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.

Darrell Lucas February 02, 2012 at 04:43 PM
They dont take in effect the angle at which the driver sees the light? And what angle are you reffering to? 90° when the driver is under the light? That driver ran through yellow and most likely hit the gas. Allowing that behavior fuels the problem. A yellow light is a signal for you to slow down not hit the gas. Also when an accident happends like the one above you have photo evidence of the accident. Thumbs up to that.
Darrell Lucas February 02, 2012 at 04:45 PM
And you say it's about money sure. But that cop who gives you a ticket is paid with tax payer money and part of that money comes from the ticket you have to pay. Same thing.
Jim Hartzell February 02, 2012 at 08:17 PM
The thing with the cameras, is that they ticket the car, no matter who is driving, so if someone else is driving the car, guess who gets the ticket.
Darrell Lucas February 02, 2012 at 11:38 PM
I would only hand my car over to someone responsible and who I would exspect to pay that ticket. If they wouldnt do that then why are you letting them drive your car!
Brian Ceccarelli February 03, 2012 at 03:49 PM
Every city in Connecticut that decides to install red light cameras, will go bankrupt in about a couple of years. When it becomes publicly known that red light camera companies exploit physics errors in the standards DOTs use to set yellow light durations, every city will get hit with class action lawsuits backrupting the city. The faulty standards systematically force drivers to run red lights. All the money that each city has collected will have to be returned. Since city will have handed all that money over to the red light camera company, the city will have to come up with millions of dollars on their own. A city cannot enforce legislation which violates the laws of nature. A city cannot enforce legislation forbidding gravity. A city cannot enforce legislation forbidding Newton's Second of Law of Motion. But that is exactly what cities do by enforcing today's traffic engineering standards. In North Carolina, we have already proved what is going on. It is just a matter of time when the info goes public. The Town of Cary, North Carolina, is first in line for enacting laws forbidding the laws of physics . . . see redlighrobber.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 »