Proposal to Install Radar Cameras in Connecticut - Illusion of Solution

A pilot program which would create automated speed enforcement cameras near the intersection of two major Interstates is the latest proposal made by Connecticut's Governor M. Jodi Rell. The proposal is being made to slow down traffic in East Lyme on a section of Interstate 95 which has a speed limit of 50 miles per hour. It is near a left-hand exit for Interstate 395 North (toward Norwich and Plainfield) only a few hundred feet away from an on-ramp allowing traffic from Route 1 to come onto Interstate 95 North and weave over to access Interstate 395 North.

Nobody wants to say but the design of this area of Interstate 95 is quite poor and should be reworked.

According to a press release from Governor Rell's Web site, in November 2007, a horrific accident claimed the lives of three people when an oil tanker truck, a tractor-trailer, and four cars.

While Connecticut State Police report that the accident is still under investigation, it is believed that the tanker truck was going too fast since witnesses claim they saw the truck speeding and making unsafe lane changes minutes before the accident.

While Rell has proposed the idea and it is being forwarded to the Connecticut Department of Public Safety, it is important Connecticut residents understand what automated speed enforcement is and why there are advantages and disadvantages to this system.

Installing automated speed enforcement cameras would be a first for the State of Connecticut.

According to a Connecticut Office of Legislative Research report, photo radar systems detect speeders and capture an image to identify the violator and they do not require law enforcement officers.

According to another OLR report, the system is provided by a vendor who processes the tickets for a per unit return either through a flat fee or percentage of collected fines.

According to Rell's release, these cameras will ticket motorists by mail and that "this technology already exists and is being used, here and abroad, to augment public safety. What I am hearing from law enforcement is, 'Please give us the tools to enhance public safety.' I am heeding that plea."
The OLR Office reports that such systems have been in foreign countries since the 1970's and its implementation in the United States only started 10 years ago.

In 2001, the latest year OLR had statistics for, approximately 40 cities and towns throughout the country use some form of automated traffic enforcement. The report cites that drivers do tend to drive slower, residents in those communities know it exists, and accidents to decrease. According to the OLR, "The actual effects of the use of photo radar are unknown due to the lack of any scientific studies, but the limited reports cite a reduction in traffic crashes".

However, the office has also stated that photo radar is not a widely accepted system and several legislative, judicial, and community acceptance issues surround it.

These mostly deal with legal and constitutional issues such as "privacy rights, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, equal protection considerations, and creating vicarious liability for vehicle owners."

According to this report, if automated traffic enforcement took place in Connecticut, most legal analyses of those issues have led driving to be thought of as a public act and not a private one with government having a stronger role in regulating on public roads than on private property.

However, one of the major objections to video radar systems is the fact that the burden of proof is then placed either on the individual in the photograph or the vehicle owner to prove he is innocent instead of the state proving the case against the accused. To a certain degree, one can say that a burden of proof is similar when officers' ticket individuals for traffic citations since residents must then go to court to "prove" that they in fact were obeying the speed limit by stating that the officer's radar gun was not correctly calibrated.

The report states that Connecticut State Law already allows police to charge the person whom the vehicle is registered to for speeding, eluding police, reckless driving, and evading responsibility and that if the system only identified vehicles through license plates, this could place the burden clearly on the car owner.
In other states, some accused speeders have won their case. In fact, in July 1996 the Anchorage District Court Magistrates found that photo radar was not sufficient enough, without independent corroboration, to convict those caught speeding.

Other states, concerns about photo radar have prompted notification not only to the local community but to all drivers. In Denver, signs were installed on highways warning motorists beforehand what section of the highway had the photo radar.

Rell has not yet stated what the proposed cost for a system would be or what other areas that she would like to see photo radar setup.

The OLR report also stated that unmanned radar enforcement is cheaper than manned radar enforcement. Unmanned radar enforcement costs approximately 75 cents to 85 cents per arrest while using a single officer with a stationery radar unit who stops and arrests violators cost $4.45 per arrest. While over the long-run video radar enforcement could be cheaper, consider the fact that new cameras would need to be installed.

There are rumors currently that Interstate 95 incident management system could be used to catch those violating traffic laws.

According to an OLR Report, the current system was funded with federal money and changing the system's intended purpose may be problematic with the Federal Highway Administration. The real purpose of the system was stated in the report. "The technology allows DOT to monitor traffic conditions along the corridor in real time, warns monitoring personnel when traffic flow begins to slow down or stops, and allows state police and other forms of assistance to be dispatched immediately. The monitoring personnel can then send information to the variable message signs telling motorists of the conditions before they get into the area and, when appropriate, provide an alternate route for them to avoid the congestion."

Other issues center upon setting up a system to videotape feeds from cameras, how long videos records should be kept, on what basis to give those video records to law enforcement personnel, and the number of requests made by others for access to that video. DOT Incident Management Program Coordinator William Stockert said that changes to the hardware and software could allow the system to act as a full-time surveillance system. Stockert said many technical issues abound which would need to be explored including the possibility of hiring additional staff to monitor the system which is predominately used only to monitor traffic conditions. The report also stated that "video surveillance for law enforcement purposes raises the specter of "Big Brother" and loss of privacy and may create public opposition which in turn could jeopardize the usefulness of the system for its original purpose, traffic incident management."

Part of the issue with video surveillance is the posted speed limit that government wants drivers to adhere to. There are actually several stretches of Interstate 95 that have 50 or 55 mile per hour speed limits, some through urban areas and others that are heavily congested or have major intersections.
Actually, according to the New York City Road Web site, the only areas that the speed limit increased from 55 miles per hour to 65 miles per hour is the section between exit 53 in East Haven to exit 74 in Niantic and exit 87 in Groton to the Connecticut/Rhode Island border. The site recommends that safety improvements be made to allow a 65 MPH speed limit from the New York/Connecticut border to New Haven.

While some have claimed increasing the speed limit will lead to people going faster, that is not necessarily the case.
According to the National Motorists Association, an 18-month study of the New York Thruway revealed that the average speed of motorists remained the same at 68 miles per hour despite the fact that the speed limit was increased from 55 miles per hour to 65 miles per hour. The site also states that a study conducted by the Federal Highway Administration, revealed that raising or lowering the speed limit had no effect on the actual travel speeds. The site even goes to say that raising the speed limit to the speed motorists actually go will make the roads safer since when the majority of traffic is going the same speed, traffic flow improves creating fewer accidents.

Perhaps research should be conducted along the Interstate 95 corridor and find out the "average" speed of motorists. Based on travelling the highway on a frequent basis, I believe the average speed is probably 72 miles per hour even in areas where the speed limit is 50 miles per hour.

While politicians like Governor Rell report that highways are getting more dangerous, the National Motorists Association reports that "our nation's fatality rate (deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) is the lowest it has ever been. The total number of fatalities has also stayed relatively stable for several years. They do occasionally increase, but given that our population and the distance the average person drives are also increasing, this is not surprising, nor is it cause for alarm."

I do not believe anyone is arguing with the fact we all want safe highways and that drivers that drive aggressively over the posted speed limit should be punished. That said; I believe that the speed of traffic is often higher than the posted speed limit and one can safely travel at higher speeds somewhat higher than the speed limit depending on traffic volume, weather conditions, and familiarity of the unique characteristics of the road based on frequent travel of it.

Additionally, I see how creating such a system, especially implemented on other Connecticut interstates, could further bog down our already clogged court systems. Governor Rell's proposal actually poses more questions than solutions. It only goes to show that complicated problems cannot be solved with a quip answer that can be given on a 15-second sound bite on television.