Central MA Transportation

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

H-3512

Today, 9 July 2008, the House Transportation Committee is scheduled to hear arguments on H-3512. Jennifer Flanagan, state rep from Leominster and candidate for the Senate this fall is on that committee.

“AN ACT PERMITTING THE USE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL VIOLATION MONITORING SYSTEM DEVICES AS A MEANS OF PROMOTING TRAFFIC SAFETY IN THE CITIES OF THE COMMONWEALTH.”

The bill, should it become law, would allow not just red-light cameras but speed cameras as well. In all probability, it would also allow stop sign cameras which are also now technically feasible.

Since the current focus, and the proposed Fitchburg ordinance, is on red-light cameras I’ll address those at this time.


There are 2 types of red-light running:
intentional and unintentional

There are 2 types of unintentional red-light running:

Type 1 is totally blew it, driving right through the intersection. Sure the camera operators can send out a ticket, and maybe the camera evidence can be used to establish fault if there’s a collision but enforcement cameras cannot prevent this type of driver error so there’s no public safety benefit from the camera in this case.

Type 2 is stopping beyond the stop line, caused by driver ineptitude or carelessness. Unfortunately, there is a large percentage, perhaps even a majority of drivers that are either incapable of putting the vehicle where it should be when it should be there, or too lazy to pay enough attention to their driving to get it right. While this is an annoyance to many, this type of red light running does not result in collisions. While cameras may be effective in reducing the occurance of this type of red-light running there will be no public safety benefit. Note that I wrote “may be effective”, because if they were effective they’d have run the companies that sell and/or operate the cameras out of business by now but with the exception of one Rhode Island company (whose financial difficulties are likely cause by poor management) they’re still in business. So in this instance the cameras only serve to generate a new revenue stream for government, companies that sell/operate the cameras and eventually the insurance companies.

There are a variety of reasons why people intentionally run red-lights. I could engage in a lengthy discussion of those reasons but that is not neccessary. Let’s just say that drivers do it because they can without any consequence. That means that they don’t expect to get ticketed and there is no danger of a collision. The expectation of getting a ticket due to camera enforcement may alter driver behavior (which it has been shown can result in an increase in rear end collisions). Still, since there’s no danger of colliding with another vehicle with current driver behavior, the traffic camera has no public safety benefit, it’s just there to generate revenue.

BOTTOM LINE - this is just another money grab cloaked in a public safety argument. The real effect is to pick motorists pockets to fund things that have nothing to do with driving.


UPDATE 7/13/2008

07/10/08 H Bill reported favorably by committee as changed and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means

I sent a copy of the Swampscott report as e-mail attachments to State Reps Flanagan and DiNatale and Sen Antonioni.

From Rep DiNatale on the same day the e-mail was sent - "thank you for taking the time to contact me. I will review the data. Best wishes Steve"

From Sen Antonini one day after the e-mail - "The bill is still in the House. I will take a close look at the bill if it gets to the Senate side." and he's not even running for re-election.

From Rep Flanagan 4 business days after the e-mail, and the transportation committee report on the bill - ""
That's right nothing, no update on the status of the bill, no comment on her vote, not even an acknowledgement of receipt of the email. That doesn't sound to me like someone that wants/deserves my/your vote for a seat in the state senate.


Also related and on the agenda for the Public Safety Committee this Wednesday 7/16 is:
15-08. Councillor Thomas J. Conry to implement automated photographic traffic enforcement systems in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws.

Update 7/23

The Public Safety Committee meeting on 7/16 was cancelled and resceduled for Thursday 7/24. Unlike Anonymous I do not think it is a forgone conclusion that it will pass. Even if it does it must then go to the finance committee and if the legislature does not pass H-3512 it would also need to go to legislative affairs so the city can request a home rule petition. The legislature has not passed any home rule petitions for camera enforcement to date.

As for the likelyhood of the legislature passing H-3512 this session, I think is possible but unlikely. Now that the bill is in ways and means it has attracted the attention of organizations like the National Motorist Association. I suspect there will be significant opposition at the state level to stop it's passage.

Of course all politics is local so people could if made aware of the petition could show up at the council meetings or the committee meeting to oppose the petition.

1 Comments:

  • At 7/21/2008 08:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This petition will prevail, it seems city politics tried to eliminate a cop from traffic when that didn't work they eliminated traffic.

    That a boy public safety chair!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home