Don Nelson (no relation to the councilman) of Redflex Traffic Systems told the council his company could install mounted cameras free of charge that would get videotaped evidence of violations as well as photos of the license plates of the violators.
The Police Department would have the final say on who got a ticket, but Redflex would handle all the paperwork of sending a traffic ticket to the violator with photos of the evidence.
The service would cost the city nothing; Redflex makes its money by getting a cut on each traffic ticket paid.
Nelson provided statistics showing a decrease in traffic accidents in communities using Redflex cameras.
But Councilman Jeff Marsters challenged Nelson’s figures, saying his research showed big increases in rear-end accidents at intersections that had Redflex cameras.
“People slam on their brakes because they don’t want to get a ticket for going through the intersection,” said Marsters.
Nelson said Marsters’ figures included cities served by Redflex competitors whereas his figures came only from Redflex communities.
Councilman Scott Tornquist said he’d like to see data on red light violations and accidents in Mason City. “I’m not aware it’s a problem,” he said.
Councilman Steve Tynan questioned Nelson about a lawsuit filed against Redflex in Davenport. The Iowa Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the city.
Tynan pointed out the court only ruled that Davenport was within its rights to have the Redflex system.
“The court did not rule on constitutionality. If that would come up, I would not want to put our city and the city attorney through the expense of that,” he said.
Marsters said he was concerned about the message being sent to the community if the program was initiated.
“There’s no doubt if we implement this, there will be considerable tickets issued. We’re a retail hub. We want to be a welcoming community. What will this say?”
Tornquist agreed. “I want a safe community but I am concerned about tone,” he said.
Police Chief Mike Lashbrook said his department will continue to study the feasibility of putting the system in place.
“This is very preliminary,” he said. “It’s a public safety issue. There are intersections in this community that are almost impossible to enforce by a police officer.”
In other action, City Administrator Brent Trout presented information on several Iowa cities that have “quiet zones” — railroad crossings with barriers preventing vehicles from crossing them when gates are down.
But they are expensive, said Trout. The city of Boone spent $133,000 five years ago for medians at just four of its crossings.
In Mason City, there are several crossings where gates would have to be installed.
Supreme court OKs camera use
MASON CITY — The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled there’s nothing illegal about red-light cameras like the ones being considered for Mason City.
In August, the court ruled against Thomas J. Seymour, who challenged a 2006 speeding citation claiming the Davenport city ordinance pre-empted state law. Davenport installed cameras in 2004. They are made by Redflex Traffic Systems, Scottsdale, Ariz., the same company that would install Mason City’s cameras.
The cameras can be programmed for many things, including speeders. In Mason City, for now, they are being considered for stop light violators.
In the Davenport case, the court ruled the Legislature has “expressly authorized local governments to establish rules of conduct related to rules of the road.”
Sioux City approved a contract with Redflex Systems in December 2006 but put installation of the cameras on hold pending the outcome of the Davenport case.
The city of Clive also suspended its use of Redflex Systems but reinstated it on Oct. 1, about a month after the Iowa Supreme Court ruling.
— By John Skipper
KenS wrote on Nov 16, 2008 7:26 PM:
Dateline: Chicago. Mayor Daley, while I may not agree with his other policies, has called for, and installed safety cameras to deter crime in certain areas.
Again I shall say, only those who break the laws, need fear the cameras.
It was within my lifetime, where we had neighbors. And those neighbors would report crime if they saw it, and knew who were strangers to the community, and who were not. If it were kids, they had no problem at all to call the parents. You had no chance what-so-ever to make it home before the phone rang.
Now, we don't have neighbors at home most of the day, and travel has become easy, so strangers are litterally all over.
Besides, a camera has much better eyesight and recall than the woman at the corner. "