Legislative Finance Committee Favors Red Light Bill
A controversial bill to allow red light enforcement cameras at intersections in Connecticut gained backing from a second key legislative committee Monday — the finance committee, which voted 31-19 to approve it — even though some legislators have begun expressing impatience with the fact that no one really knows exactly what they are supporting.
Monday’s vote advanced the measure toward further consideration in another committee — the planning and development committee, probably — and then, presumably, votes in the full state House and Senate.
Finance committee co-chairwoman Patricia Widlitz, D-Guilford, called the bill a “work in progress” and urged that it be moved forward for more work to further refine it. Other supporters echoed those words.
Probably no bill during the 2012 legislative session, which is set to conclude in just over three weeks, has been referred to more often than the red-light camera bill as a “work in progress” — in arguments by legislators asking that it be approved by a committee, and moved forward in the process so that its language can eventually be worked out.
As now written, the bill would enable 19 cities and towns — those with a minimum population of 48,000 — to enforce red light compliance with cameras. The municipalities would issue tickets by mail to the registered owners of the violating vehicles, imposing a $50 fine, plus an additional $15 administrative fee.
When the bill cleared the transportation committee a month ago, that panel’s co-chairman called it a “work in progress” and said the list of eligible cities and towns probably would be pared down to “maybe six or seven communities that really came out strong for this.” In the weeks since then, the wording of the bill has remained the same — even though, again, supporters on the finance committee said there are “discussions” and “negotiations” underway that will pare it back to a smaller number that varied from speaker to speaker from “two or three” up to a half dozen.”
Only unofficial information has been available in hallways of the Capitol complex in Hartford, but so far the speculation is that six municipalities — whose officials have been pushing hard for authorization to use enforcement cameras at intersections in their towns or cities — will be included in the bill, if it is indeed pared back. Those six are said to be: New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport, Manchester, Hamden, and East Hartford.
Opponents of the bill cited concerns about intrusion by “Big Brother” on citizens’ privacy or said the cameras would make violators out of law-abiding citizens by ticketing them if they make a safe near-stop for a right turn on red, but do not completely cease motion.
Proponents said that everyone in society by now is aware they they are on camera when they go through a toll booth or enter a convenience store, and the cameras at dangerous intersections are an acceptable price to pay for safer streets.
6 Responses to Legislative Finance Committee Favors Red Light Bill
About Capitol Watch

The Hartford Courant’s Capitol Watch blog provides insightful and in-depth coverage of Connecticut politics... read more- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
NEW! CT Politics App.
Courant.com brings you the latest CT political news, blogs, tweets and photos, powered by the Hartford Courant and FOX CT.
Download it now:
Recent Posts
- DeLauro, Esty Slam 20-Week Abortion Bill in House
- Markley To Convene Informational Hearing on Fluoride in Drinking Water
- Malloy, Utilities: We’re Ready for the Storms
- Sharkey Joins Biden To Push Gun Violence Prevention Legislation
- NTSB, Blumenthal Demand Metro-North Change Safety Rules after Worker’s Death
Recent Comments
- Don Pesci on Sharkey Joins Biden To Push Gun Violence Prevention Legislation
- Tom Catalina on Another Hat in the Ring for State GOP Chair
- Johngaltwhereru on Perry Strikes More Diplomatic Tone in Hartford
- just you on DeLauro, Esty Slam 20-Week Abortion Bill in House
- The Conn-servative on DeLauro, Esty Slam 20-Week Abortion Bill in House
Categories
- 2014 Election
- 2016 Presidential election
- Abortion
- Amtrak
- Andrew Roraback, R
- beer
- Board of Regents for Higher Education
- Brendan Sharkey
- Brian Durand
- Brown Rudnick
- Busway
- Carroll Hughes
- casinos
- Cato Institute
- CCM
- census
- Chase Rogers
- Chris Caruso
- Chris Christie
- Chris Dodd
- Chris Donovan
- Chris Murphy
- Chris Murphy, D
- Chris Shays
- CL&P
- coffee
- Columbine High School
- Congress
- Connecticut
- CRRA
- D-SNAP
- Dan Esty
- David Walker
- DC
- DCCC
- Democrats
- Denise Merrill
- Donald Williams
- Drugs
- Economy
- Education
- Elections 2012
- Elizabeth Esty, D
- Environment
- Eric Coleman
- Ernie Newton
- Federal budget
- Gambling
- General Assembly
- George Jepsen
- George W. Bush
- Gov. Dannel Malloy
- Greenwich
- Gun control
- Hartford
- Health
- Henry Kissinger
- higher education
- Hillary Clinton
- Immigration
- Jerry Labriola
- Jim Himes, D
- Joan Hartley
- Joe Biden
- Joe Courtney, D
- Joe Lieberman
- Joe McGee
- John DeStefano
- John Henry Decker, R
- John Kissel
- John Larson, D
- John McKinney
- John Rowland
- Jonathan Pelto
- Journalism
- Kevin Lembo
- Labor
- Larry Cafero
- Linda McMahon, R
- lottery
- Lowell Weicker
- Mark Boughton
- Mark Greenberg
- Mark Ojakian
- Martin Looney
- Matthew Hennessy
- MetroNorth
- Michael Fedele
- Michelle Obama
- Mitt Romney
- Nancy DiNardo
- Nancy Wyman
- Newtown
- Paul Formica, R
- Paul Ryan
- Pedro Segarra
- Penny Bacchiochi
- Penny Bacchiochi
- People Magazine
- Planned Parenthood
- President Obama
- Ralph Nader
- Republicans
- Richard Blumenthal
- Rosa DeLauro, D
- Roy Occhiogrosso
- Sandy
- Sandy Hook
- Sandyhook
- social media
- State budget
- State of Connecticut
- Steve Obsitnik, R
- Still Revolutionary
- Susan Herbst
- taxes
- teacher unions
- Thomas Peterffy
- Tom Foley
- Tom Ritter
- Toni Walker
- Transportation
- Trees
- U.S. House, 1st District
- U.S. House, 2nd District
- U.S. House, 3rd District
- U.S. House, 4th District
- U.S. House, 5th District
- U.S. Senate
- UConn
- Uncategorized
- United Illuminating
- Utilities
- Voices For Children
- Washington
- Wayne Winsley, R
- weather
- West Hartford
- William Tong
- women
- WWE
- Yale University
- Yankee Institute
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --





Naturally the Finance Committee would approve such a thing but it’s not about the money. Yeah, right.
It’s all about revenue and nothing about public safety. To protest, I will not bring my spending dollars to any of the cities that install these lights.
I do not get fined $65.00 dollars if I walk into a convience store or thru a toll booth.
It is absolutely about revenue.
“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin
This is a terrible bill that needs to be defeated. In virtually every case, simply adding 1.0 seconds to the yellow intervals on the lights will reduce red light violations by MORE than red light cameras. There is one, and ONLY one reason to use red light cameras instead of safer and longer yellow intervals and that reason is $$$$$$$$$$.
Red light cameras are a revenue scam because better engineering is more effective to reduce violations AND red light cameras often increase the accident rates at camera intersections. It should be against the principles of any traffic engineer to increase accident risks to collect more revenue, but politicians often put so much pressure on engineers that they are forced to favor more revenue instead of more safety.
Read the science on our website and if it makes any sense to you, start calling your state legislators to oppose passage of any bill authorizing red light cameras. Also call your local official to oppose any attempts to use them in your area.
James C. Walker, National Motorists Association, http://www.motorists.org, Ann Arbor, MI
The government are doing their best to serve the people in their jurisdiction. Installing the red lights in the intersections, toll booth and convenience store is one of the idea that they think to have a safer street.