Are speed traps about safety or revenue? It's been a question since the first cop wrote the first speeding ticket, and it was the challenge Thursday for advocates of a high-tech version of the old speed trap: automated red-light cameras.
Legislative advocates of the automated ticketing system said safety was their only concern as they stood in front of a backdrop provided by the National Coalition for Safer Roads, a nonprofit group financed by a vendor of red-light cameras.
American Traffic Solutions helped create the national nonprofit group last summer, not long after it hired two of Connecticut's top 10 lobbying firms, Brown Rudnick and Capitol Strategies.
Legislators line up for red-light cameras.
"It's not about revenues. I want to make that very clear. It's about saving lives," said Rep. Tony Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, the co-chairman the legislature's Transportation Committee.
Advocates say the threat of a ticket every time someone runs a red light is a stronger deterrent than the off-chance a police officer will witness and pursue a violation.
But Guerrera and other advocates, including the House and Senate majority leaders, were unprepared to explain precisely how they propose to define in statute what amounts to a public-private partnership on automated traffic enforcement.
Fines? They are discussing penalties ranging from $50 to $75, less than the $124 proposed last year. Will the vendor get a flat fee for providing the equipment and services or a cut of the tickets? That is uncertain.
The press conference was dominated by questions about revenue and the relationship that municipalities would have with American Traffic Solutions or any other vendor.
"I understand some of those concerns," Guerrera said. As far as revenue for the vendors, he said, "They have a right to recoup their costs."
After a string of pointed questions, Christopher D. Hunter of Advocacy Solutions, the Rhode Island-based government affairs firm hired by the National Coalition for Safer Roads, tried to end the press conference.
"I think we're going to wrap up," he said.
He was shouted down by reporters.
Exhibit A in the case for red-light cameras
Their presentation tried to focus on public safety, featuring a police chief, an expert on traumatic brain injuries and Gary Lapidus, the director of the Injury Prevention Center at Connecticut Children's Medical Center.
Lapidus talked about a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that concluded the cameras saved 159 lives from 2004 to 2008 in 14 cities. They could have saved 815 lives over five years if they had been in place in all 99 cities with populations greater than 200,000.
Connecticut legislators this year are confronted with conflicting studies about the efficacy of red-light cameras and objections over issues ranging from privacy to due process.
The American Civil Liberties Union claims the cameras are ineffective, citing reviews by various police departments and a University of South Florida report that asserted "comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries."
Lapidus said he hopes Connecticut tries the cameras, but control over the sites should rest with police departments, not private vendors, and police should base their decisions on crash data.
He suggested a scientific approach: closely monitor a like number of dangerous intersections with and without the cameras over a period of years to see if the cameras reduce crashes.
Lapidus said he has no financial relationship with American Traffic Solutions or any other vendor.
The cameras have been controversial nationally, with Los Angeles, Houston and Albuquerque discontinuing their systems, according to the ACLU. It cost Houston $4.8 million to terminate its contract with American Traffic.
But they have significant support in Connecticut.
Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, and House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, who play major roles in determining the agendas of both chambers, are prominent supporters, as are the mayors of New Haven and Hamden.
Looney said the legislation will be written to ensure that the cameras do not trap motorists like the iconic motorcycle cops of old, waiting behind billboards to pounce of clueless drives. Signs will be posted warning of the cameras.
"This is not a gotcha effort," Looney said.
This issue is not as simple or as “cut and dried” as one might think.
If getting caught by a camera running a red light doesn’t carry as hefty a punishment as when being caught doing so by a police officer - and is only seen as being akin to a “parking ticket” - then what good is it?
And whether or not the use of such cameras (in spite of their outrageously high expense) actually “saves lives” is VERY debatable - in fact, many locales elsewhere that have installed them and turned them on over the past one or
I can see it now. There will be a sharp increase in the number of license plates being stolen off cars. It will be nearly impossible to prove innocence, and your insurance rates will increase. There too many flaws associated with this technology. It's another method to raise revenues for the state pure and simple. This legislation should be DOA.
Don't believe one word the sponsors of this legislation say. The fines will increase over time along with the manpower necessary to implement this bill. It's a loose loose situation all around. When
Read MoreIt is cut and dry every community that has placed these cursed things will never admit to speed traps or light traps being dangerous but they are the statistic’s prove it! It is all about the money! Once the actual data for deaths and serious accidents are examined from a like period before installation and after installation ALL data shows serious accidents and fatalities go UP after installations! People sporadically react because they can’t afford a ticket then cause serious accidents. Not just here but all over the world, Great Britain had experimented with these cursed things and have now
Read More"Lapidus said he hopes Connecticut tries the cameras, but control over the sites should rest with police departments, not private vendors, and police should base their decisions on crash data."
Crash data is not the only measure. It's much harder to measure the costs of the changes of traffic flow that will be caused by these approaches, but those costs are there. If it's about safety then red-light fines are an uncreative response to widespread disaffection with and adaptation to unresponsive, time-wasting traffic control. People jump red lights partly because they don't want to wait for them when they are
Read MoreWhat you have here is ATS "dog and pony" show.
It is a stunt the scamera vendors like to pull to use "emotion" to push legislation that FINANICALLY benefits the scamera vendors. (here is one from 2007: http://blog.motorists.org/stop-red-light-running-exposed-as-corporate-lo...)
THE RLC ARE A FRAUD!
Most of the "violations" are technical fouls like: right turns on red, stopping over the stop line, and split second mistakes that longer ambers have been proven to stop!
Most RLV crashes are plus 5 events that a RLC WILL NEVER STOP! IN fact the vendors OWN videos proved
Read More"I can see it now. There will be a sharp increase in the number of license plates being stolen off cars. It will be nearly impossible to prove innocence, and your insurance rates will increase. There too many flaws associated with this technology. It's another method to raise revenues for the state pure and simple. This legislation should be DOA."
You sir are nothing short of a moron...
You do realize that if you steal someones license plates, those plates are connected to the vehicles registration...and the registration tells what type of vehicle it is...so to be caught on camera,
Read MoreRed-light cameras are about money, not public safety. In cities where cameras don't meet financial projections, or where the revenue is hijacked by the state, the cameras quickly come down. If they were about safety, policymakers would find ways to keep them up. There are more effective and simple ways to increase intersection safety. A slight increase in the duration of the yellow light can decrease accidents by up to 40% alone, yet few cities will do this since it also cuts violations by as much as 90% (no more money coming in).
The IIHS study referenced in the article
Read MoreLos Angeles stopped using red-light cameras because they caused more rear end collisions because people would see the camera and slam on the brakes.
Who needs cameras?
The cameras (indirectly) block emergency vehicles - because cars stopped at a camera hesitate to get out of the way! Other side effects: Rearenders, local $$$ sent to Oz, AZ or Goldman-Sachs, where it won't come back, and tourists and shoppers driven away.
Worse, a false expectation of safety, because cameras can't stop the real late runners, who cause the accidents. (If cameras worked, camera sellers wouldn't have the crash videos they supply to the media.)
Want safety, no side effects?
To cut car/pedestrian accidents, train your kids not to step out just 'cuz the walk sign
http://www.banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/scamera-vendors-have-pla... The scamera side has pulled these DOG and Pony shows before. Read the link for more info on another Scaemra side Front Group!
"He brings experience. He's been elected."
Mike Clark on endorsing State Sen. Andrew Roraback for the Republican nomination for the 5th Congressional District race.
Get the latest headlines right to your mobile
Visit m.ctmirror.org on your mobile device
FOLLOW US ON: 
PROUD SPONSOR
MINIMUM WAGE IN CONNECTICUT
January 1, 1980 $3.12
January 1, 1981 $3.37
October 1, 1987 $3.75
October 1, 1988 $4.25
April 1, 1991 $4.27
October 1, 1996 $4.77
Septem 1, 1997 $5.18
January 1, 1999 $5.65
January 1, 2000 $6.15
January 1, 2001 $6.40
January 1, 2002 $6.70
January 1, 2003 $6.90
January 1, 2004 $7.10
January 1, 2006 $7.40
January 1, 2007 $7.65
January 1, 2009 $8.00
January 1, 2010 $8.25
PROUD SPONSOR
Printer-friendly version
Send to a friend