Traffic Cams Not Always About Safety

**3TrueFans** · 08-02-2012, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by TykeClone

Think of it like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxqv5W77cJg

Just goes to show, Joe Pesci is better at explaining things than all of you.

**TykeClone** · 08-02-2012, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

Just goes to show, Joe Pesci is better at explaining things than all of you.

I'm still looking for his explanation of debit card interchange - that would have to be about as entertaining...

**3TrueFans** · 08-02-2012, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by TykeClone

I'm still looking for his explanation of debit card interchange - that would have to be about as entertaining...

**Cycofan1** · 08-02-2012, 11:59 PM

They need to make the driver of the vechicle responsible with the bill. At my job at a store if I sell alcohol to someone not of age. I am slapped with a fine and a short leave of absence. It makes sense since it's my own mistake and not the company that I work for. The same should be implemented for the driver of the vehicle.

**CYlent Bob** · 08-03-2012, 12:20 AM

but.....that would be different from how they issue civil violations to "civilians". So it's a no-go on grounds of fairness.

**Gorm** · 08-03-2012, 01:19 AM

Hopefully they are gone by this time next year...there are several cities that have decided to hold off until the legislature makes up their mind. I don't mind the red light cameras...but those speed cameras need to go away.

**Me State** · 08-03-2012, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by FDWxMan

And....surprise, surprise, cops aren't paying.

Officers face departmental punishment and get points on the department driving record that could add up to suspension. They don't get away free.

**KidSilverhair** · 08-03-2012, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by 3TrueFans

If the tickets are given to the owner of the vehicle wouldn't the city just be paying the city?

Except the fine money doesn't just go to the city. These cameras are owned and operated by private, for-profit firms (Massachusetts-based Gatso runs the ones in Cedar Rapids, and most likely in Des Moines as well). Something like half of the money collected in fines goes straight into the pockets of these companies.

So the city is actually stealing from Gatso! There's a scandal for you!

**agcy68** · 08-03-2012, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by FDWxMan

Disappointed that the cops that already drive like **** in this town get more freebies in addition to being above things like using turn signals and a safe following distance.

If you are going to complain, get your facts straight:
- Lot's of people drive too close (not just cops)
- Use of a turn signal isn't a law in Iowa (I don't always use mine)

Otherwise you just sound ****** off at cops for no good reason.

**kcdc4isu** · 08-03-2012, 07:13 AM

This should not be an issue as to who should pay and if you violate the law you pay no matter who you are or work for. At my company you have to sign out a car so it would be easy to just check the date and who had signed out the car and they pay. I would bet t6he city has the same system in place and if not just make the department head pay( out of his pocket not from dept. funds), they will find out who was driving real quick.

**chuckd4735** · 08-03-2012, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by agcy68

If you are going to complain, get your facts straight:
- Lot's of people drive too close (not just cops)
- Use of a turn signal isn't a law in Iowa (I don't always use mine)

Otherwise you just sound ****** off at cops for no good reason.

You're right, alot of people follow to close. However, if there is one group of people who doint do it at all, it should be cops. The point of his argument is, cops can be a hypocritical group in that they do things all the time that they pull other people over for.

You're also not completly educated on the turn signal law, so before you go calling others out, maybe you should educate yourself... Code 2009 Index

321.314 WHEN SIGNAL REQUIRED.
No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course upon a highway
unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and
then only after giving a clearly audible signal by sounding the horn
if any pedestrian may be affected by such movement or after giving an
appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided in the event
any other vehicle may be affected by such movement.

321.315 SIGNAL CONTINUOUS.
A signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given
continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled
by the vehicle before turning when the speed limit is forty-five
miles per hour or less and a continuous signal during not less than
the last three hundred feet when the speed limit is in excess of
forty-five miles per hour.

321.317 SIGNALS BY HAND AND ARM OR SIGNAL DEVICE.
1. The signals required under the provisions of this chapter may
be given either by means of the hand and arm as provided in section
321.318, or by a mechanical or electrical directional signal device
or light conforming to the provisions of this chapter.
2. Directional signal devices shall be designed with a white,
yellow or amber lamp or lamps to be displayed on the front of
vehicles and with a lamp or lamps of red, yellow or amber to be
displayed on the rear of vehicles. Such devices shall be capable of
clearly indicating any intention to turn either to the right or to
the left and shall be visible and understandable during both daylight
and darkness from a distance of at least one hundred feet from the
front and rear of a vehicle equipped therewith.
3. It is unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale or
operate on the highways of the state any vehicle subject to
registration under the provisions of this chapter which has never
been registered in this or any other state prior to January 1, 1954,
unless the vehicle is equipped with a directional signal device of a
type in compliance with the provisions of subsection 2. Motorcycles,
motorized bicycles, and semitrailers and trailers less than forty
inches in width are exempt from the provisions of this section.
4. When a vehicle is equipped with a directional signal device,
such device shall at all times be maintained in good working
condition. No directional signal device shall project a glaring or
dazzling light. All directional signal devices shall be
self-illuminated when in use while other lamps on the vehicle are
lighted.
5. Whenever any vehicle or combination of vehicles is disabled or
for other reason may present a vehicular traffic hazard requiring
unusual care in approaching, overtaking or passing, the operator then
may display on the vehicle or combination of vehicles four
directional signals of a type complying with the provisions of this
section relating to directional signal devices in simultaneous
operation.

**BloodyBuddy** · 08-03-2012, 07:26 AM

This is rediculous

**Cyclonepride** · 08-03-2012, 07:28 AM

I think it exposed the absurdity of fining an owner rather than the actual violator (as well as the general thought process of public "servants").

**chuckd4735** · 08-03-2012, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by BloodyBuddy

This is rediculous

I agree, and I work in local Iowa government. I love the excuse that "well, we have no idea who was driving the car so who do we make pay the fine"? Well guess what, the same thing can happen to anybody! I can lend my car to any of my friends, they can run a red light in Clive, and its my responsibility to pay the fine. How hard is it for the City to track who was driving a car and when that person was driving a car? I could create an Excel spreadsheet and a process to track that information in 3 minutes.