New Haven Independent

Posted by: nfjanette | March 16, 2006 12:55 AM

As I wrote previously on this topic, we're a society of petty criminals that doesn't want to get caught; but then, we're shocked when others, such as elected officials, are caught bending and breaking the law. Can you imagine the revenue in the first month alone with a dozen of those cameras at large intersections? There isn't a day that goes by that I don't see major traffic laws broken in New Haven. They are broken by urban youth in loud little cars, blinged-out fancy dealer cars, and soccer moms in SUVs - everyone. There is currently zero or less traffic enforcement from the city police. I'm surprised that bundle of potential money from the fines didn't sway the law makers.

Posted by: nutmeg | March 16, 2006 9:56 AM

"Voting against the bill were New Haven State Reps. Dyson, Dillon and Juan Candelaria. And testifying against the bill was Vann, who heads the state's ACLU chapter and lives in the city."

These folks obviously don't walk around much. If they did, they'd be all over measures to make streets safer. Try to cross at Orange and Trumbull or anywhere on the Boulevard and then tell us that cameras would be an imposition on civil society.

Posted by: jetta2point5 | March 16, 2006 12:53 PM

I agree with the first comment: the worst is if you see police cars needlessly and w/o emergency lights running a red light. A stricter enforcement would surely make New Haven safer for pedestrians and for other drivers.

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | March 16, 2006 1:16 PM

"they'd be all over measures to make streets safer"

This bill is about more than safety and more than cameras, although it was lobbied by the manufacturers of the cameras.
Currently parking violations are locally enforced; moving violations are also state jurisdiction and carry graver consequences. This policy replaces state court and Traffic Commission control with local hearings and sends the revenue to the towns, in some places with a cut of the revenue to the camera manufacturer. There is no state regulation or standard for such cameras (such as length of yellow light or frequency of calibration). Absent such regulation, it privatizes what is now a public function. So it's a big change to our system, partly about motor vehicle law, partly about process and money.
On the safety side, the data on accidents is a wash.

Last year this bill cleared the Judiciary Committee and this year it did not, so it has lost support since last year.

Here are links to committee testimony:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmyBill.asp?comm_code=JUD&bill=HB-05210
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/JUDdata/chr/2006JUD00227-R001300-CHR.htm
And is it true that there zero enforcement by city police? That's terrible. It's their job.

Posted by: new havener | March 16, 2006 4:00 PM

BIG BROTHER

First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

--Pastor Martin Niemöller

So you want them to take away the urban youth (code black), and then the car dealers, and then the soccer moms (code white). What happens when they use that camera to come and get you because perhaps you didn't wash your car today, or drove around with a broken tail light. Just because it makes money for the city doesn't mean its right.

Posted by: Esbe | March 19, 2006 3:33 PM

If Pat Dillon thinks that "moving violations" like running run lights are routinely enforced in this city, then she certainly does not walk or bike the streets. New Haven drivers rapidly "accelerate on yellow" and you had better not be nearby -- and they do it because they won't get a ticket.

If the concern is with the length of yellow lights, then amend the proposed law to require a reasonable yellow. This is a case of putting politics over people. New Haven ought to be a walkable bikeable town and right now it is nothing of the kind.

And I am confused -- is the comment along the lines of "first you enforce the rule about stopping at red lights and then they come for the Jews" an intentional or unintential satire?

Posted by: new havener | March 19, 2006 5:19 PM

No Satire. Their are several points that I want to make about this camera on lights deal. First, you are trying to resolve a small problem, like swatting a fly, but instead you use a shotgun. Cameras on lights will start with red light runners, and then it will progress to people running yellow lights "too fast". Then it will move to ticketing jay walkers, or kids riding bikes on the wrong side of the street. These people, our politicians, are never satisfied with solving the original problem. They need new problems to justify their existence.

ESBE, don't try to drag me into some anti-Jewish argument. The point is clear, we are okay with "them" coming for the red light runners, but how will we feel when they come after us because we didn't wash our car today. With politicians, it is not to far-fetched to think that "quality of life" arguments would lead them to pass a law regulating the appearances of our cars.

Posted by: AC | March 20, 2006 11:05 AM

I grew up in the suburbs and there was never a need for cameras, because the police had nothing to do but look for speeders and the like.

In cities, however, police resources are continuously being sapped by an increasingly regressive state and municipal criminal justice policy whose unintentional, yet inevitable, end result will be to lock up every young black male between the ages of 19-29. Until the state collectively tackles the root of this problem, you will increasingly be bombarded by police requests for cameras, not only on streetlights, but in parks, sidewalks, and all other public places. At the same time, police budgets and all other corresponding criminal justice agency budgets will continue to grow at rates outpacing other city services. Simply put, we'll get less for more.

Problem is, most people view this as a single issue topic, when it actually epitomizes our entire approach to criminal justice. The question people should be asking is not, "do we need this?", but "why has it come to this?".

Posted by: ChuckAllen | March 24, 2006 4:06 PM

Typical Pat Dillon! Arguing armed with fact and accurate history, even quoting and including web links to read actual testimony on the issue. Also, pointing out the little-known fact that the camera vendors are openly lobbying their own SELF-interest in this important PUBLIC-interest issue. How long has this woman been in the state legislature, I mean, how much experience does she have judging these types of issues on our behalf? TEN TERMS? You would think she would learn by now!