Laura Glesby Photo
Sign prepared by safe-streets advocates listing names of cyclists and pedestrians killed by cars.
Thomas Breen Photo
Roland Lemar at helm of the legislature’s Transportation Committee.
New Haven State Rep. Roland Lemar has accomplished a years-long quest of passing legislation to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety — minus speed cameras that topped local advocates’ wish list.
Lemar, co-chair of the state legislature’s Transportation Committee, co-sponsored H.B. 5429, an omnibus traffic safety bill that incorporated numerous measures sought by activists concerned about carnage on New Haven streets. The bill passed the Senate last Wednesday night by a 32 – 3 vote, following a unanimous vote May 19 in the House. The legislation, which now heads to the governor’s desk for an expected signature, includes greater local control of speed limits and increased fines for distracted driving or “dooring” cyclists, among other provisions.
Lemar said in an interview that he is particularly encouraged by the bill’s establishment of a Vision Zero Council, an interagency body that will make data-based recommendations with the aim of eliminating all transportation-related fatalities. He said that the council, which will be the first of its kind in the country, will hold future transportation commissioners and legislators accountable to its long-term goals.
“This is the culmination of three or four years of really hard work, of how we take both next steps to ingraining pedestrian safety into the minds and hearts of road users across the state, but also ingrained this ethos in state government in a permanent way,” Lemar said. “The idea of having zero fatalities, that’s got to be at the forefront.”
The bill comes as a big win for the New Haven Democrat, who has pushed for traffic safety efforts since his tenure on the Board of Alders. The Safe Streets Coalition of New Haven released a statement that thanked the legislator for his efforts. The group came out in full force at the bill’s testimonial hearings and coordinated outreach to local residents and legislators to garner support for the bill. Meanwhile, city transit chief Doug Hausladen, whose conversations with Lemar helped spark the provision on local speed limit control, called him a “champion,” noting that the city can now vote to designate slow-speed “pedestrian zones” in parts of downtown or some residential streets. The bill’s attention to smaller, technical details like “stop, not yield” policy, is especially important, he said.
“On both sides of the crosswalk, drivers will need to stop completely when encountering a pedestrian,” Hausladen explained. “It will start bending the curve of driver behavior towards a more pedestrian-friendly Connecticut.”
H.B. 5429 found strong support from both the commissioner and deputy commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation, Lemar said, helping to push it over the finish line with near-unanimous approval. He said that he has received positive feedback from the governor’s office and hopes to arrange a signing ceremony in the coming weeks.
Still, the legislative success came with “mixed feelings” for Lemar, who, while “thrilled” at the bill’s broad support, attributed part of its success to the rise of traffic fatalities in the last few years increasing public awareness on the issue. “I’m still watching these tragedies occur on a frequent basis, and now we have even greater obligations to do more.”
Speed Cameras Hit Another Speed Bump
Thomas Breen Photo
Speed sign on Dixwell Ave.
Notably absent from the bill is a provision that would have allowed municipalities like New Haven to test speed cameras at certain school, hospital, and construction zones.
Much of Safe Streets’ advocacy centered around the technology, which was removed from the bill before it passed the House.
Automated enforcement technology, a broader term that includes other devices like red light cameras, have been historically opposed by the ACLU and Connecticut NAACP. In submitted testimony in opposition to H.B. 5429, the ACLU cited concerns that license plate data would become available to state police and federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Speed cameras could also violate due process rights if drivers do not receive the citation in a reasonable timeframe, the group argued.
“Connecticut’s roads must become safer for all users, but the solutions proposed by this bill are too punitive to be the best solution,” the testimony reads. “Many of the provisions of this bill, however, are likely to impose serious harms on people – mostly lower-income people, people in Connecticut cities, and people of color – without any proven concomitant benefits to safety. Municipalities that locate cameras in communities of color will cause drivers of color to disproportionately bear the costs.”
Safe Streets organizers countered these concerns by saying cameras could be equitably placed to avoid disproportionate enforcement. Multiple highway construction union workers, organizer Lorena Mitchell noted, testified in the cameras’ favor, recalling the dangers of working in areas with unenforced speed limits. Safe Streets cites similar programs in New York City and other municipalities that have been successful in slowing drivers. Proponents also say the cameras would actually reduce the need for police officer enforcement.
“These removed parts of the bill would have allowed for speed cameras in school,
hospital and work zones, protecting some of our most vulnerable residents,” Safe Streets’ statement read. “Speed cameras are proven to reduce speeding, save lives and reduce injuries when crashes do occur, and decrease potentially biased police interactions.”
New Haven Safe Streets organizer Rob Rocke, who has been involved with previous pushes for automated enforcement, expressed frustration with enduring opposition. The bill, he noted, would have permitted a pilot program for speed cameras at a maximum of 12 locations, meaning officials could review the impacts at a limited scope before making judgements on the technology.
“From my vantage point as a public advocate, about why this keeps getting derailed — it feels like it’s an active passion to derail it and not a thoughtful process for what’s being presented.”
New Haven Safe Streets advocate and transportation planner Carolyn Lusch added that the group has observed “ubiquitous” but “latent” support for speed cameras from New Haveners during various community management team meetings. Though many express interest in having speed cameras installed in their neighborhoods to increase safety, residents often aren’t even aware that such technology is currently illegal in Connecticut, she said.
Lemar himself moved to strike the provision during its House amendment process, citing the ACLU’s opposition and a general lack of consensus amongst lawmakers on the issue. This is the third time automated enforcement has failed to pass the state legislature, he said.
“My goal isn’t to just do it,” Lemar told the Independent. “My goal is to do it right. I didn’t feel like I’d satisfied all of the concerns that people had, so rather than try and force it through, I’ll try to continue to work on this a little bit more to make sure people feel good about where we’re going.”
Speed cameras will be on the table in future conversations, though likely not in the next legislative session, he said. Lemar noted having several “positive” conversations that indicated a willingness to reconsider speed cameras from people that had previously opposed them outright.
Despite the setback, Mitchell said she was proud of the group, noting that the speed camera provision had successfully cleared the Transportation, Finance, and Judiciary committees, farther than any similar effort made in the past. Rocke, recalling a lack of action after the 2009 Complete Streets legislation, said that the group’s efforts on H.B. 5429 are far from over.
“We need to be the bean counters on this and make sure that things happen.”
Red Light and Speed Cameras have been in use in other US states for decades promoting safer roads. In Europe they have reduced road accidents by nearly 40 %. Also, always looking abroad, we could learn a thing or two from the laws that are being enacted by the EU to make street safer including a boat load of technological stuff that is now mandatory on cars.
We should pilot the cameras and then discuss the results before implementing them universally across the board in CT. Refusing to allow this technology to be used even in a pilot form seems to be a dumb move.