Bristol officials hear heated public debate over red‑light, school‑bus camera plan

Chief Mark Morello delivered a data‑driven presentation Jan. 19 to the Bristol Police Commission proposing the deployment of automated traffic enforcement devices (ATED) — commonly called red‑light, speed and school‑bus cameras — under Connecticut Public Act 23‑116 and Public Act 24‑107.

Morello said Connecticut law requires a Connecticut Department of Transportation approval process that limits installations to intersections meeting crash or speeding thresholds and restricts the number of cameras per qualified census tract. He told commissioners Bristol has 149 red‑light crashes citywide and 44 intersections meeting the statutory minimum of two red‑light crashes over three years, and that the city will need to submit a comprehensive plan to CT DOT and undergo reassessment every three years. He described vendor responsibilities, routine calibration, an appeals process, and a 30‑day warning period after cameras go live. Morello said the program is intended as a “force multiplier,” not a replacement for officers.

The presentation prompted extensive public comment. Supporters recounted personal crashes and near‑misses and urged prompt action to protect schoolchildren and pedestrians. "We have to protect kids," a resident said during public comment, citing scooter and school‑bus near misses. The Board of Fire Commissioners provided a written endorsement, with its representative telling the commission that red‑light cameras reduce risks to firefighters and other first responders.

Opponents raised constitutional, fairness and privacy concerns. A retired Bristol police officer argued automated systems remove officers’ discretion and may impose fines on vehicle owners who were not the driver; he cited a prior Missouri court decision on municipal camera ordinances. Other residents and commenters questioned vendor transparency, data retention policies, calibration frequency, yellow‑light timing, whether cameras are used as revenue sources, and whether cameras would be turned on during hours when no officers are present.

Mayor Ellen Zapposaso and Chief Morello addressed several of those concerns in the meeting: they said ATED citations are civil, do not carry DMV points, and that state law prescribes how revenue can be used — specifically for transportation, mobility and traffic infrastructure improvements. The mayor said any vendor procurement would follow a public RFP process and that proposed local ordinances will be drafted with due‑process protections and an appeals mechanism. The chief confirmed license‑plate readers (LPRs) used for stolen‑vehicle interdiction are separate systems and that ATED evidence must be independently reviewed by a municipal officer before a fine is issued.

Commissioners asked for written follow‑ups on several technical items — vendor lists, calibration schedules, exact crash‑count methodology, camera mounting and angle practices, weather exemptions, data‑security protections, and how revenues would be allocated in compliance with state law. The commission did not vote on approving ATED deployment; Mayor Zapposaso said the item will remain under advisement, the commission will gather answers and return the topic to a future meeting, and that if it moves forward it will be referred to the ordinance committee for drafting local language before a council vote.

The meeting’s next procedural step will be publication of the cited public acts and additional OLR summaries for public review; commissioners asked staff to post the information and the questions raised during public comment.

The commission did not adopt a final policy or ordinance at the meeting.