Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts red-light camera ordinance; language referring to electronic devices draws opposition over possible speed-camera use
Summary
Bristol’s City Council approved amendments authorizing red-light traffic cameras but retained broad language covering electronic devices that public commenters and some council members said could pave the way for speed cameras without a separate public hearing; the ordinance passed 5–2.
Bristol’s City Council on Tuesday voted to amend the Motor Vehicles and Traffic chapter of the city code to permit red-light traffic enforcement using electronic camera systems, approving the ordinance on a 5–2 vote.
The ordinance as adopted updates Chapter 14 to allow photographic and electronic enforcement at intersections designated under Connecticut law as high-injury intersections. Council members and staff said the change is intended to target the city’s worst crash locations and that any deployment will require further steps — including a Department of Transportation application, a public bid process, vendor vetting and a 30-day warning period after cameras are installed before fines begin.
The meeting’s public comment period featured two speakers who urged caution. Matthew Biden said he opposed automatic license-plate readers and speed cameras, citing vendor reliability problems and privacy concerns: “I come here today to speak in opposition to the imposition of speed cameras in Bristol,” he said, adding that “these cameras may be aimed at wrongdoers and criminals, but they do record everyone.” Cheryl Tibo asked the council to remove language that would allow speed cameras to be authorized without a separate hearing and to publish the police commission’s prior red-light research before expanding enforcement.
Several council members said the ordinance itself sets up the process but does not automatically install speed cameras. Opponents pointed out that the final language uses broad terms — “electronic devices” and similar phrasing — that could be read to cover speed enforcement and argued that any move to deploy speed cameras should be the subject of its own public hearing. One council member said they would vote no for that reason; the record shows the ordinance passed 5–2.
City staff described intended limits under state law: towns may use automated enforcement only at intersections that meet Connecticut’s high-injury criteria, and receipts from red-light enforcement are statutorily restricted to intersection-safety improvements. Officials said typical next steps will include a public bid process, community outreach about vendors and an initial warning period to encourage compliance rather than raise revenue.
The amendment’s adoption does not itself start any camera installations; it only revises the ordinance to permit electronic enforcement in the future. Any deployment will require further administrative approvals and public procurement steps before cameras are placed and fines issued.
