. Often is the case they are not the same.

It would be more correct to say: Do not lend, lease, rent, or fleet your vehicle - or pay the price.

Overall I can see the point you are making, but I think it is a stretch to say it is fairly often. Regardless, isn't the owner of the vehicle responsible (to some extent) of its use? Obviously, if the vehicle is stolen that would be an exception...

As for me, I would only lend my vehicle to people I can truly trust (very few have driven my car). No issues with anyone who has used it.

Does anyone know Fedex & UPS policy on RLC tickets?

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Red-light-Camera-Ban-Stalls-i...

RT

[Red-light Camera Ban Stalls in House]

I sure hope they will bring this back around in the near future, to the much more sensible conclusion of actually passing it next time!

With States strapped financially and making cash cuts to their cities, and the cities needing even more to fend off bankruptcy, you can almost be sure of stalls in the future.

it's all about cash anyway!

Drive responsibly and use the POIFactory RLC files then don't worry about them.

Recent challenges to tickets won out in Florida. This was due to incomplete paperwork to back up the ticket.

Thanks.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Red-Light-Camera-Ban-Gets-New...

RT

"Iowa House Passes Traffic Camera Ban"

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Iowa-House-Passes-Traffic-Cam...

RT

I repeat what I posted some time ago:

This RLC issue is out of control from government point of view. It's too visible, and people are protesting so it makes bad publicity. Cameras may be phased out or at least most of them. But if you think that they will give up revenue you are very mistaken.

There is modification and "upgrade" for this sort of revenue streams that were introduced with RLCs:

A lobbyist for the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) industry has convinced Connecticut legislators to consider implanting spy chips on the state's license plates. Last Wednesday, the state Senate Transportation Committee voted unanimously to pass a bill asking the Department of Motor Vehicles to create a report on the implementation of RFID for motor vehicle registration by January 1

Nice, clean, without anything visible or flashing on crossings. And main reason:

"There are two main reasons for the Department of Transportation to adopt this type of program," Scully-Power wrote in his testimony. "One, to validate that every vehicle conforms to state regulations. Two, to provide considerable income to the state by identifying vehicles that are violating the existing laws of Connecticut.... The state would collect $29,619,500 per year or $79,858,500 in the same three-year period compared to the $594,000 it was able to collect."

The financial estimates were based on the number of uninsured drivers the system could hit with $100 tickets. The system also would increase the profitability of red light cameras, which the legislature is currently considering authorizing.

And so many new possibilities:

"An RFID program would be phased in gradually and then expanded to accomplish other policing tasks without having to change equipment," Scully-Power wrote. "The second phase would be to implement speeding violations."
source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3743.asp

So if you say it's crack down on revenue stream I will say: think again

Shouldn't be hard to take out a active RFID chip without any signs of tampering . . . .

Putting a tracking chip on a motor vehicle runs awful close to violating privacy laws as it allows your whereabouts to be tracked without consent. To paraphrase a popular saying, this legislator is a few loads short of having some bricks.

Where "all good sense goes to die" according to a popular Des Moines local talk show host....

It will not get to see the light of day because of the Senate's Majority Leader Gronstal.

Iowa is lucky to have him or otherwise the far right fools would bring this state back to the 1800's.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/36092

and the author of the articles, at least the one I went through doesn't know fecal matter from shinola.

OK... I was part wrong. The retiring Senate President assigned the bill to a committee that is not scheduled to meet again this session, giving Gronstal cover... bottom line: One side of the political spectrum is keeping this bill from even being discussed and voted on in the Iowa Senate. And when the majority flips, and that side gets done to them what they are doing now, they WILL pitch an unholy fit - and a big deal will be made of it by the partisan propagandists (aka the mainstream media) < /rant>

Seems to be all around us these days!

Update:
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/With-Bill-Dead-Are-More-Traff...

RT

Follow the money!

Fred

The thing that I don't like in the Des Moines metro area is that all of a sudden the yellow light is quite a bit shorter on the intersections with the red light cameras. I find this especially true in Clive, Iowa. If I am going the speed limit and I am approaching a RLC, when the light changes to yellow, I have to slam on brakes to keep from getting caught. I find myself slowing down to a crawl when approaching these intersections.

Yellow light timing, in my opinion, should be the same at all (or most all) lights on any stretch of road that has the same speed limit along it. I say "most all" because one exception might be a really wide intersection where more yellow light time would be needed. One size does not fit all.

its about time./.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Iowa-City-Moves-Toward-Bannin...

RT

Neither did all the other law-abiding people who were doing fine and obeying the law and never got a ticket until the state/city performed their monkey business on the yellow light timer.

Quite Right.
I live in MD near DC with Virginia a short ride away. It is one of the most dense installs of speed & redlight cameras in the country. I have yet to get a ticket in years of driving. I attribute that to the use of this web sites camera info.

A friend told me the other day that he was SO angry at a speed camera ticket recently that he is commited to removing that amount of revenue that goes to the State when he does his income tax at the end of the year. I warned him, but he said he was willing to do something effective with respect to "taxation."

What if a sizable number of people do this around the country in protest???

Fred

I would not risk losing my house in a tax sale for something like that. It's nice in theory, but totally not worth it.

This seems to tell it like it is-