Traffic Cameras In Iowa: Are They Legal?

Traffic cameras are a divisive issue in Iowa, with some arguing that they are an invasion of privacy and a scam, while others believe they are essential for road safety. The Iowa Senate has voted to ban traffic enforcement cameras, but the House has yet to make a decision, with some representatives supporting regulation rather than an outright ban. The debate centres around concerns about due process, the use of private companies, and the distribution of revenue from fines. With a range of opinions and proposed solutions, the future of traffic cameras in Iowa remains uncertain.

Iowa Senate votes to ban traffic cameras

Iowa lawmakers have been debating bills regarding traffic cameras and handheld cell phone use while driving for several years. On March 26, 2024, the Iowa Senate voted 30-19 in favor of a bill banning automated traffic enforcement cameras in the state. The bill also denies Iowa vehicle information to other states with automated ticketing systems, so Iowans would not have to pay tickets issued by traffic cameras in other states.

The bill's passage in the Senate can be attributed to Republican Senator Jake Chapman of Adel, who has been managing the bill. Sen. Chapman has been a vocal opponent of traffic cameras, referring to them as "scam cams" and arguing that they are used to generate revenue for cities rather than improve public safety. He has highlighted the fact that private companies operate the cameras and collect a significant portion of the revenue from fines, calling it a "money grab".

However, the future of the bill is uncertain as it now moves to the Iowa House, where similar bills have stalled in the past. The House, which is also controlled by Republicans, has passed its own bills to regulate rather than ban traffic cameras. Rep. Jarad Klein, R-Keota, a supporter of the House bill, has expressed doubt about the appetite for an outright ban among his fellow representatives.

The debate surrounding traffic cameras in Iowa is multifaceted. Opponents of the cameras argue that they raise due process concerns since they are operated by private companies. They also criticize the financial incentives behind the cameras, claiming that they primarily serve as revenue generators rather than tools for improving traffic safety. On the other hand, supporters of the cameras, including law enforcement groups and cities, emphasize their positive impact on public safety and argue that regulation could address due process issues.

While the Iowa Senate's vote to ban traffic cameras represents a significant step forward for opponents, the outcome remains uncertain as the House considers competing proposals for regulation or restriction rather than an outright ban.

Traffic cameras as a public safety tool

Traffic cameras are a highly debated topic in Iowa. While some people argue that they are an invasion of privacy and a scam, others believe they are essential public safety tools. In this article, we will explore the latter perspective and discuss how traffic cameras can improve road safety in Iowa.

The Benefits of Traffic Cameras

Traffic enforcement cameras are an effective tool for monitoring and enforcing traffic rules. These cameras can be mounted beside or over a road or installed in vehicles to detect various motoring offenses, including speeding, running red lights, unauthorized use of bus lanes, and toll booth evasion. By automatically capturing photographic or video evidence of violations, they provide a reliable way to identify and penalize errant drivers.

Improving Road Safety

One of the primary goals of traffic cameras is to enhance road safety by reducing speeding and red-light running, which are significant causes of accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Studies have shown that speed cameras can lead to an 11% to 44% reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes. The UK Department for Transport estimated a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions and a 42% decrease in fatalities or severe injuries at camera sites. The British Medical Journal supported the use of speed cameras, citing their effectiveness in reducing accidents and injuries and recommended wider deployment.

Addressing Due Process Concerns

Opponents of traffic cameras in Iowa have raised concerns about due process, arguing that the use of private companies to operate the cameras and issue tickets violates drivers' rights. However, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cedar Rapids' speed cameras, stating that there was no fundamental right to travel infringed by the ordinance authorizing the cameras. Justice Brent Appel acknowledged the privacy concerns but emphasized that the invasion of privacy associated with license plate photographs was minimal.

Public Perception of Traffic Cameras

While some Iowans support the use of traffic cameras for safety reasons, others view them negatively. A 2018 Iowa Poll found that 54% of Iowans wanted to get rid of traffic cameras, while 40% supported them. Similarly, in a 2024 Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll, 62% of Iowans thought that traffic cameras didn't deserve lawmakers' attention. Despite the divided public opinion, supporters of traffic cameras maintain that they are valuable tools for improving road safety and freeing up law enforcement resources.

In conclusion, while the debate over the legality and effectiveness of traffic cameras in Iowa continues, it is evident that they can play a crucial role in enhancing public safety by deterring speeding, reducing accidents, and freeing up law enforcement resources. By addressing due process and privacy concerns through careful regulation and community input, Iowa can maximize the benefits of traffic cameras while minimizing potential drawbacks.

Due process concerns

One Iowa lawmaker, John Wills, introduced an amendment to entirely ban traffic cameras in the state on the basis that they do not provide due process. He argued that the cameras do not treat all citizens fairly, as they do not allow those ticketed to be confronted by their accuser.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa has also supported banning automated traffic enforcement systems due to concerns about due process rights. However, in response to the bill regulating traffic cameras, a policy director for the group stated that "Right now it's the Wild West, and cities are getting away with highway robbery, literally, through the really unbridled, and, we think, unethical and unlawful use of this traffic camera collection program that they have. So yes we would love a full ban, but at the end of the day, we support any oversight."

In 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled on a case regarding Cedar Rapids' speed cameras, which found that the use of the cameras did not violate a driver's right to due process. Justice Brent Appel wrote that due process claims are most important "when fundamental interests are involved," but there is "no fundamental interest in the right to travel infringed by the ordinance [authorizing the speed cameras]." He further stated that the use of automated cameras is a "reasonable fit" between the government's purpose of increasing public safety and the means chosen to do so.

However, the court's decision did not address all due process concerns. For example, the court did not rule on the issue of whether it is illegal for a private company, rather than a public safety official, to calibrate the speed cameras. This issue was left to a lower court, which ruled in favor of Cedar Rapids.

Revenue collection and usage

Traffic cameras in Iowa have been the subject of much debate in recent years, with some arguing that they are a necessary tool for public safety, while others view them as a "money grab" by cities and private companies that operate them. In 2019, the Iowa Senate voted to ban automated traffic enforcement cameras in the state, citing concerns about due process and the financial burden on drivers. However, the House is considering a separate bill that would heavily regulate the cameras while still allowing their use. This bill proposes that 60% of the traffic camera revenues, estimated at $6.5 million for the next fiscal year, would go to the state to finance Iowa Department of Public Safety operations, with the remaining 40% allocated for local public safety expenses.

In the past, the revenue generated from traffic cameras in Iowa has varied. For example, in fiscal year 2016, the total revenue from speed and red-light cameras in Des Moines was a little over $4 million, with the city retaining about $2.4 million and the rest going to the camera operators. This money is typically earmarked for public safety use, such as funding for police and fire departments, emergency medical services, and improvements to lighting in parks for safety reasons. In Cedar Rapids, between 2010 and 2016, traffic camera tickets generated more than $3 million annually for the city's general fund, with a significant portion also going to the private company operating the cameras, Gatso USA.

While opponents of traffic cameras argue that they are primarily a revenue-generating scheme, supporters counter that they improve road safety and free up law enforcement resources. For instance, a worldwide review of studies found that speed cameras led to a reduction of "11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes." Additionally, the UK Department for Transport estimated a 22% reduction in personal injury collisions and a 42% decrease in fatalities or severe injuries at camera sites.

The debate over the usage and revenue collection of traffic cameras in Iowa remains ongoing, with valid arguments on both sides. While the Iowa Senate has voted to ban the cameras, the House is considering a regulatory approach that would allow their continued use while directing a larger portion of the revenue to state and local safety initiatives.

Camera calibration and accuracy

As of March 2019, the Iowa Senate has voted to ban traffic enforcement cameras in the state. The bill would also deny Iowa vehicle information to other states with automated ticketing systems, so Iowans would not have to pay tickets generated by traffic cameras. The outcome of this bill in the Iowa House is unclear.

Cameras must undergo regular calibration to maintain accuracy. This process involves adjusting and fine-tuning the camera's settings and hardware to meet specified standards and ensure optimal performance. Calibration techniques can vary depending on the type of camera and the specific application.

In Queensland, for example, photographic detection devices used in speed camera deployments are set up according to the manufacturer's specifications and guidelines. These cameras must be calibrated regularly for accuracy and tested in compliance with relevant legislation. Annual testing by an "Approved Testing Entity" is also mandated to ensure ongoing reliability.

The accuracy of traffic cameras is a critical aspect, especially when they are used as evidence in court cases. Speed cameras, for instance, are typically calibrated to an accuracy of two per cent. However, there have been instances where alleged inaccuracies in speed camera evidence have been disputed in court, leading to challenges in prosecution cases.

To ensure the reliability of camera data, proper calibration procedures must be followed, and any potential sources of error must be identified and addressed. This includes considerations such as the placement of cameras, the use of appropriate technology, and adherence to testing and maintenance schedules.

Recent advancements have also been made in automatic camera calibration for traffic surveillance. This technology enables the calibration of cameras, including scale, without any user input, relying solely on input from surveillance videos. This method has achieved a mean accuracy of below 2% for speed and distance measurements, demonstrating the potential for more efficient and accurate traffic data collection.

Frequently asked questions