Yes, let's ban the stupid things. Other states ( New Mexico for example ) has taken steps to remove them and other states will too, as time goes on. This whole issue is a revenue issue, not a safety issue, as numerous studies have shown. Let's put some police on bicycles and see if they can spot, then catch the ones that continue to text while driving. I seem to have no problem seeing at least 5 people a day doing this.

Kurt, I couldn't possibly agree with you more. In fact, if we really want to get a revenue stream, lets get rid of the cameras (which really anger me on due process grounds), and instead triple and enforce the fine for texting and driving. I have no problem squeezing that money out of those IDIOTS.

I agree with Kurt and Nathan. In fact why don't we start a citizen petition to have a new state law outlawing the use of camera's for the express purpose of making money which can not be accounted for by des moines and other cities. If cities and towns can not live within their lawful budgets then the politicians should be removed from office and the use of these camera's is positive proof of their irresponsible fiscal ways.

I have two areas of concern, and I don't think it is wise to employ these cameras until both of these areas are adequately addressed:

1. There is no final court determination to decide whether these cameras are constitutional. They may have passed some court challenges, but I don't think there is a final determination on this particular issue: A law that states that anybody who is accused is automatically guilty, no excuses. Even if that person is not even present. What we are dealing with is a moving violation, a violation of a safety law. Improper operation of a vehicle is the issue, yet the operator is not the guilty party, the owner of the vehicle is guilty. Automatically, no questions asked. This is far different from a parking ticket in which the placement rather than the operation of the vehicle is the question. If the courts ultimately determine these to be unconstitutional, then taxpayers could be be liable for large legal fees. Not to mention contract payments (relating to #2 below).

2. I have read news stories that indicate that many of these cameras are the result of contracts between local representatives and outside contractors. These contracts stipulate a guaranteed minimum amount of revenue to be generated. On the arguments regarding safety vs revenue, this is clearly an admission that revenue is the guiding principle involved, not safety.

These cameras are yet another sign of a government that has grown into a ravenous monster. We need leaders that are brave enough to tame the monster, not give the monster more victims it can feed upon.

For the same reason they should have never been allowed in the first place. Their purpose is misrepresented, they don't make the roads safer and they are an infringement upon the rights of all law abiding citizens. Want to catch more speeders? Employ a cop to do the job.

I would like to see the cops crack down on the people who speed up through the yellow lights just to make the red and end up nearly causing an accident. I agree with you Jason, maybe each dept. should have cops employeed to catch speeders, and get rid of the cameras and start catchin the speeders one at a time. Eventually they may learn thier lesson.

I got one of these "tickets" because the car is registered to me. But....I wasn't driving...More trouble than it's worth to fight it (more money, time off work, etc...). But kind of ridiculous.

Yes, Ban Them. it's Unconstitutional. You are to have due process when charged with Braking a law. A traffic ticket is a form of punishment for breaking a law. A traffic ticket being sent by mail, and it's proof being a picture of a license plate does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reason being you do not know who was the driver, you do not know who the guilty party is. Therefore a person is not given his/her due process. And if you fight it in court, you still loose because the license is in your name, so you take the financial burden no matter if your guilty or not. And if you don't pay the ticket the City can hold your State income tax, until you do pay. I support Sen. brad Zaun on this 100%

They should ban them because 1) They may cause people to slow down, but those same wise people will only speed up in areas where cameras area not up. 2) Cameras will not deter a speeder on the same day his violation occurred , however if you have an officer doing it, you will have a greater affect on safety. He will offer a warning or a ticket, check for warrants, check for drugs or DWI's, and make an impact on the spot. 3) It's a pure money making scheme in which the public pays some company who has nothing to do with providing safety, just profiting on it!

I like them! They slow traffic on 235 and make people think twice about running the red light. My hubby just got creamed by a red light runner. I don't like scoff laws. If the city makes money, more the better. Don't break the law and you won't get a ticket!

Well said, Lois. I agree with you. People want to throw the book at others who break laws they will never break, but let them run the risk of a camera catching them running a red light, which many of them apparently do, and they whine about the cameras.

I think that ultimately the cameras will cause people to slow down - if you get enough of them. If you loan your vehicle to someone else to drive, you essentially still take responsibility for the vehicle. If the driver runs a red light, get your fee back from the driver. It seems to me that it comes down to, "if you break a law, be prepared to pay for it. If you obey the laws, don't worry about it."

Cameras don't bother me. I'm always a few mph over the posted limit, but I'm not an idiot and so it's not enough I'm going to be pulled-over. If someone is doing 10+ on the freeway, they deserve to be busted. (I have no idea what the 'gimmie' limit is on the DMPD mobile cameras)

However, what I would like to see is them using this money to start more unmarked patrol units busting people doing stupid crap like entering a roadway without coming to a stop… crossing-over solid white lines… failing to signal lane changes or turns… improper turns from the wrong lane… driving with obstructed vision following snowfall or frost…

People need to drive with a fear that they will be busted for being stupid and/or not following the law.

How in the heck can you possibly say that the owner of the vehicle should be responsible for the person driving his car if the owner allows someone to borrow it? For example, If I lent you a gas can and you went and filled the can and used it for arson, how would I be responsible? I can't watch you , nor terminate your thought of mind. I have no control over it. Another example, I let you borrow my weed wacker and you go and trim your drive way , but hit a rock and it flies up and hits your neighbors window. How should I be the one whom is responsible? Don't be stupid! I can't control what someone else does. My job is not to do gods job and be in control of what others do.

If you are someone who says "I don't speed/run red lights/etc" and aren't bothered by them, you are completely missing this point. As mentioned above, these violate our basic right to due process. You are not notified of the violation immediately, as you would with a traffic ticket issued by a police officer. Instead, these tickets show up in the mail weeks or sometimes months after the violation occured. This makes it difficult to defend yourself if you contest the ticket. Other reasons why these should be banned:

Cameras can and have malfunctioned and do not capture the whole picture.

Red light cameras have actually INCREASED the number of rear-end collisions at intersections because people have fear of being "photographed".

Anyone worried in the slightest about mission creep? Meaning - the cameras are used to catch speeders and light-runners today, but what else can they be used for? It has happened in Texas and Oklahoma. US Citizens crossing the border legally into Mexico have been questioned as to why they were doing so. Doesn't this make you feel the least bit uncomfortable?

It boils down to this - it isn't all about YOU. Just because you don't speed, run red lights, etc (hey, I try not to as well), does not make a sound reasoning for traffic cameras. Personally, I like my rights as they are (or were).

The cameras have a purpose but ONLY if the drivers would obey and use them in the way the were designed for. Don't speed through yellow lights, don't turn right on red when there is a sign that prohibits it. If they take away the cameras, they need to put actual traffic cops on the street in various locations to start really cracking down on these law breakers who cause accidents. And if they keep the cameras then they should stop the money making process and make sure the tickets are legit.

just another way for the powers that be to extract more money from the people they are supposedly representing.