New Haven Independent

posted by: C on January 9, 2012  4:51pm

Dillon needs to walk my work to each day, which crosses the Frontages at Dwight street.  People blow those light consistently, often at 40-50mph.

Also, if a camera can’t distinguish turning right on red from a blown red light, the driver did not come to a full stop, and they should still get a ticket.

Pass around a petition for this, I will sign up.

posted by: nhteaparty on January 9, 2012  4:53pm

Traffic lights, signs, and signals in NH are 90% for revenue generation.  Signals are timed so that unless you are pushing your car through town you will hit every light.  Signals are lined up so you make one turn just to sit at a red light, watching as no other traffic is around for 30 seconds before you get to creep up to the next red light, to wait for another 30 seconds, and so on until you can escape.

Road construction projects linger for years and years and years adding to the headaches with detours galore.

If NH really cared about safety they would fix the traffic signals we currently have in place so they exist where they are appropriate, and don’t where they aren’t, and are timed as to allow for a steady even flow of traffic through town.  The author is right on about the ubiquitous “no turn on red” signs that serve no purpose.

There was an article out a week or two ago where the town even acknowledged that the timing and sensors for many of the lights through town are broken.

posted by: Admitted red light supporter on January 9, 2012  5:06pm

The reality is that Dillon has always been against this and only responds with amendments that no one likes (as mentioned in the article above, her amendments last year were so bad, neither supporters or opponents wanted anything to do with them) When her unworkable amendments fail, she will blame her “NO” vote on the people who didnt address her concerns via her insane amendment. ...

posted by: first observer on January 9, 2012  5:11pm

Rep. Dillon:

You say you still need to be convinced??  I invite you to observe virtually any major intersection in the city of New Haven.  The law-breaking is not to be believed.

No Turn on Red signs have nothing to do with it.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding a requirement at such intersections of No Blasting Through Red Lights.

I have voted for you consistently in the past, including during you primary challenge a few years back, and I respectfully suggest you represent me, and my neighbors, and NOT suburbanites.

posted by: Scott on January 9, 2012  5:22pm

Let’s be honest: I would love right-on-red, but if New Haven allowed it, a lot more people would be getting run over.  The same people who blow through a light that’s been red for a second would turn right without even slowing, and take out the pedestrians with the walk signal.

posted by: Rep.Pat Dillon on January 9, 2012  5:56pm

to Admitted red light supporter:
You said nothing about the merits of the amendment but instead imputed personal motives to me - and hid your name. That amendment took thought and was an attempt to compromise. The opposition came from 1) some opponents of the red light bill who want no compromise at all 2) lobbyists for the camera companies who said they would make less money under my proposal 3) a legislator who wants to own the issue and told me to stay out of it and 4) supporters of the underlying bill who said the amendment put their bill at risk.
Those were the objections.

posted by: Noteworthy on January 9, 2012  5:56pm

Bad ideas just never die. Kind of like the mayor’s endless runs for office.

This is a rotten idea. We have the largest police force in the state. Put them to work enforcing the traffic laws - speeding, light running and so forth.

Due process is compromised. This is sloppy justice at best. A DeStefano groupie will be assigned as hearing officer, somebody like the retired but never leaving Brian McGrath who will sit there and pretend to listen and then in every case, deny it. Just like Tax Assessor Bill O’Brien and so on. At the end of the day, this is not about safety, this is about money, about revenue. What better way to get more revenue than set up red light cameras that issue tickets to cars, not people, and then deny every challenge?

And as usual, count on the proponents including the mayor to use bogus statistics - 5,664 accidents and 8 fatalities. How many were from people running red lights? Uh…

And of course, hold the little presser down at the crossing at Yale where there has only been 1 fatality anybody talks about in the hospital’s 100 year history.

And when you put one up…make sure you put a couple over there on the East Shore right in the middle of Sal DeCola’s ward.

posted by: streever on January 9, 2012  6:33pm

NHTeaParty
That is factually incorrect.

The lights are timed to an established state standard which is documented and on the record.

In addition, New Haven has some of the lowest rates of enforcement in the entire state, and in fact, we do not keep the money from the tickets.

The money goes to the State Capital.

We have a net loss on enforcing these laws, which is part of why they are not enforced.

Because the laws are not enforced, I think this is a good measure. It will force proper behavior, instead of the common practice of running red lights flagrantly.

When it comes to due process, one need not worry: this bill makes red light running not a crime, but a fee. It is no different than parking improperly. You don’t go to jail for parking improperly or leaving bulk waste on your curb, and you don’t get “due process”.

Many of the erroneous opposition statements I’ve seen are:

1. This invades privacy
Wrong—a. you have no right to privacy on a public street, b., the cameras are less sophisticated than the traffic detectors already in place, which can shoot video & still images and be referenced later.

2. The timing will be used to generate revenue
Also wrong. The lights will be required to meet a specific timing standard which will be enforced state-wide.

3. You get the ticket even if you aren’t driving.
Right—but misleading. You also get a ticket if your friend crashes your car and abandons it. You get the ticket if your friend parks improperly. You get the ticket if your friend backs into a car, and leaves, and someone sees the license plate. You are likely to be charged as an accomplice if your friend robs a bank and flees in your car. The reality is you shouldn’t loan your car to a “friend” who will break laws with it. This is basic self-responsibility.

4. This will catch me in a “grey” area of making a right turn on red or just catching the red
Wrong. The timing is state-mandated, and will give you several seconds after you’ve run the red light. The cameras are in a fixed position and can not record you making a right on red, only directly running through a red that has been red for several seconds.

This bill has been the result of heavy compromise over the last 5 years, with lawyers, legislators, people who live in areas where red light cameras were improperly used, and police weighing in on specific language and rules in the bill.

I can certainly understand someone not wishing to support this bill, or opposing it, but I do wish that people ground their opposition based on the ACTUAL bill, and not on ideas about other bills and other states use.

posted by: Webblog1 on January 9, 2012  6:42pm

“De Stefano said New Haven had 5,664 traffic accidents in 2011, eight of them fatalities.”

There is no direct correlation between the unsubstantiated number of 5,664 traffic accidents resulting from red light running in New Haven in 2011.
Even if it were is so, there is a stronger correlation that increasing accidents are triggered by increasing numbers of autos entering New Haven facilitated by the influx of building activity surrounding the down town New Haven area and extending to all entry and exit points of the city.
This recommendation for state legislative approval is just another sugar coated tax increase scheme hatched by the DeStefano administration to fleece the taxpayer of New Haven out of more money we do not have. 

If red light running were the sole instrument of these accidents and/or fatalities, then why has not New Haven traffic and parking redesigning the traffic flow of streets, eliminated all the one way flow of traffic for only half the block on many streets and reset the length of time traffic intervals occur.

Traffic and parking needs to re-think the current traffic flow to and from the New Gateway Community college, the current flow is a abomination of accidents waiting to happen.

So, rather than squeezing the taxpayer out of more money we not have, DeStefano is obligated to find less costly and less legislative methods to arrive at the same goal.

He should also be mindful of the fact of increasing accidents within New Haven boundaries means increasing auto insurance rates on autos registered in New Haven, while, the real culprits, suburban drivers, escape the insurance trap.
As a side note:
Consider the crime cameras, which since inception have eliminated nothing.
In fact, many of the cameras are installed miles outside of shot spotter surveillance(example, in front of 25 Science Park,@ the corner of Whalley and West Rock ave. in Westville).

PLEASE!

Your right Dilion, the Devil is in the details, Can’t you see it.. it’s staring you right in the face, just like the Geico… $$$$$(money). Put on your shades and stare him down.

It’s a reverse poncy scam.

posted by: Max Simmons on January 9, 2012  7:04pm

I might be more supportive of the red-light camera idea if the net proceeds went to, say, the crime victim’s compensation fund or something similar rather than into the city’s coffers. As it stands, it is very difficult not to view the city’s pontificating about public safety as a slab of “pious baloney” masking eagerness to exploit a revenue opportunity. Elimnate the money motive, then the debate about public safety can be more sincere on its face.

posted by: robn on January 9, 2012  7:54pm

Cut the cr@p ACLU. If law-abiding car owners don’t want tickets they can keep their keys in their pockets instead of loaning them out to people dumb enough to run red lights.

Put in the cameras. Completely abolish right turn on red which is a license to ill.

posted by: Jay on January 9, 2012  8:09pm

Dillion is out of touch with what her constituents want. In fact, this is really a common sense bill that should have passed years ago.

posted by: Willie Williams Jr on January 9, 2012  8:30pm

Yes! Put Them In Place. Catch A Whole Lot of Speeders.

posted by: cedarhillresident on January 9, 2012  8:47pm

?? How can people be mad at a Leg. Rep. that wants to read the bill before saying she supports it? I like the idea. But I also like the fact that she is not endorsing it till she see the bill in print.
I would also like the cameras to fine ding dongs that cross the street when the crosswalk signs say not to! Same with ding dongs that walk out into on coming traffic because the law says they have a right of way…BUT NOT IN FRONT OF A MOVING Vehicle…Which happens EVERY morning on my way to work.

So an added thing should say pedestrians that cross when it is not clear to, should be added, dang it :)

Seriously. I would like it in my area at Ferry and State, it is needed.
But a drivers note: I drive like an old lady, when coming up on a green that turns yellow, do you slam the break on with this, possibly causing an accident or do you continue through because it is the safer choice, No I would have to slam my break on because I can not afford a ticket…there would need to be a few second stay after the yellow for those instances.

And it looks like mr suburban will not be taking his mistress to dinner or dancing in New Haven anymore :)

posted by: Threefifths on January 9, 2012  9:41pm

Proponents like new downtown Alderman Doug Hausladen said red-light cameras in other states have reduced the number of accidents and saved lives.

Give me a break.Check this study.

Red-Light Camera Backlash, Are They Causing Accidents?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/red-light-camera-backlash-cameras-causing-accidents/story?id=13925887

Also how do these red light cameras catch bikers and jay walkers who run red light.

posted by: Threefifths on January 9, 2012  9:56pm

Bicycling groups and “safe streets” organizers have made the law a top priority.

Would you Bicycling groups and “safe streets” organizers help get laws here like New York Has.

NYPD Tickets Cyclists for Not Riding in Bike Lane.

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

posted by: Fairhaven Dave on January 9, 2012  9:59pm

It seems to me that traffic stops often catch bigger crimes in action and we have already paid for this to be dealt with.  We are already paying 450+ police officers right now, no?

posted by: Henry on January 9, 2012  10:30pm

You can make intersections safe, without cameras.  Thus, without increased rearenders, driving away the tourists, or sending local money to AZ or OZ where it will never come back.
A. Increasing yellows by 0.5 sec. yields a 50 - 70% drop in violations. It’s cheap to do all over town, reducing running everywhere, not just at “camera” intersections.
Longer yellows cut bad accidents. A 2004 study by the TX Transp. Inst. found “...an increase in the yellow duration of 1.0 sec. is associated with a [crash freq.] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40% reduction in crashes.”
(Whenever someone suggests longer yellows, someone else will say, “Drivers will just get used to the longer yellows, and run those, too!” Actually, the running stays down. It does not rebound. In Mesa AZ they increased the yellows by 1 sec. in 2000, and running dropped to 1/3 of what it had been, and has stayed down.)
B. Improve the visual cues that say, “You’re coming to a major intersection.” Florida’s DOT found that better markings (more paint!) near intersections cut running by up to 74% without increasing rearenders.  Also 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.

Experience has shown most cities lose money on the cameras.  So, who needs cameras?

posted by: L on January 9, 2012  10:40pm

I am all for red light cameras here, because we need them. Many drivers in New Haven act like irresponsible ragers, flying through red lights, almost killing one another. I have seen nowhere else with as much like anarchy in the roadways and intersections as we have it here. I am not exaggerating. I think it’s interesting that the ACLU thinks that saving lives, personal injury and property damage is a privacy issue. You don;‘t see them going after and stopping Dept. of Homeland Security and the cameras on all bridges, tunnels and highways, do you? Or going after every big and small box store with the security cameras monitoring your every move on their property? Not to mention the police security camera on public streets in New Haven and elsewhere. Look up sometime. So, why keep cameras off our intersections when they are already everywhere else. I think running red lights is a more serious and dangerous offense than shoplifting from a chain store, so why allow one type of surveillance and not another? It just doesn’t make sense.

posted by: Steve B 2 on January 9, 2012  10:41pm

Streever is correct.  It is shocking the way folks blow through red lights in this town, it is a horrible local tradition. As for the existing police force enforcing the law: it hasn’t happened, it isn’t going to happen and giving the current murder rate it probably shouldn’t happen.

I am a dues-paying member of the ACLU and CCLU and will remain so, but the “what if someone else is driving the car” argument is silly.  What if someone borrows my car and parks it in front of a fire-hydrant?  It gets ticketed and towed and I am out $300 or so if I want the car back.  That doesn’t raise constitutional issues and neither does this.

posted by: streever on January 10, 2012  1:34am

3/5th
You should read that article you posted again—it contains the actual NYC law, which states that cyclists do not have to ride in the bike lane:
RCNY § 4-12 (p) Bicyclists may ride on either side of one-way roadways that are at least 40 feet wide.

The roads in the article all meet that criteria. Therefore, the tickets were issued incorrectly.

With that said, there are no separated facilities here (i.e. infrastructure bike lanes) and no plans to build any, so the law could not apply. I long for the day when we have this problem.

ALTERNATE COMMENT:

3/5th:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

posted by: Noteworthy on January 10, 2012  8:01am

Why did this presser take place on the corner by Yale? Because a medical student died there. But according to the Register, she didn’t die from a red light runner and in fact, the driver was never even given a ticket. This is the kind of dishonesty the permeates these emotional arguments where proponents are advocating a major change.

Essentially, this is a lie by deception. It’s not right. It’s appropriate that DeStefano and Looney do this. They have a long history of these manipulations. For the new alders, how are we to believe anything you have to say or propose if you wrap it in a dishonest rationale?

posted by: streever on January 10, 2012  9:33am

Noteworthy

No one said she did.

The real question is, do you think the price of making a mistake should be death?

In countries where they have made a social decision that traffic deaths are unacceptable, these types of fatalities do not happen. They change infrastructure, laws, and behavior until they don’t happen.

That hasn’t happened in America—we are still stuck on this notion of “freedom” being that we can drive as fast as we want, where ever we want.

posted by: Whitney Cyclist on January 10, 2012  9:43am

“But a drivers note: I drive like an old lady, when coming up on a green that turns yellow, do you slam the break on with this, possibly causing an accident or do you continue through because it is the safer choice, No I would have to slam my break on because I can not afford a ticket…there would need to be a few second stay after the yellow for those instances.”

You just described driving through a red light as the “safer choice.” That’s insane.

If you are driving 25 mph, you do not have to “slam” on the brakes.

posted by: nfjanette on January 10, 2012  9:51am

During my morning commute, I watched two people employed by Yale NH Hospital crossed S. Frontage directly in front of oncoming traffic one block away from where the med student was killed.  The pedestrian signal was solid red. They ignored high beams and horns warning them.  This is by no means unusual pedestrian behavior in that area, including supposedly intelligent and highly educated senior medical staff.

posted by: SaveOurCity on January 10, 2012  10:36am

The sad truth is that our police force either can not or will not enforce the traffic laws.  Ask yourself the question “When was the last time that I saw someone in New Haven pulled over for running a red light?” and add to it “How many times have I seen a red light run in the past 30 days?”

By the way, I hope that these cameras treat cyclist equally - giving tickets to those who ignore red lights.

posted by: streever on January 10, 2012  11:00am

NFJanette
So does that mean that they should die?

In countries where life is more highly valued, speed limits in an area where there is heavy foot traffic are reduced, and measures are taken to ensure that those speed limits are followed.

If the speed limit was 20, and drivers followed it, it is far less likely that anyone will die from a mistake.

No one has answered it, so I’ll ask it again:

Should the price of making a mistake as a pedestrian be death, simply because people who drive would like to do so as fast as possible?

Should the speed limits be set only for what is safe and convenient for a car, or in an area with high foot traffic, perhaps speeds can be set to ensure safety for pedestrians too?

The speed limits now are set to be convenient for a car and to minimize the chance of dying if you make a mistake while driving.

That is the whole point of design speed.

Design speed is set at x because above x the driver may die if something unexpected happens.

Where is the design speed for the foot traffic?

While no one doubts that many pedestrians and cyclists make poor decisions (after all, most of them drive as well, and many drivers make poor decisions too) it is simply what level of punishment we are willing to accept for making a mistake where we all differ.

It seems from reading the commentary that many others feel it is OK for pedestrians to die as a result of their mistake, but they appreciate a system designed to preserve the lives of drivers who make mistakes.

I am surprised to see such a mindset in an otherwise liberal and life-affirming community.

posted by: Don't turn on red. on January 10, 2012  11:10am

I don’t really care one way or the other whether they put up the cameras or not.  When driving, I’m extremely cautious. I DO NOT TURN ON RED !!!!  Yes, that is me that your blowing your horn at and cussing too.  It’s not a LAW that you have to turn on red, it’s a CHOICE and I choose NOT TO.  And when the light turns green I will still wait a little because there’s always that jerk flying through the red light on the other side.  People drive like their in a hurry to die., me personally, I’m not ready.

posted by: nhteaparty on January 10, 2012  11:12am

streever: ...
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/city_synchs_up_102_traffic_signals/ The mayor admitting that timing is off on the signals and sensors have been broken.  Just because something is written down doesn’t mean it’s enforced, and just because there is an agency responsible for enforcing regulations doesn’t mean they do their job.  If this supposed state agency was actually doing what you claim, there would be no story of NH “fixing” their broken traffic system because it would constantly be updated as the regular monitoring caught minor timing issues.  If we didn’t get the money from the fed. gov. this wouldn’ve stayed broken.

Local traffic infraction money goes to the town, not the state; this is the case in every town I’ve ever heard of.  If you have information to show NH is different I’d like to see it.  There would be NO push for this by NH if it didn’t generate revenue for NH.

If there is a net loss on enforcement, up the fines.  I think fines should be increased steadily until they effectively deter the behavior; otherwise what’s the point?  Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time or pay the fine.  The flip side is that the higher the fines are the more pressure there will be for the government to be responsible for their side of the system.

If there is an actual state wide standard and regulations that the timing of lights in the city need to adhere to as you claim, I imagine all you would need to do to get out of the ticket would be to time the lights near the one you ran and when they undoubtably don’t meet regulation you sue the city for compliance and your ticket will be dropped.  If these things exist I think red light cameras would be great, not because it would stop people from running lights, but because it would create a situation where the city would instigate regular evaluation of light timing which would force them to maintain proper timing.  Although I imagine when it ended up costing more to maintain the timing of lights than they were making from fining people they’d stop enforcement.

I’m amused that you complain about flagrant running of red lights and then your blog says you are a cyclist… cyclists are the BIGGEST offenders when it comes to running red lights.  Make cyclists put plates on the front and back of their bikes and make the cameras catch them also, we’ll see how long you support the idea then.

Do this experiment for me:  Find this timing standard you believe exists.  Pick one street in NH; one that hasn’t just been updated.  Time the lights, and then figure out what you need to do to get the town to fix the lights to meet the standard and report back.  I gaurantee you will not support red light cameras once you have done that.

posted by: East Rock Independent on January 10, 2012  11:29am

It’s striking that the only aldermen in attendance for this supposedly “no-brainer” issue are Hausladen, DeCola, and Elicker. I guess this is all that remains of the Mayor’s team. Kind of sad, and curious that no other new members of the Board of Aldermen chose to attend.

I also think it’s rather misleading journalism to single out Dillon for criticism when neither Toni Walker, Toni Harp, Bob Megnaa or Juan Candelaria were in attendance.

Perhaps others instinctively feel that this issue, while possibly a good idea (I’ve reached no conclusion, there seem to be merits on both sides) should NOT be the City’s top state legislative priority in a moment when our communities are crying out for more youth opportunities and more jobs, and particularly when the City faces such a serious lack of revenue which the state should be helping to address.  I don’t think it’s wrong to highlight the issue, but it seems like a sign that the Mayor’s team/his aldermen are out of step with the priorities of the city as a whole.

posted by: anon on January 10, 2012  11:37am

Adopted unanimously by the New Haven Board of Aldermen:

The City of New Haven rejects the assumption that traffic crashes are inevitable in a mobile society and will work to develop a street network that can tolerate mistakes without risking human life.  In the words of Claes Tingvall, Sweden’s Director of Traffic Safety and the architect of Sweden’s Vision Zero Policy:  “The Vision Zero policy is not a figure; it is a shift in philosophy. Normal traffic policy is a balancing act between mobility benefits and safety problems. The Vision Zero policy refuses to use human life and health as part of that balancing act; they are non negotiable.” New Haven embraces the Vision Zero policy and will work towards achieving and maintaining the goal of zero traffic related injuries and fatalities in our city.”

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Engineering/completestreets.asp

posted by: westville man on January 10, 2012  11:49am

I think Streever has laid out the argument best. He also mentioned that presently all revenue from traffic violations go to the State, which is my understanding as well. This does make traffice enforcement financially unattractive for the city.

Does anyone know where this particular ticket revenue would go- to the City or State?

[Editor: City.]

posted by: William Kurtz on January 10, 2012  1:22pm

nhteaparty wrote,

“Local traffic infraction money goes to the town, not the state; this is the case in every town I’ve ever heard of.  If you have information to show NH is different I’d like to see it.  There would be NO push for this by NH if it didn’t generate revenue for NH.”

All but $10 of the fine for moving violations currently goes to the state (as opposed to 100% of the fines for parking, which is perhaps one of the reasons why local authorities are notoriously strict on parking but I digress).

As far as the tired criticism that “cyclists are the BIGGEST offenders” when it comes to red lights, it’s just not true—cyclists neither run red lights in higher numbers, nor do they represent the greatest danger when they do, and, as a side note, neither are they likely to be the ‘biggest’ offenders (get it?).

The various coalitions involved in local traffic-calming efforts have asked, repeatedly, for more aggressive traffic enforcement by the police, and to some extent, the city has been responsive although the efforts have been hampered by the revolving door in the chief’s office. But I have heard directly from district supervisors that at many of the most problematic intersections (Trumbull, Orange, and I-91 exit 3 for one) that it’s “too dangerous” to try to stop speeders and red-light runners. If those intersections are too dangerous for uniformed officers in marked cars, what chance does anyone else have?

posted by: dee on January 10, 2012  1:25pm

As any regular pedestrian in this city knows, you wait at LEAST 2 or 3 seconds after you get the “walk” signal, so that 2 or 3 cars can blow through the red light.

Install the cameras.

posted by: streever on January 10, 2012  1:44pm

NHTeaparty
...
First, yes, the revenue goes to the State. A very limited amount goes to the municipality. Here is a complete history of bills proposed on the subject:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGABSSimilar.asp?bill_num=HB06151

You can read through them and see how revenue collection works.

As to the standards. The new law—which has not yet passed—would require any intersection with a camera to adhere to the state standard on timing and distances.

The manual used is the CT DOT road standards manual—it exists, you can get a copy of it, or you can read it online. I assure you, there is standardized timing in there—it is what protects engineers from losing their professional licenses (which they can if they make negligently poor decisions that result in deaths).

Finally, your assertion that more cyclists break laws than drivers—really? Please, review the number of motor vehicle accidents per year, the number of motor vehicles which travel through New Haven, and the total number of cyclists. It is simply impossible for the relatively small number of cyclists to account for the majority of illegal road actions.

I really can understand why someone opposes the law. I really can! I am not a huge fan of it. I just can’t understand why someone wouldn’t read the law and do a small amount of research before taking a public stand on it.

posted by: westville man on January 10, 2012  2:16pm

My personal observation from living in New Haven is that cyclists run stop signs and traffic signals 98% of the time.
That said, they don’t kill,maim or hurt anyone doing it (except themselves, occasionally).

posted by: William K. Joyner on January 10, 2012  2:28pm

Streever…
“First, yes, the revenue goes to the State. A very limited amount goes to the municipality. Here is a complete history of bills proposed on the subject”.

  http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/CGABillStatus/CGABSSimilar.asp?bill_num=HB06151

HB NO 6151 does not appear to be the bill which supports “how revenue collection works”

Instead see below:

Proposed H.B. No. 6151
Session Year 2009

AN ACT ENHANCING THE UTILIZATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS LOCATED IN THIS STATE.

To provide health care services to unemployed and underemployed individuals in this state by informing the public about health care services available at federally qualified health centers and assisting in collaborative efforts between such centers and local health care providers. 

Introduced by: Rep. John W. Thompson, 13th Dist.

Maybe the Bill Number was changed??

posted by: Mister Jones on January 10, 2012  4:11pm

As a driver AND a pedestrian, I like the longer yellow idea.

Why should these proposed red light camera tickets be treated differently than other moving violations?  Why would appeals go to a city hearing or the DOT? Right now, a red light ticket goes to the Centralized Infraction Bureau. You either pay or plead not guilty and get a court date where prosecutors and judges with experience with these sorts of things evaluate cases.

Part of the problem with many pedestrians in the city is their absolute disregard for traffic, both on Whalley and around the Yale Campus.  I’m not saying the Frontage Road fatality was the walker’s fault, but downtown I see plenty of Yale people oblivious to oncoming traffic and responding indignantly to near misses.  Having the right of way won’t save you from an oncoming car.  Likewise I cringe when I see people on Whalley pushing strollers across oncoming traffic.  This is not to justify speeding or running lights, just to say that people on foot need to be cautious.

posted by: Gertrude Stein on January 10, 2012  4:22pm

Very eager to send the money out of state to consultants,hokey scam companies.Such a sad joke.The real problem is the cops who are witnessing the cars speed through red lights,the cops think it’s funny,they love to hear hospital workers and various Grad student’s plea to them ,“Why aren’t you going after them ?, but Orificer.. The cops then break into an ants in my pants dance,they walk as if a load’s been dropped in drawers,their mood matches,cops mouths will gape,drool will flow,eyeballs will roll, but you will never get one to budge

posted by: nhteaparty on January 10, 2012  4:35pm

If local authorities are responsible for enforcement the local government should be collecting the larger share of the revenue.  From the document linked in this article 70% (starting at line 63) of the fine after the assessment is paid goes to the municipality (unless I’m reading this wrong).  Do you know the exact chapter and section of the general statutes which breaks out this $10 to the city business (not proposed bills, the actual statute in place)?  If there is no incentive to enforce the law it’s kind of a moot point to even pass it.

5 intersections?  Someone should’ve mentioned this is a proposal to allow 5 red light cameras in the city.  Kind of an important detail.

If the bill states that the lights need to adhere to strict guidelines for timing then this is kind of a silly discussion.  It’s a paper tiger.  The city can’t/won’t maintain the timing and the only people who will end up paying will be those who don’t realise the details of the law. See this is where the 5 lights comes into play… I think the city might be able to maintain timing on 5 lights, lol (if they try really really hard).  But I’m still not seeing this language in the bill listed in this article.  Can you give me a line?

I should clarify: I’m not saying cyclists running red lights are a larger quantity than drivers, I’m saying the percentage is higher.  Every single time I see a cyclist about to go through an intersection I say to myself or the person sitting next to me “watch this guy blow the red light” and sure enough they do 99% of the time.

I honestly don’t care whether or not they put up red light cameras, I just know the entire traffic control system in NH is unmaintained and turning that disorder into a revenue stream would only serve to make it even more intractible to change.

It is certainly NOT a small amount of research to dig up the finer details of state and local laws.  Definitely helps to link the details if you have them.

posted by: streever on January 10, 2012  4:41pm

Mister Jones
Since the introduction of the horse and carriage, people have been saying that pedestrians need to pay more attention.

Unfortunately, they rarely do.

As I said earlier, I find it odd that people don’t realize what a strange society we live in where we spend millions and millions on preventing the deaths of drivers who make careless mistakes, but we are unwilling to inconvenience drivers by a fraction of a second to prevent a pedestrians mistake from leading to their death.

People make mistakes. A truly complete street and a human, sensible transportation infrastructure accounts for ALL road users mistakes and seeks to prevent ALL traffic fatalities, not just those of people in cars.

posted by: William K. Joyner on January 10, 2012  5:03pm

@ Streever,please review the following summary subject matter, as stated below.
...

Location:
TRAFFIC SIGNS AND SIGNALS; TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS;
Scope:
Background;
 
August 10, 2011
  2011-R-0285
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS
By: Kevin E. McCarthy, Principal Analyst
SUMMARIES

Bills were introduced in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011 to permit municipalities to install cameras at intersections to enforce traffic laws. In addition, one 2009 bill would have required the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop and implement a program for installing traffic cameras at major intersections. Most of these bills were referred to the Transportation Committee, which favorably reported bills in 2009, 2010, and 2011. None of the bills reached the House or Senate floor.

There have been a number of studies of the effectiveness of red light camera systems. This report discusses four such studies, published between 2003 and 2011. The studies have generally found that the systems reduce angle crashes, such as those that occur when a vehicle runs a red light and crashes into the side of another vehicle. On the other hand, the studies have generally found that the systems were associated with an increase in rear-end crashes, which typically occur when a driver stops suddenly at a red light with a camera system. The former crashes tend to be more serious than the latter and the studies have generally found that the systems have a modest positive economic effect.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION IN CONNECTICUT

2007

HB 6378 would have authorized the installation of traffic cameras at major intersections. The bill was referred to the Transportation Committee, which took no action on it.

2009

sSB 149 would have established a two-year pilot program for New Haven to implement and evaluate the use of automated image-based enforcement of traffic light violations at up to 12 signalized intersections in the city. It would have established (1) procedures for locally adjudicating any citations issued and (2) a fine of up to $100 for red light violations prosecuted through the pilot program. New Haven would have been authorized to retain one-half of the fine and been required to remit the other half to the state treasurer for deposit in the Special Transportation Fund. A sworn police officer would have been required to review any recorded images produced under the program before any citation could be issued. The bill required New Haven to bear all the program’s costs. The Transportation Committee gave the bill a favorable change of reference to the Planning and Development Committee, where the motion to favorably report it failed.

HB 5035 would have required DOT to develop and implement a program for installing traffic cameras at major intersections and other locations the DOT commissioner determined to need additional enforcement activities. The bill was referred to the Transportation Committee, which took no action on it. Similarly, HB 5258 would have allowed municipalities to develop and implement a program for installing automatic traffic safety camera systems at major intersections and other locations determined by the local police department to need additional enforcement activities. This bill was referred to the Public Safety Committee, which took no action on it.

2010

SB 345 would have allowed any municipality, with the authorization of its chief executive officer and legislative body, to conduct a two-year pilot program to install and use automated devices, at not more than 12 intersections selected by the municipality, to enforce the laws governing traffic control lights. The municipality would have been required to pay all of the program’s costs. The Transportation Committee favorably reported the bill and referred it to the Judiciary Committee, which took no action on it.

2011

sSB 706 would have authorized municipalities with a population of more than 60,000 to use “automated traffic enforcement safety devices” (red light cameras) to record vehicles that illegally drive through red lights. These cameras would have been required to record a still photograph, video image, or combination of these, of the rear of a motor vehicle, or a vehicle being towed by another vehicle, including an image of the rear license plate. The cameras also would have been required to indicate on at least one image the date, time, and place where the action occurred.

The bill would have specified how towns could operate and enforce a red light camera program, established legal defenses to charges based on images the cameras recorded, barred the use of these images for certain purposes, and required that towns report data they collect to the Program Review and Investigations Committee.

The bill was favorably reported by the Transportation and Planning and Development Committees. The Senate then referred the bill to the Judiciary Committee, which took no action on it.

HB 6179 would have allowed a municipality to adopt and enforce an ordinance to regulate the placement and use of intersection safety systems within its municipal boundaries. Under the bill the enabling ordinance could provide a fine for a violation of its provisions. The fine revenue would have been used to defray the cost of the installation, operation, and maintenance of the system. Seventy percent of any remaining funds would have been allocated to the municipality and the rest to the General Fund. The bill would have barred the (1) recording of a violation under the program on a driving record, (2) use of a violation to determine vehicle insurance rates, or (3) assessment of points under the point system by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The bill was initially referred to the Planning and Development Committee, which referred it to the Transportation Committee, which took no action on the bill.

EFFECTIVENESS

The most recent study on the effectiveness of red light camera systems was conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in 2011. It analyzed fatal crashes in (1) 14 cities with more than 200,000 residents that had red light camera programs during the period 2004-08 but not from 1992 to 1996 and (2) 48 cities without programs during either period. The study compared the citywide per capita rate of fatal red-light-running crashes and the citywide per capita rate of all fatal crashes at signalized intersections during the two study periods. Rate changes then were compared for cities with and without camera programs.

The study found that the average annual rate of fatal red-light-running crashes declined for both study groups, but the decline was larger for cities with the red light camera enforcement programs than for cities without such programs (35% vs. 14%). After controlling for population density and land area, the rate of fatal red light running crashes during 2004-08 for cities with the programs was an estimated 24% lower than what would have been expected without cameras. The rate of all fatal crashes at signalized intersections during 2004-08 for cities with programs was an estimated 17% lower than what would have been expected without cameras. The study is available at http://www.iihs.org/.

A 2007 study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council analyzed seven years of crash data from six municipalities and counties in the state that had adopted right light camera systems. It found that the cameras were associated with an increase in rear-end crashes and a decrease in red light running crashes. This study also found that there was significant variation by intersection and by jurisdiction: in one jurisdiction the cameras were associated with an increase in all six crash types that were studied while two other jurisdictions saw decreases in most of these crash types. Taken all together, the study found a modest reduction in the comprehensive crash cost for non-fatal injury crashes. The study is available at http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/2007Virginia.pdf .

A 2005 study of the effectiveness of red light-camera systems prepared for the Federal Highway Administration compared crash data in seven U.S. jurisdictions before and after the installation of these systems. The study analyzed rear-end and right-angle crashes at 132 intersections. It found a decrease in right-angle crashes and increase in rear-end crashes. The study found a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of the systems, since right-angle crashes tend to be more severe than rear-end crashes. The study found that the economic benefits were associated with total entering average annual daily traffic, the ratios of right-angle to rear end crashes, and with the presence of protected left-turn signals. The study is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/ .

In 2003, the Transportation Research Board (part of the National Academies of Science) published a synthesis of research conducted up until that point on the effectiveness of red light camera systems. It found that while the data were not conclusive, there was a preponderance of evidence indicating that such systems improve the overall safety of intersections where they are used. Angle crashes are usually reduced while in instances some rear-end crashes increase, although to a lesser extent. The literature provided some evidence that there was an improvement in driver behavior at signalized intersections without such systems within a jurisdiction that had adopted the system. The study is available at http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/nchrp_syn_310.pdf.

KM:ro

posted by: streever on January 10, 2012  5:28pm

William
Thanks for posting so much of the data—a lot of the findings are part of why I do support this bill, although I don’t love it.

I don’t love the bill because I want people just to be careful and not injure each other :) But that is not the reality.

The one problem with every study cited—even though they largely support my position I feel compelled to point this out—is they do not factor for regression to the means.

In studies, the failure to account for a regression to the means makes a study largely useless.

Basically, the problem with these studies is they take extreme cases (Worst year for fatalities, for instance) and then install a camera and say “Fatalities dropped 50%! Success!”

The problem with this type of thinking is that it doesn’t address WHY the year they were using is one of the worst. Typically, that year being so bad is an extreme and an unlikely to repeat occurrence—the regression to the means (the number getting lower the next year) is something that would have happened with no intervention.

No one really knows if that is the case with these studies, because the methodology is flawed.

Opponents of red light cameras, however, have done the same thing in reverse: taken “Best case” years and compared them to post-camera installation and claimed that the cameras caused crashes.

Did they? We don’t know—again, the testing methodology is extremely flawed.

NHTeaParty:
You made a pretty broad statement, with a statistic included—“Traffic lights, signs, and signals in NH are 90% for revenue generation.  Signals are timed so that unless you are pushing your car through town you will hit every light.” which you then factually disproved yourself when you noted that the signals are out of sync and simply are not maintained.

Understand? You posited that 90% of the traffic signals/etc are done to create revenue. You have no source, no citation, and no fact for this.

When I pointed out that you were incorrect about the ticket money, you just called me a liar.

I don’t think it is unreasonable that I am asking you to look into some of these things on your own, when you are contradicting your own position.

Traffic signals are actually supervised by an engineer who has nothing to do with revenue—you should meet him and talk to him—you’ll understand that he isn’t trying to squeeze you when he puts in a stop sign. It is entirely done by a very impartial state or federal standard.

I’m sure this comment is going to get edited in a ridiculous way, but give me a break Paul, you can’t let someone post sweeping generalizations as if they were concrete facts when there is 0 information backing them up and then censor someone pointing out how inaccurate the comment is.

posted by: nhteaparty on January 10, 2012  6:41pm

Ah yes my statement was very broad.  The 90% figure was not intented to be a factual statement(I’m not a congressman, just someone on the internet.  Just ask for a citation or clarification).  They aren’t maintained for safety so the only other thing they could exist for is revenue.  Lack of maintenance as is evidenced by the timing being off and sensors broken, etc…  I didn’t “factually disprove” my own statement, maybe anecdotally undermined it with another statement at worst.

I’m still calling you incorrect (not a liar) on the ticket money because as far as I can tell 70% of the post assessment money from these red light tickets goes to the town as it is written in the bill linked from this article.  I’m not trying to be instigative, if you really have a citation to the general statute outlining how the city only gets $10 I would genuinely be interested in knowing what it is.  I’ve spent a lot of time reading over the state and local laws but when you aren’t being paid to do it there is a fine-line between being entertained and being certifiable.

Considering they just did a $3.2M overhaul to fix 1/3 of the traffic signals throughout the city (link previously provided), I’m guessing that engineer isn’t being given the resources he needs to keep the entire system maintained properly on a continuous basis (I’m pretty sure that’s the definition of “engineer”).

posted by: Threefifths on January 10, 2012  8:03pm

This is what this is real about.

NMA Issues Challenge to Cities Using Red-Light Ticket Cameras.

http://www.motorists.org/press/ticket-challenge-nov2011

These cameras are also cash cows.

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

And people will use this.

Hide-A-Plate License Plate Concealment System.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN_wcDgDWwc&feature=related

Or this.

Photo Radar red light camera license plate spray.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_e2BC_kXis&feature=related

posted by: Chip Croft on January 10, 2012  9:32pm

Los Angeles shut down their red-light camera program July, 2011 because they lost a huge amount of $ on it and it did not prove to save lives. NH should learn from this -

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: Threefifths on January 10, 2012  11:41pm

Alternatives To Red Light Cameras
Increase the yellow-light time
This is an easy way to reduce red-light violations. It has been effective from Virginia to California in preventing accidents and saving lives.
•A study by researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute illustrates the positive safety impact of even a modestly longer yellow light. Read more…
•The Virginia Department of Transportation noted a significant decrease in violations at an intersection in Fairfax County when the yellow light was lengthened by 1.5 seconds.
Read more…
•Critics of longer yellow lights claim there is no long-term benefit because the public will grow accustomed to the longer lights, but research shows this is not the case.
Read more…
Add an all-red clearance interval
A yellow light allows drivers who cannot safely stop to pass through the intersection before the light turns red. Occasionally, even safe and attentive drivers may misjudge the time it takes to make it completely through an intersection. Adding an all-red clearance interval (a brief period where the lights in all directions are red) after the yellow-light phase reduces unnecessary accidents. AAA of Michigan and the City of Detroit partnered to make intersections safer, and they found an all-red clearance interval to be effective. Read more…
Make traffic lights more visible
There are a number of reasons motorists might have difficulty seeing traffic lights at intersections. Making traffic lights more visible decreases red-light violations and intersection accidents. Here are three simple things that can be done to help all motorists see traffic lights better:
•Make the lights bigger. With AAA of Michigan’s help, Detroit installed several new lights that were 50 percent larger. This small change helped to decrease both accidents and injuries at problem intersections. Read more…
•Add metal backers to lights. This is especially important for lights that face either east or west and can be easily affected by glare from the sun during certain parts of the day.
•Remove any other obstructions. If an intersection has above-average red-light violations or accidents, transportation officials should make sure that no signs, trees, transit stops, or buildings obstruct motorists’ view of the traffic lights.
Improve intersections for motorists
Anything about an intersection that confuses or frustrates motorists increases red-light violations. Communities can do all of the following to make intersections safer:
•Repaint lane markings at intersections, especially turn lane markings. This alone had a major impact in the Detroit trial project mentioned above.
•Improve signage. Signs should clearly indicate that a signal is ahead and which lane(s), if any, are for turns only.
•Add traffic lights at certain intersections, especially those that rely on only one light suspended in the air to direct all traffic.
•Build new turn lanes, especially on roads where development has added a significant amount of new traffic volume.
•Provide advance warning lights at high-speed intersections to notify motorists of pending light changes.
Re-Time Traffic Signals
Engineers can adjust the timing of traffic lights to reduce the number of red lights a driver encounters. This process of signal optimization reduces congestion, travel time, gas consumption, and driver frustration. It also helps to reduce red-light violations. An informational report from the Institute for Transportation Engineers concluded that the process has a benefit to cost ratio of 40:1.

posted by: streever on January 11, 2012  8:30am

3/5th
the majority of your ideas promote safer streets for automobile drivers, but do nothing for any other road user.

As I’ve said multiple times on this page—and not seen anyone acknowledge—the current road system, including road specifications, speeds, and signals, are designed with automobile safely firmly in mind, and “all red” phases (for instance) are designed to protect drivers from dying if they make a mistake.

There is virtually nothing in place to provide protection to a pedestrian, and no allowance for the mistakes a pedestrian might make.

I am really curious why otherwise normal and humane individuals see nothing wrong in proposing all reds and other traffic improvements designed exclusively for automobile driver safety while repeatedly stating that pedestrians make mistakes.

All groups of road users make mistakes—we shouldn’t be tolerant ONLY of the person in a 2 ton piece of metal moving at 45 miles per hour who runs a red light.

I am truly surprised to see the snide comments—and even the reference to Mila’s death—by an otherwise humane group of people.

We all make mistakes. I’d wager my bottom dollar that the person who made a reference to one of New Haven’s pedestrian fatalities making a mistake has made plenty of mistakes while driving—gone through a light improperly, sped, drove a little too fast for conditions, etc.

The reason why you can sit back and monday morning quarterback, insinuate that pedestrians deserve to be hit, is because you are enjoying a system of road design designed to be safe exclusively for you in your automobile. If you were on the same footing as a pedestrian, you could very well also be a traffic fatality.

If the roads in New Haven were designed the way they are in Oslo, some of the pedestrians being snidely referred to wouldn’t have died as a result of their mistakes.

I’m really upset to see this type of commentary, and it makes me feel like we have a long way to go. I just am blown away at the total heartlessness and absolute privilege displayed.

posted by: Michael Fimiani on January 11, 2012  10:08am

A note to Noteworthy:
As a retired police officer I think the red light cameras are a great idea. Also as an east shore resident specifically Morris Cove I think on behalf of all those of us who drive safely would welcome them in our area. I am positively sure Alderman DeCola will listen to his constituents and do the right thing to benefit the safety of everyone in our area. Let us not forget the street are a public domain, and I don’t think we have an expectation of privacy. So if we drive safely and don’t speed up to get through that yellow caution which ( by the way means prepare to stop), we welcome any viable tool to enhance and assist our men and women in our police department. Yes for Red Light Cameras. Sal we are sure you will do the right thing for our community and city. That is why we elected you

posted by: William Kurtz on January 11, 2012  10:35am

Streever is right; why are seat belts, air bags, and crumple zones all non-controversial but simple changes to infrastructure and traffic law that accommodate more vulnerable road users so heavily opposed by so many people? Seems silly, doesn’t it?

Larger lights and more signs add visual pollution that research suggest drivers are going to ignore anyway. Turn lanes are a mixed blessing—yes, in some areas they contribute to an orderly flow but in others they facilitate some drivers speeding through intersections, past others stopped to make turns.

It is past time for large change in thinking about the way people actually move around crowded urban areas.

posted by: Threefifths on January 11, 2012  10:41am

posted by: streever on January 11, 2012 7:30am
3/5th
the majority of your ideas promote safer streets for automobile drivers, but do nothing for any other road user.

Not true.You are pro bike.There are laws on the books for bike rides who use the roads,But the police don’t enforce them.There are jay walking laws.There are laws that say you are to cross the streets at the corner.The problem is that the police don’t enforce the law,But they enforce the law when it comes to automobile drivers.How many times have you seen this.In fact I almost hit some one doing this.

Texting While Walking - People Behaving Badly.

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

posted by: streever on January 11, 2012  11:01am

3/5th
...
I have been ticketed, harassed, and even beaten by an officer, for a variety of “infractions” that are not actually on the books.

Meanwhile, as I waited at the two red lights this morning on my daily commuter (I have 2 lights—2) I counted 15 separate drivers texti
ng.

I don’t know a single person who has received a ticket for driving while texting, but I’ve been offered a ticket for:
- Biking with a “dark coat” on (while covered in bright plastic lights and wearing a bright yellow shoulder bag with an additional light on it)
- A beating for riding on the road
- A ticket for properly crossing on my bicycle
- STOPPING AT A RED LIGHT on Church at Grove. After the red-faced officer—who chased me—caught me and screamed at me, he apologized, and told me it was a “joke”.

None of the things I’ve mentioned above are illegal, and certainly none of them warrant being screamed at, beaten, or threatened.

You’re barking up the wrong tree, if you want to talk anecdotes.

posted by: nhteaparty on January 11, 2012  11:23am

Good post 3/5.  I think it would be great to write all that up in a proposal with citations and then gather all the individuals from that photo op back at the same spot and ask them publicly if they’d be willing to implement these simple changes to improve public safety.  I’m guessing nobody would show up because the truth of that matter is that red-light cameras are about revenue, not safety.

Section 11 of the traffic control design manual deals with the considerations of non-automobile traffic.  That’s a bit more than “virtually nothing”.

The traffic control signal design manual (http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dtrafficdesign/sigmanapproved2009.pdf) is a non-binding guideline document which can at anytime be overridden by a decision by the state traffic commission.  The language of this document is such that it gives some very broad recommendations as to how one might calculate light timing, but then also pretty much states “unless you want to do it differently based on some other study you’ve done”.  So now having dug through three layers of beaurocracy I’m still at a point where there are probably at least another three layers before I get anywhere close to a point where I might be able to figure out how a light’s timing was calculated, whether or not that was correct, and whether or not it is currently in compliance (talking to the guy who did the work is NOT how you figure out if something was done properly, just an FYI).

Unless you are part of the organization designing and maintaining the traffic control system, it’s pretty opaque and I can’t imagine anyone could definitively say what the considerations are/were for any signal without a lot of leg work; including whether or not pedestrians/cyclist safety or increased revenue from tickets was a consideration. Adding revenue generation on top of all this will only serve to increase the lack of transparency.

posted by: nhteaparty on January 11, 2012  11:32am

I think it’s really important to highlight this bill only authorizes 5 red light cams.  You can pretty much count on all 5 of them being in the heart of the city.

posted by: anon on January 11, 2012  11:33am

“they enforce the law when it comes to automobile drivers”

Not true. A recent study in NYC found that, on average, a driver could speed for 35 years in a row before being issued a single ticket.  The same study found that in NYC, drivers had a 1 in 500 chance of being caught for running a red light (and that is in a city with many intersection cameras). 

The stats in New Haven are surely worse.

posted by: Noteworthy on January 11, 2012  11:51am

Streever:

There was one reason and one reason only for the presser to be held on that corner - a dead medical school student from a traffic accident. While it didn’t have to be stated, it was implied. Just like DeStefano’s dishonest use of crash and fatality stats - in the context of a red light camera press conference - implied that a lot of those accidents/fatalities or at least some unknown number of them are a result of red light runners. I simply object to the dishonest nature of the “proof” of the need for red light cameras. People can advocate for this saying it will make pedestrians and bicycle riders safer and that’s fine. But holders news events at the scene of an unrelated tragedy is not very honest.

William Kurtz: There is a big difference in government mandating a product be safer to use, and government mandating personal behavior that infringes on my personal choices and freedoms. I don’t like the government telling me I have to wear a seat belt and I avoid it nearly all the time. I’ve even gotten tickets for it which really makes me mad.

We should all beware of government telling us what to do in the name of our personal safety. Bike helmets, seat belts, smoking, motorcycle helmets etc. etc. - it’s the nanny state gone wild. It fosters the idea that government is going to keep us safe and we don’t have to use common sense or personal choice to do so.

These major changes are controversial because they erode our freedom, diminish and dilute due process and they divert our attention from the critical issues facing our communities.

New Haven has huge problems with employment, murder, violence, education, gangs, drugs, gun running, finances, infant mortality, neglected neighborhoods and concentrated, toxic poverty to name but a few.

Rather than drop the remote controlled heavy hand of another DeStefano appointee on people who live and work here, it would be much more collaborative and beneficial to embark on a Share the Road - be Courteous campaign designed to change a lot of behaviors at once. The issues with our streets are more notorious than red light runners - speeding, pedestrians who cross streets without checking for traffic, or lights or not caring that the light has changed; people who stop in a moving lane so someone can exit a car without pulling to the curb; or drivers who stop in the middle of the road to hold a coversation with another driver.

All people need to be taught to be courteous and conscientious - drivers, pedestrians and bike riders. One way or the other, we all pay for our roads and cross walks. They make life easier in terms of getting around. We have shared responsibility and I would suggest the red light camera is a very narrow response to a dubious need. Perhaps one day we will have leaders in New Haven who can walk and chew gum - who can think and act globally, still get results, but without licking their chops over another punitive “safety” measure that will potentially generate a big payday.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 11, 2012  1:12pm

I can’t really add anything that Streever and William Kurtz haven’t already said, but I might be able to shed some light on the reason why people are having such a difficult time responding to/understanding their points.
People grow up observing certain types of conditions and often people do not differentiate between what the current conditions of their environment are with what is normal, acceptable, average, expected, and standard operating procedures. This happens a lot with politics, too.
Most people alive today have grown up in a time where automobiles rule the streets and standards are determined from the perspective of car safety and travel speeds and then other street users are accommodated from there. Unfortunately, most people lack knowledge of the context that clearly shows hows extremely slanted towards automobile design we are relative to history and to the rest of the world.
People assume that the conditions that exist today are normal and that anyone who proposes to change this is seen as an extremist. The current conditions today are defined by widening streets, widening lane widths, enlarging curb radii, adding lanes, increasing lighting, putting steel barricades along road edges, etc. This has been occurring for several generations so most people see it as normal and common place. So as soon as someone else suggests maybe not widening a road, or adding a bike lanes, or narrowing lane widths, etc, they are seen as radical, when really they are merely trying to bring the spectrum towards the center where all street users are accommodated for proportionally.
If we were actually as radical as the car-centrists, we’d be advocating for streets designed solely for bikes, pedestrians and transit and if there is any room left for cars we might let them use some of the streets some of the time. To the best on my knowledge no one has ever advocated this. We are merely advocating for a balanced approach to road design that encourages safe usage of streets by all street users.

3/5ths,
You’re missing the point. The streets are currently designed primarily for cars, so it is difficult for cyclists and pedestrians to properly use them. However, if we were to design streets for everyone’s use, then there will be far fewer mistakes made by all people. Currently the streets are designed to protect against drivers that make mistakes, while pedestrians and cyclists are expected to use streets in reaction to how cars use them unless they want to die. It’s ridiculous.
Streets should be designed so that cars cannot easily drive fast enough that they cannot quickly and safety come to complete stop in a short distance. Streets shouldn’t be so wide that elderly people and children can’t make it across the street by the time the walk signal turns red. There are a million proposals like this that would help balance the streets so that mistakes aren’t punished with death and the streets are easy and natural for all users to use.

posted by: Icarus on January 11, 2012  1:15pm

This intersection was chosen because it is one of the most dangerous in New Haven. Cars are speeding and no cops seem to enforce the speed limit at all. Additionally, the No Turn on Red Sign has been removed just recently causing a hazard for pedestrians. But seriously, how can anyone oppose red light cameras that ticket folks for RUNNING RED LIGHTS and NOT WEARING SEAT BELTS? I believe they should put in these cameras and hand out less severe tickets that increase in severity if you are caught multiple times. This is coming from a suburban commuter.

Noteworthy, when you choose to drive on a public road you need to follow public rules. If someone hits you and you die because you did not wear a seat belt, that is an emotional and possibly financial burden put on another person. Even though I value liberty (and support Ron Paul!) I understand the value of safety rules to, if anything, prevent poor decision makers from effecting the lives of others. If we need to go this route, bicycle riders should be mandated to wear helmets for the SAME reason. Again, this coming from a bicycle rider who has at times commuted from West Haven to New Haven.

Lastly, when I attended UCONN, they had a pedestrian friendly policy that created safe walking environments and a cultural understanding that cars are large and dangerous. As a result, everyone felt safe. I was stunned to come to New Haven and experience the blatant disregard for life and disrespect of pedestrians.

posted by: Read all about it on January 11, 2012  1:25pm

The Mayor announces the spending of $3.2M of federal funds for the upgrade/improvement of city traffic signals and thoroughfares. Now he claims he needs the state to improve traffic safety, in-spite of saying he did so with federal funds…WTF is going on…

If it looks and smells like a scam..it is…

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Mayor/ReadMore.asp?ID={0D20E98E-CF24-47E0-B0F2-A27AD375560C}

posted by: Read all about it 2 on January 11, 2012  1:45pm

The Mayor announces the spending of $3.2M of federal funds for the upgrade/improvement of city traffic signals and thoroughfares. Now he claims he needs the state to improve traffic safety, in-spite of saying he did so with federal funds…WTF is going on…

If it looks and smells like a scam..it is…

CITY ANNOUNCES COMPLETION OF $3.2 MILLION FEDERALLY-FUNDED UPGRADE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS

(12/21/2011) NEW HAVEN- The Transportation, Traffic, and Parking Department this month completed a $3.2 million upgrade of traffic control systems at 102 intersections citywide. The project, funded entirely by federal stimulus dollars, replaces 30 year-old equipment with modern controllers equipped to communicate in real time with the traffic control center at 200 Orange Street. These latest upgrades are part of more than $20 million in state and federal dollars that the City has secured to update traffic controls, including more than 500 digital video detection cameras installed at intersections throughout the City to monitor traffic flow, incidents, and emergencies.

The 102 upgraded intersections represent more than one-third of the 292 signalized intersections citywide. In addition to the new control systems, more than 30 new traffic signals have also been installed during 2011, largely using state funds.

The new systems are equipped to remotely alert work crews and traffic engineers in the traffic operations center to problems in the field, including malfunctioning lights and power failures. The new systems proved immediately useful during Hurricane Irene when traffic control engineers were instantly notified of malfunctions and were able to quickly implement safety measures.

“These new traffic controllers greatly enhance our ability to respond to problems, including power outages, traffic jams, obstructions, or other emergencies. Better coordinated signals will make a big difference for all residents, providing safer streets for all users and improved air quality due to less idling,” said Mayor John DeStefano Jr.

“The project replaced 30 year-old equipment in the surrounding downtown area that required replacement and was no longer reliable. The modern enhanced controllers now communicate with the City’s Transportation Operations Center in a real-time mode. This allows us to more readily respond to issues and positions us to more quickly address traffic control and pedestrian activity,” said Jim Travers, Director of Transportation, Traffic, and Parking.

Contact Name: Elizabeth Benton

Contact Email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

posted by: William Kurtz on January 11, 2012  2:07pm

Noteworthy,

I am not 100% in disagreement; I have complicated and sometimes contradictory opinions about what some call the ‘nanny state’ (Although I will say that if people didn’t so frequently act like children, they wouldn’t need a nanny. Avoiding seat belts because the government says you have to wear one? Really? Here’s just one reason why your choice not to wear a seat belt affects my freedom and not just yours. In a traffic collision without injuries, the police arrive and gather the information and the vehicles are removed from the scene relatively quickly. But in a traffic crash with injuries, they’re there a lot longer, while the victims are extricated, which leads to longer waits for everyone else who has to pass.) 

I also agree that a collaborative ‘Share the Road’ campaign that changed a lot of behaviors at once would be a great idea. It’s such a great idea, in fact, that it’s been going on for about two or three years in the City of New Haven (longer if you count its predecessor, the ‘Pace Car’ program). It’s well-intentioned and perhaps effective at moving the conversation forward, but I am not so sure there has been a measurable improvement in behavior.

The psychological term for the phenomenon Mr. Hopkins is describing is ‘non-conscious ideology,’ or the set of unexamined assumptions and beliefs that are so deeply ingrained that we’re barely, if at all, aware that they exist. (See, for example, the old ‘who is the surgeon?’ brainteaser. I would add to that a tendency towards an almost pathological delusion of influence on the parts of some drivers—the number of times someone has said that a pedestrian or cyclist has “forced” them to swerve, or “made” them slam on their brakes makes me wonder how many people can truly be said to be in control of their own vehicles, and whether these powerless puppets should be driving at all.

posted by: streever on January 11, 2012  3:10pm

Hopkins nails succinctly what I spent a lot of electronic ink trying to say—

“Currently the streets are designed to
protect against drivers that make mistakes, while pedestrians and cyclists are expected to use streets in reaction to how cars use them unless they want to die. It’s ridiculous.”

This is EXACTLY what the anti-camera people are saying. Pedestrians need to behave in reaction to cars or they will die and they—to some degree—deserve it.

Why don’t the cars have to drive in reaction to the pedestrians?

Why is this such a one-way street?

I really understand that there are very valid reasons to oppose red light cameras. However, I don’t think it is valid to propose more and increased measures to safeguard driving to the detriment of other road users.

posted by: Threefifths on January 11, 2012  3:46pm

posted by: anon on January 11, 2012 10:33am
“they enforce the law when it comes to automobile drivers”

Not true. A recent study in NYC found that, on average, a driver could speed for 35 years in a row before being issued a single ticket.  The same study found that in NYC, drivers had a 1 in 500 chance of being caught for running a red light (and that is in a city with many intersection cameras).

Show me that study.Were can I find it.I am from New York.NYPD gives every one tickets.In fact you can get a ticket or put in Jail for this.

NYPD arrested 1,600 for putting feet up on subway

http://online.wsj.com/article/APb5bea67e1dad43fc884ede7db3603c0b.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/nyregion/minor-offense-on-ny-subway-can-bring-ticket-or-handcuffs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Again were can I find that study you are talking about.

posted by: streever on January 11, 2012 10:01am
3/5th
...
I have been ticketed, harassed, and even beaten by an officer, for a variety of “infractions” that are not actually on the books.

Did you file a complaint with the police department?

Meanwhile, as I waited at the two red lights this morning on my daily commuter (I have 2 lights—2) I counted 15 separate drivers texting.

And ar I waited for the the red light to change.I saw Bikers run the light and almost hit some people.I have seen Bikers Texting and talking on there cell phones while riding.I have seen bikers ride of the side walk and the police say nothing.I see people texting and talking on there cell phone while Jay walking and the police are standing next to them and say nothing.In fact the police officer is jay walking along with them.How about the spped trap from West Haven to New Haven.You know about the speed trap,I forgot you are a biker.So I will tell you what the speed trap is.When People leave West Haven and go over the Kimberly Ave Bridge.The New Haven Police Jump out with the rader gun and pull you over.You car always go fast down hill.Yet I have seen Bikers fly buy and the police do nothing.Bottom line the police enforce the laws more on drivers then Bikers.Again how many bikers are in traffic court,Like auto drivers.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 11, 2012 12:12pm
3/5ths,
You’re missing the point. The streets are currently designed primarily for cars, so it is difficult for cyclists and pedestrians to properly use them.

I see bike lanes on Sherman Ave.And for pedestrians they need to stop being lazy and walk to the corner to cross the street.That is were the push button is to control the light so they can cross the street.

I smell cash cow with this whole red light scam.

posted by: nhteaparty on January 12, 2012  8:49am

Streets are not primarily designed for cars.  Pedestrians and cyclists are taken into consideration.  Read the manual that streever kept citing over and over and over again (linked in my last post, section 11).  If we’re all supposed to just take it as a given that the government has rules and regulations that they follow regarding light timing you need to take it as a given that the government follows all of the same rules and regulations that it has in place about designing roadways with pedestrians and cyclists taken into account.  What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

posted by: Curious on January 12, 2012  9:13am

I almost got hit by a car while crossing Legion Ave at Howard yesterday, leaving work.  I was at the corner, in the crosswalk, while I had a walk sign and the driver had a red light.

The driver barely slowed down enough to go right on the red light, and I had to literally dodge her bumper.

This happens at least once a week, if not more.

The red light issue is about *cars and drivers*, not pedestrians.  There is a problem, and anything that would help, I would welcome.  Bring on the cameras-tickets.

posted by: streever on January 12, 2012  2:06pm

NHTeaParty
the vast majority of laws concerning roads exist solely because high-speed vehicles use them. Without cars, we would not need:
Pedestrian crossings
Red lights
Stop signs
Shoulders
Sidewalks

The list goes on and on. What little pedestrian infrastructure does exists exists to convenience cars—we need a place for the people because the cars get first priority, so we put them here.

Most of the laws a cyclist and a pedestrian are expected to obey are for the convenience of cars.

If cars were required to drive 10-15 mph in dense urban environments, people could cross the street at any point.

We wouldn’t need a single red light if cars were required to travel at 10-15 mph in downtown, either.

The laws that exist exist for cars. How can you say that the system rewards pedestrians or cyclists? It is a long list of arbitrary rules designed to allow cars to drive faster.

The streets are designed to minimize a car driver’s chance of dying, and the rules are in place for a pedestrian to follow to avoid dying due to a car driver.

This is a huge blind spot for a lot of people, so please don’t take offense that I am using you as an example—it is just that you are demonstrating the principle so clearly. I’m not trying to personally single you out—this is truly a universal blind spot, and helps explain why our engineers and city keep building auto-centric streets.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 12, 2012  3:25pm

One of the major issues that I haven’t clearly made a distinction about has to do with context.
There can’t be one standard for every street. The design of a street or a road depends on the location and function. A parkway out in the countryside may not need sidewalks or crosswalks for example. However, a street in the middle of a city can’t have 12 foot wide travel lanes and metal barriers along the sidewalk. The main problem is that most streets follow a single standard for road design regardless of location and context.
Roads that connect one town to another are primarily for transit and cars, not pedestrians and bikes. However, a street used for strolling, shopping, school crossings, etc. is primarily for local users, not through traffic, and should be designed as such with narrow lanes, bike lanes, bus stops, crosswalks, etc.

Charles Marohn does a pretty good job of explaining this:
http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/charles-marohn/15662/understanding-roads

http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/charles-marohn/15601/45-mph-world