[ad_1]
August 18 – Speed cameras, red light cameras and now noise detection cameras will be tracking your car on some streets across the state.
Cameras that can automatically sense when a car's exhaust or stereo system reaches a noise level — in this case 80 decibels — are the latest technology in a growing arsenal of automated enforcement options available to Connecticut police departments.
New noise pollution legislation passed by the state legislature this year and set to go into effect July 1 gives police departments the option of using automated listening devices to detect when a vehicle reaches 80 decibels — the level of a blender or vacuum cleaner — and sending the vehicle owner a ticket. After a written warning, fines range from $100 to $250 for repeat offenders.
“Photographic Noise Violation Monitors” are decibel monitors that trigger a camera to photograph a car’s license plate. New York City began installing the cameras last year, with fines ranging from $800 to $2,500.
The new technology doesn't appear to be coming to Eastern Connecticut anytime soon, according to police department representatives from across the region, but the door is now open.
A bill to allow the cameras was introduced by Rep. Bobby Gibson, D-Bloomfield, but ultimately passed as part of a bond package. Those who testified in favor of the bill highlighted the growing use of loud silencers manufactured on the secondary market and the increase in street sweeps.
But there are those who doubt this technology.
Jay Pepper, executive director of the National Motorists Association, said the legislation was problematic.
“Do we really want to live in a society where everything is monitored?” Pepper said. “We have problems with how much we’ve become an automated society to the point where we’re completely monitored.”
Pepper said loud mufflers can be annoying, but he expects lower-income people to be most affected.
“Even if the technology is wrong and someone has a defense, you still have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get it dismissed,” he said.
He said he was concerned that the technology had not been well tested and that the state was pushing technology that had not yet been well vetted.
“My understanding is that the intention is to go after modified mufflers that make these loud noises, but other people, anyone with an older vehicle who doesn't have the means to buy a new muffler, are the ones who will be penalized,” Pepper said.
As with other technologies, this project will end up being a “revenue-generating scheme,” Pepper said.
“I guarantee there will be a backlash,” he added.
The legislation requires municipalities to adopt an ordinance to use the cameras and conduct a violation hearing before issuing tickets. However, unlike red-light cameras, towns and cities do not need any additional state approval for where or why they can install cameras. Red-light and speed cameras were approved by the Legislature in 2023.
In addition to the executive order, Groton Township Police Chief L.J. Fusaro said one requirement before pursuing this type of enforcement includes purchasing specialized equipment and training.
“The desire to do this effort lies with our city council, but from an implementation standpoint we are not prepared to do it in the near future,” he said.
While the Groton Township Police Department handled 112 noise complaints last year, most appeared to be related to loud music, neighbor problems, noisy people or fireworks. Waterford, similarly, handled 101 noise complaints last year, only four of which involved vehicles. Police Chief Mark Balestracci said he is not considering using cameras at this time.
Norwich Police Chief John Perry said he had heard about non-genuine exhaust systems that could rise to ridiculous levels, and that he would rather see officers in the community address the problem than hand out automated tickets.
“Technology is great and makes our job easier. But we have bigger problems, like speeding or distracted driving,” Perry said. “Caution is a big part of policing and not everyone deserves a ticket.”
London's new police chief, Brian Wright, said the department dealt with 530 noise complaints last year, although it was unclear how many of the complaints involved vehicles.
“As with any new technology, due diligence must be done to evaluate and assess the feasibility of its application,” he said of noise cameras.
Some considerations include cost and the ability, as much as possible, to limit the devices to imaging only vehicle license plates rather than vehicle occupants, Wright said.
The legislation states that “municipalities shall make efforts to locate devices randomly.”
“Excessive vehicle noise is a concern and a quality-of-life issue in many communities across the state,” Wright said. “We are actively working to address noise pollution concerns by responding to complaints and taking appropriate action when possible.”
State Rep. Devin Carney, R-Lyme, was a skeptic of the bill and voted against the legislation while it was in committee.
“I had concerns from a privacy perspective and I was concerned that we were moving too far toward using cameras everywhere for law enforcement,” Carney said. “That really concerns me. I understand the noise issue, but adding more cameras kind of bothers me.”
Sen. Cathy Austin, D-Sprague, said the importance of cameras depends on where you live. She thinks cameras will be needed in urban areas where there is a higher concentration of housing.
“This technology wouldn’t be valuable in Spring, for example, but it might be valuable in Norwich,” Austin said.
Austin said there is more of a push in western Connecticut cities, where they are creating laws to restrict the use of gasoline-powered landscaping equipment in exchange for the use of electric tools to reduce noise.
Austin said that while she was serving as Spring's first elected woman, the city adopted a noise ordinance and purchased a decibel meter, but she found that problems arose with the backup beeps from delivery trucks.
g.smith@theday.com
[ad_2]
Source