New Haven Independent

posted by: anon on January 12, 2012  2:27pm

There is a nice “myths and facts” piece about intersection camera legislation at https://t.co/AldM47F1.  For example, it says “Automated traffic control signal enforcement fines shall not: Be processed by the Centralized Infractions Bureau or be reported to the DMV for inclusion on a person’s driving record or to cause assessment of points on the operator’s license. Payment of the fine is inadmissible in any civil or criminal proceeding to establish the person’s conduct. Sec. 3 (d)”

posted by: Curious on January 12, 2012  3:31pm

Awesome.  Now maybe in a few months, walking to work won’t feel like a live-action game of Frogger.

posted by: acordova on January 12, 2012  4:05pm

I would only support red light cameras if the revenues generated stay in the local community and were used on transportation infrastructure.  The private companies who install these machines usually get too large of a cut of the revenue….

posted by: me on January 12, 2012  4:22pm

I’m still convinced that if the cops did their job “once in a while” then it would reduce the number of people running these lights.

I don’t try and stop on yellow because I know there’s no repercussion and even if a cop saw me they most likely would not do anything.

Also, if every light in front of me didn’t turn red block after block I would be more inclined not to speed to get through the next “yellow” light.

posted by: Threefifths on January 12, 2012  4:58pm

How come they don’t go after the Jay walkers and Bikers that run lights.

posted by: nhteaparty on January 12, 2012  5:53pm

I like DM but calling red-light cameras “using… modern technologies to fight modern problems,” is a little silly.

The tech exists to completely automate our traffic control systems in a way that it would be comparable to having a cop on every corner directing traffic.

Red light cameras are a fairly old technology used to enforce use of an even older technology.

posted by: anon on January 12, 2012  6:26pm

3/5: Perhaps because of risk.

In NY State, more than 300 pedestrians are killed by drivers every year. Over 70,000 people are injured by motor vehicles every single year within New York City.

Meanwhile, the number of fatalities caused by cyclists (e.g., pedestrians hit) averages less than one per year.

Unintentional falls (some likely caused by walker-walker collisions) are responsible for far more deaths than that.

Also, cracking down on pedestrians and cyclists would probably make things more dangerous.  When an area has more walkers and bikers, it becomes far safer - not just for walkers and bikers, but also for motorists.  If we want to promote safety, ticketing walkers and cyclists is the last thing we should do and actually may be extremely counterproductive.

posted by: Alex on January 12, 2012  8:15pm

Red Light cams can be ruled unconstitutional (see below). They have been found to be ineffective and too expensive in Los Angeles. There are better ways to make intersections safe at a fraction of the cost. New Haven will just be wasting money rather than having it be an easy income stream which is what they are looking for. Also many innocent people will be ticketed and it will jam courts when they learn they can readily fight them.

Judge rules red-light cameras unconstitutional in east coast city

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/feb/22/judge-red-light-cameras-unconstitutional-aventura/

Los Angeles Red Light Cameras To Shut Off

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/los-angeles-red-light-cameras_n_911577.html

posted by: abby on January 12, 2012  10:45pm

I am very pleased to read about the Governor’s support of this sensible legislation to enable municipalities to install intersection safety cameras at dangerous intersections.  These cameras have been proven to change behavior thereby reducing accidents and saving lives.  Moreover legislation can be crafted to address any due process concerns, for example creating an affirmative defense that the owner of the vehicle was not driving it at the time of the violation.  In addition, the cameras only take photos of a vehicle’s license plate and a very general photo of the vehicle (without showing the driver)—and only does this IF the vehicle runs a red light - which of course is on a public road where there is no expectation of privacy. I sincerely hope the legislature enables municipalities to make our streets safer by passing a bill the Governor can sign.

posted by: HhE on January 13, 2012  12:59am

Threefiths, because jay walkers don’t kill people at the rate that cars running red lights do.

Acordova, I agree with you.  I opine that private companies ought not be allowed to run red light cameras at all.

Alex, Your first reference was that Florida’s constitution only allows the state to write traffic laws.  Since this is Connecticut and this proposed law is a state initiative, your reference is irrelevant.

Your second reference only makes the case that badly managed red light cameras may not be the revenue stream one might hope for.  Well here is hoping that this law makes no money because people stop running red lights all together.

Well said, anon.

posted by: Noteworthy on January 13, 2012  10:40am

Of course Malloy will support red light cams - more money to the state, and another automatic confiscatory and jack boot methodology to beat the people into submission.

posted by: Threefifths on January 13, 2012  12:15pm

3/5: Perhaps because of risk.

Also, cracking down on pedestrians and cyclists would probably make things more dangerous.  When an area has more walkers and bikers, it becomes far safer - not just for walkers and bikers, but also for motorists.  If we want to promote safety, ticketing walkers and cyclists is the last thing we should do and actually may be extremely counterproductive.

And this is why in New York and cities around the country are steping up enforcement on Bikers.

NYPD Tickets Cyclists for Not Riding in Bike Lane [UPDATED]

http://transportationnation.org/2011/04/26/nypd-tickets-cyclists-for-not-riding-in-bike-lane/

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/03/16/nypd-ticketing-bicyclists-running-red-lights/

NYPD: Riding Faster Than 15 MPH in Central Park Now Illegal
by Ben Fried

http://www.streetsblog.org/2011/03/22/nypd-riding-faster-than-15-mph-in-central-park-now-illegal/

posted by: HhE on January 12, 2012 11:59pm
Threefiths, because jay walkers don’t kill people at the rate that cars running red lights do.

But jay walkers cause a lot of accidents.

Old lady causes accident by jaywalking.

http://www.vidaddict.com/old-lady-causes-accident-by-jaywalking/

Jaywalkers Less Likely to Get Hit by Cars But More Likely To Die If They Do Get Hit.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/08/17/jaywalkers-less-likely-to-get-hit-by-cars-but-more-likely-to-die-if-they-do-get-hit

How about this.
Texting While Walking - People Behaving Badly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVrM3mX3aFo

If you going to go after drivers.Go after every one.

Bottom line .The real deal.

Red-Light Camera Bill: Safety Net Or Cash Cow.

http://aaronkrager.com/other-works/progress-illinois/red-light-camera-bill-safety-net-or-cash-cow/

posted by: westville man on January 13, 2012  4:26pm

Why not redirect the revenue from the state to the city and then traffic enforcement becomes economically feasible?  Then you wont need the cameras if it’s well known the police are on the lookout.
Ive been to other states where the towns are known to ticket and you can see the drivers slow to a crawl.

posted by: Henry on January 13, 2012  6:42pm

Cameras give a false sense of security, because even with a $500 fine (Calif.), they don’t stop the real late runners. (They cause the accidents you saw in the YouTube videos one of the camera companies distributed recently.)

Most real late runners don’t do it on purpose - they fail to see the signal because they’re lost, distracted or impaired. To stop them, local engineers need to improve the visual cues that say “You are coming to an intersection.” Florida’s DOT found that improved pavement markings (plain old paint!) cut running by up to 74%, without cameras. Make the signal lights brighter, bigger in diameter, add backboards to them, and place the poles on the NEAR side of the intersection, not so far away. Put brighter bulbs in the street lights at intersections. Put up lighted name signs, for the cross streets.

Even if a city chooses to install a camera system, attention should still be paid to visual cues; they are cheap to do so can be done all over town, unlike cameras, which are expensive, increase rearenders, send local money to AZ or Oz where it will never come back, and can drive shoppers and tourists away.

posted by: HhE on January 13, 2012  9:19pm

Henry, I rather like your ideas about engineering environments for increased awareness. 

Noteworthy, for red lights to work at all, drivers must be compliant.  If red lights are treated as suggestions, they do more harm than good.  “That driver will wait for me, after all, they have a red light.”  If many people are non compliant, and many are, then people get killed.  There is nothing jackbooted about people do not have the civil liberty to drive through a red light.

The police in Connecticut have strong disincentives to enforce traffic laws.  Most of the revenue leaves the city, while the city bears much of the cost of enforcement.  More critically, many judges will take police officers to task for writing tickets. 

Threefiths, again, I put it to you, while jay walking and bad conduct on bikes is a problem, cars are far more destructive.  I have seen many pedestrians act in a reckless and arrogant fashion, but they imperiled themselves far more than they imperiled myself or my car’s front end.  I strongly support enforcement on the ban on bikes on sidewalks, I have even been know to yell at cyclists for doing just that. 

There will always be those who take issue with doing something that makes this world a better place.  There are always reasons why we ought not try.  At the end of they day, if such a mindset prevails, we lose.