CT Considers Red Light Safety Cameras At Intersections (POLL)

Do you think cameras at intersections are a good idea? See the videos and take the poll.


As Connecticut considers approving legislation that would implement red light safety cameras at dangerous intersections, there is growing concern throughout the country as to whether or not the cameras violate the Constitution.  

State Sen. Michael McLaughlin, R-Danbury, said that he has always opposed the red light cameras. "I think if someone is issued a moving violation, it should be handed to the person. The driver may not be the owner of the car."

McLaughlin did note that Danbury, a city he represents along with Bethel, New Fairfield and Sherman, has cameras on many street corners that collect information, but none are used for moving violations.

In states that have implemented the cameras, there has been an increase in state revenues. According to a Sachem Patch article, in

"One camera in Houston issues 975 citations a day, at $75 a pop," according to a Fox News video

Fines range from $50 to as much as $300, raising questions about whether these cameras are being used as a form of taxation. Other debates range for the need to reduce accidents at red lights to whether or not it is morally right for an impartial camera to issue fines. 

Debates aside, red-light running is said to be the leading cause of urban crashes, according to the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, which also states that more people are injured in crashes involving red-light running than in any other crash type.

According to National Highway Traffic Association, there were 319 traffic fatalities on Connecticut’s roadways in 2010, a 43% increase from 2009 when there were 223 traffic fatalities. Triple A reports that these 319 deaths cost the state $1.9 billion.

To see a video that shows how the cameras work, click here.

To see a short video from the PBS show, "The McLaughlin Group", (no relation to the senator) watch as they discuss the constitutionality of the camers, click here. Then, take our poll.

What do you think? Should you be ticketed by a camera, with no chance to defend yourself? Or is worth having the cameras to keep the streets safer and raise money for the state??

Take the poll and add your thoughts in the comments below.

Jim February 01, 2012 at 06:45 PM
The cameras (indirectly) block emergency vehicles - because cars stopped at a camera hesitate to get out of the way! Other side effects: Rearenders, $$$ 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 came on. To cut nuisance running (a fraction of a second late), lengthen the yellows. It's cheap to do so can be done all over town. The dangerous real late (multiple seconds) runs won't be stopped by the mere presence of a camera, because the runner won't know (a lost tourist) or won't remember (a distracted or impaired "local") that there's a camera up ahead. They're not doing it on purpose! To cut the real late runs, improve the visual cues that say, "Intersection ahead." Florida's DOT found that better pavement markings (paint!) cut running by up to 74%. Make the signal lights bigger, add backboards, and put the poles on the NEAR side of the corner. Put brighter bulbs in the street lights at intersections. Put up lighted name signs for the cross streets. Who needs cameras and their side effects?
beekielou February 01, 2012 at 11:48 PM
Ok, so what happens when someone is following you too closely, the light turns yellow, and you stop to avoid getting a ticket? You get rear-ended! This has been a consequence of the red light cameras in California. They shorten the amount of time for the yellow light, which means that a driver had better stop quickly. Don't agree to this voluntarily.
Stephen February 02, 2012 at 11:53 AM
RLC are a fraud! From the IIHS PHONY RLC study that was just TORN APART in a PEER REVIEW: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3699.asp Quote: "The USF researchers then used the IIHS data in an attempt to replicate the IIHS statistical analysis. The critique concluded that IIHS failed to disclose results that contained negative values for red light cameras. "Thus, cities using cameras are estimated to have a 25 percent higher red light running fatality rate in the 'after' period relative to cities not using cameras, despite the greater reported percent reduction in the former," the critique found. " In Kansas City: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3703.asp Quote: "Red light camera vendor American Traffic Solutions (ATS) is furious that police in Kansas City, Missouri released a report last week evaluating photo enforcement intersections without giving the company a chance to modify the data. In many cities, ATS plays a key role in authoring such studies, but in this case the Kansas City police department went its own way, arriving at conclusions consistent with other, independent research on the topic." ATS is behind front groups like National Coaltion for "safer" roads. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3585.asp FIGHT THE RLC FRAUD! Ban the CAMS! www.motorists.org www.banthecams.org www.camerafraud.com www.bhspi.org
cheers February 06, 2012 at 03:55 PM
These articles should help clarify the issue: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/08/local/la-me-0608-red-light-20110607 http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_west_valley/peoria/peoria-turns-off-red-light-cameras http://warondriving.com/post/16875838390/red-light-camera-truth http://www.gazette.com/articles/cameras-131693-consider-denver.html http://warondriving.com/post/15042903265/fl-red-light-cameras http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/objections http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3413.asp http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/cameras-2877-red-safety.html http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/berwyn/topstories/x338367299/Berwyn-s-3rd-red-light-camera-criticized-by-residents-aldermen?zc_p=0
Plate Hood July 03, 2012 at 03:43 AM
The Photo Enforcement program has never been about safety. How can blinding and distracting drivers with a searing flash improve anyones "safety". The entire Photo Enforcement program is nothing short of a money grab and nothing else. I protect my privacy and hard earned dollars from photo enforcement with the PlateHood. http://www.platehood.com


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »