Submitted by NewsHugh t3_125zzo4 in Connecticut
Comments
_343_Guilty_Spark__ t1_je74ni7 wrote
Route 8 loves setting up work zones around blind corners with absolutely zero signs, cones or any other type of indication of upcoming hazards
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea19hr wrote
The DOT has strict regulations for how work zones should be marked. If you feel like a work zone has come up unexpectedly, it's very possible that the contractor is violating these regulations. If/when it happens to you again I would genuinely recommend calling the DOT to report what you see.
The-Copilot t1_je6vrve wrote
So you only get flagged if you are going 80+mph.
Most people go 70-80mph and if you are doing more than that past a work zone you are a dick.
Seems decently reasonable to me.
DeconstructionistWax t1_je73jge wrote
I think it’s 15 over, not necessarily 80+. If the work zone speed is 55, 70+ would be the point that it triggers.
I still think it’s reasonable though
The-Copilot t1_je7b28z wrote
Yeah I have no issue with them trying to protect people working on the roads.
If they start putting them up all over the highway then we riot.
Especially if they put the where the highway goes from 65mph to 50mph. Cops love to sit there.
L-V-4-2-6 t1_je7rg6f wrote
Lol, you don't think they'll do that eventually? This is how it all starts. Boiling frog apologue and all that.
optifreebraun t1_je80bjv wrote
Yup, anything that raises revenue will just keep creeping up, particularly when you have private companies profiting from the cameras and lobbying our government officials.
Just look at how the first federal income tax highest bracket was 5%. Or how the Alternative Minimum Tax was intended to hit the 155 highest income families but then by 2017 was hitting 5.2 million households.
Jayson_n_th_Rgonauts t1_je7vmn1 wrote
Maybe they will, maybe they won’t, we don’t need to scream slippery slope at every good idea
optifreebraun t1_je858sh wrote
We're screaming slippery slope at a terrible idea.
L-V-4-2-6 t1_je7vouk wrote
But this is not a good idea.
Jayson_n_th_Rgonauts t1_je7wwin wrote
Construction is among the most dangerous jobs there is and road construction is probably worse, do you have an alternative to help protect the lives of these vital people or do you just wanna save the $40?
optifreebraun t1_je80jmy wrote
Yeah - I'd rather properly deter speeders and reckless drivers by having a solid law enforcement presence that does actually slow people down. Not a "gotcha" camera that sends fines in the mail days or weeks later that does almost nothing to slow these speeders down at the moment of their violation.
Or do you just want to save the money that we'd spend on overtime / law enforcement to do the job right?
Gino-Bartali t1_je8jcnd wrote
Do you plan for cops to be everywhere all at once?
optifreebraun t1_je9f1k1 wrote
Do you plan for cameras to be everywhere all at once?
imangryignoreme t1_jeaatrr wrote
I am also fine with enforcing work zones, but my only concern is that some of our existing speed limits are well below the normal flow of traffic rate. Anything “automatic” could create huge fines for people who were just going with traffic.
For example on 95 in Stamford and Norwalk I think the posted speed limit is 45mph, but of course traffic often goes 75mph+. “Going 75 in a 45” makes you sound like a lunatic driver, except that it’s just a normal highway. Add work zones to that and it could mean crazy tickets.
dkdaniel t1_jealgob wrote
It's 55 not 45 on 95 on that area
Gusto36 t1_je7xo8g wrote
Work zone speed limit is not 65
2SLGBTQIA t1_je6vb3c wrote
End of an era of camera-less monitoring. It's been fun while it lasted.
The-Copilot t1_je6vzc4 wrote
Its only for if you are going 80+mph past a work zone.
Not really an unreasonable rule tbf.
If they start throwing cameras up all over the highway then that's pretty shit
[deleted] t1_je730uq wrote
> Its only for if you are going 80+mph past a work zone.
right now. there are plenty of people in the state legislature that want red light cameras and speed cameras everywhere.
IndicationOver t1_je74aih wrote
exactly why I said this is just the beginning but people will downvote us
optifreebraun t1_je7i3x1 wrote
Just the speed camera PR folks that are all over reddit. The average citizen agrees with you.
The-Copilot t1_je7bvz3 wrote
That group has been pushing for that for decades now and have failed.
IIRC its illegal in CT to random scan plates and check registration because its a secondary infraction.
Other states have issues with these problems but we haven't and still don't.
mkt853 t1_je7nz2f wrote
>IIRC its illegal in CT to random scan plates and check registration because its a secondary infraction.
And yet police departments do it all the time. Many towns use their ALPRs to do this very thing. Those systems are like $15k, so they need revenue to cover the purchase price.
paintball6818 t1_je9cpdm wrote
Our workzone speed limit is 45 and they were flagging people going over 60 when they were calibrating their machine and collecting preliminary data for this.
[deleted] t1_je8jhlt wrote
[deleted]
Shmeves t1_je86cxz wrote
I mean they’ve already been studying traffic in work zones with those temp cameras you see. Those replaced the old wire in the road to count how many cars were using it (and speed I believe).
Gil_V t1_je6wid3 wrote
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
IndicationOver t1_je6vipq wrote
Yea, o well its a new era. This is just the beginning.
Gooniefarm t1_je7hlsx wrote
These will be on every highway within a year. It's a massive revenue generator for the state.
dkdaniel t1_je7os2x wrote
In the current proposal, the money can only be spent on road safety programs
Gooniefarm t1_je7qv8j wrote
It will eventually end up in the general fund.
dkdaniel t1_je7reci wrote
I wouldn't be opposed to non-monetary punishments in theory but I can't think of a reasonable one. Do you have an alternative in mind?
optifreebraun t1_je9f4jl wrote
What’s the revenue share for your … I mean … the speed camera company on these tickets?
brandonpeate t1_je7lfs5 wrote
I'm not a big fan of this because sometimes work zone signs are up with absolutely nobody working
essaitchthrowaway3 t1_je9y1bo wrote
That will happen even more now.
Kind of like when stores put up, and then eventually leave up, those "wet floor" signs. The spill was cleaned up 4 hours ago, but stores like leaving these signs up all the time as a means to cover their ass if someone falls and tries to sue them.
dkdaniel t1_je7d2f4 wrote
The first offense will be just a warning. $75 for 2nd offense and $150 for offences thereafter.
AvogadrosMoleSauce t1_je9g4pj wrote
It'd be nice if we could adjust fines based on income as is done in Finland. $150 from my pocket wouldn't be overly significant but some households it would be downright harmful.
Aware_Department_657 t1_je9ka66 wrote
Speeding is only for the rich.
imangryignoreme t1_jeaa4ps wrote
Here that would be ridiculously abused. People making $75k per year would get thousand-dollar tickets and people making a million + would just make a phone call and get out of it.
Gooniefarm t1_je9w5u6 wrote
If the penalty is only a fine, the law only applies to the poor.
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea1wrh wrote
Especially when the fines are automated by cameras. They won't even have to put up with the hassle of getting pulled over. Their financial managers will probably pay the tickets without them even knowing they got them.
optifreebraun t1_je7i09s wrote
It's interesting how there seem to be many PR folks on reddit when it comes to speed cameras. These things do almost nothing - particularly when it's not in fixed locations without warning - to slow down traffic, but is a great revenue generator for the companies that make these devices.
Want to slow down traffic in construction zones? Hire more cops to visibly sit in these areas - nothing slows down traffic like a visible police cruiser.
Cue the speed camera PR folks arguing otherwise in 3, 2,1 ...
pond_minnow t1_je966l0 wrote
Reckon it ain't just that, but more. The govt needs more data for the surveillance state. They already track the movements of cars in cities, covering about 70% of adults as per Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology. Time to get more data from the suburbs and rural areas by covering highways. Maybe towns next? As usual, the pretext tugs on the heart strings. Think of the children road workers. Why if you don't agree, you must not care about dead people.
Speaking of the workers and revenue though.. this is going to rinse lower-class workers. June 1 min. wage goes up to $15/hr. Get caught lacking on your way to work because your brain was mindlessly on "autopilot" for a wee bit? 2nd offense: 12% of your weekly take-home. 3rd offense? 30% of it! That's fair.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. How fitting. Fuck this pilot project and all automated enforcement.
PS: I love how your comment brought out a literal shill. Can't make it up.
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea343y wrote
>Speaking of the workers and revenue though.. this is going to rinse lower-class workers. June 1 min. wage goes up to $15/hr. Get caught lacking on your way to work because your brain was mindlessly on "autopilot" for a wee bit? 2nd offense: 12% of your weekly take-home. 3rd offense? 30% of it! That's fair.
Gee whiz, and there's no way whatsoever to avoid it except not driving more than 15 mph over the posted limit when you're just a few feet away from vulnerable workers.
It's annoying and wrong that the fines are so much more onerous the poorer you are, but the problem there is more that the penalty is immaterial to the rich than that it's unfair to the poor.
pond_minnow t1_jecih0d wrote
You are making the assumption that there will be no creep. That it will stay solely in the realm of road workers. I am pressing X to doubt.
dkdaniel t1_je7oxvv wrote
"Please don't disagree with me. If you disagree with me you're a shill"
optifreebraun t1_je7zbmv wrote
"I'm a shill that vigorously defends traffic cams but I'll gaslight anyone that calls me a shill."
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea41iu wrote
You know, people used to say this exact same kind of thing about seatbelts.
You might have to accept that what you want to be true, and what somebody is willing to tell you is true, is not necessarily what is true.
The CDC:
>Automated speed camera enforcement is effective in reducing speed and speed-related crashes. In a Cochrane review of studies through 2010 evaluating speed cameras, all studies measuring speed or speeding saw reductions when the cameras were present.6 All studies in the Cochrane review measuring crashes also showed reductions when the cameras were present. More recent research has also found reductions in speeding or injury crashes when cameras were present.
Link, with citations
optifreebraun t1_jeaeqj9 wrote
False equivalency - a seatbelt citation does not directly result in revenue for a private company making seatbelts with massive lobbying ability.
There are better solutions than cameras, yet the insistence of certain Redditors that cameras are the best solution makes it pretty clear we have some PR shills for these camera companies.
Because come on - when in real life have you ever seen anyone actually defend these cameras so vigorously?
Miles_vel_Day t1_jeag3bz wrote
That's a nice pile of rhetoric but I've cited actual studies. What do you have?
First off, goalposts: your claim wasn't that the problem with speed cameras in work zones is that a private company receives a portion of the revenue - I agree that that's a problem. It's an unnecessary perverse incentive and yet another avenue for rent-seeking in an economy that's drowning in it.
Your claim, though, was that they did not have a safety benefit. Empirical observation, gathered through carefully designed studies, suggests that they do. Do you have statistics that contradict the CDC's findings, or that contradict similar studies that I could pull up from FHWA or NHI?
optifreebraun t1_jeag9yk wrote
I don’t have citations readily available because I’m not in speed camera PR industry. But I’ll get you a pile of opposing studies after work.
Miles_vel_Day t1_jeagguc wrote
lol, okay. That answer strikes me as humorously evasive but I'm sure you'll be able to find something, and I genuinely look forward to it. Thanks for the discussion.
optifreebraun t1_jeags92 wrote
What’s your motivation for wanting speed cameras so badly?
Miles_vel_Day t1_jeahel5 wrote
I don't "want them so badly." I would be fine with this policy not going into effect. I just think that if we're going to discuss the policy, we should discuss it using the actual facts.
Four people were killed in work zones last year. It would be nice if that number was zero. If cameras could help with that, then I'm open to it.
What is your motivation for defending your right to drive 15+ mph over the speed limit in work zones?
CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je7rcbi wrote
I'd like them to be in permanent fixed locations. But this bill was a compromise to get them only in work zones.
And cops are insanely expensive, while camera's are relatively cheap. It seems insane to make the government hire cops to do this work when an automatic camera can do it more effectively. I'd rather our police be doing actual police work trying to solve crimes, not doing the work a camera can do.
And cops stopping people for speeding can lead to tragic consequences, for both the people stopped and rarely for the cops themselves. I'd much rather get a ticket from a camera than a fresh recruit trigger happy cop pulling me over.
dkdaniel t1_je7sqek wrote
The expense of cops is the point. People prefer cops over cameras because they know it's too expensive to enforce reliably with cops.
optifreebraun t1_je7zrkg wrote
But it doesn't do it more effectively.
What are we trying to accomplish here? Raise revenue for private companies - then yes, definitely more effective.
But actually reduce speeds and increase safety? You need visible deterrents - such as a police cruiser.
And who says they need to stop people? A police cruiser with its lights on in a construction site is a far better deterrent than hidden camera to slow people down - nothing sets off brake lights quicker than cruiser with its disco lights going.
Nice try, PR guy.
CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je81krk wrote
Studies have consistently shown that speed camera enforcement reduces driver speed.
But I'm sure you'll deny any scientific evidence that you disagree with as propaganda.
You can continue to believe everyone who disagrees with you is some evil lizard person. Have fun on your flat earth.
optifreebraun t1_je82fpw wrote
Man, the PR folks are prepared tonight - you've got the studies to show this! I mean, other than PR folks, who else is ready with scientific evidence and studies? I think you've just proved my point.
CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je82pqi wrote
Activists who want to reduce road fatalities.
People with close friends who have died on our dangerous roads who have researched how we can make them safer.
Those are the people who are likely to cite studies on these topics. I fall into the second category.
optifreebraun t1_je835li wrote
Activists funded by traffic camera companies = shill.
Can you share with us your research? Are you associated with a university for these studies? Any corporate funding for that research?
CANOODLING_SOCIOPATH t1_je849tp wrote
I said that I know about this because I had a close friend die due to our dangerous roads. Learn to read.
This is a systematic review of studies on the effectiveness of speed cameras: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004607.pub4/full
optifreebraun t1_je84v59 wrote
Boy, you sure are condescending. I know how to read, but I just don't believe you.
As you fall into the self-professed category of "People with close friends who have died on our dangerous roads who have researched how we can make them safer," pray tell, what was *your research*?
Edit: Your research versus that random link you gave out as part of your PR shill presentation.
dkdaniel t1_je82vm9 wrote
He fenced his position by preemptively claiming anybody who disagrees must be getting paid, that there is no possible good faith reason to disagree. It's intellectual cowardice.
optifreebraun t1_je9fg0d wrote
Ad hominem attacks of cowardice - almost as if you’re a professional who’s livelihood depended on this.
And in this case I am correct - you are getting paid. Who else is this passionate about installing regressive taxation solutions that are effective only for raising money for private companies?
dkdaniel t1_je9q0ix wrote
Do you not realize that calling everyone a shill is an Ad Hominem?
optifreebraun t1_je9qncs wrote
I’m not calling everyone a shill - just the people that are shills. I seem to have caught at least a couple in this thread.
dkdaniel t1_je829b9 wrote
The speed cameras are going to be more visible than police cruisers with signs alerting you before you enter the work zone
optifreebraun t1_je82mau wrote
So the company that you work for will have speed cameras with big signs alerting us to the speed cameras? Can you show us a sample?
I still think the LED disco lights of a police cruiser is far more visible and serves as a better deterrent than any sign.
optifreebraun t1_je9fjz7 wrote
Awww, poor shill can’t answer this question because the shill knows those signs won’t exist.
Buzz off and tell your company we’re not interested.
Nyrfan2017 t1_je84r24 wrote
What I don’t get is that work zone have troopers . Why don’t the troopers start pulling people over then people will start going oh shit. They are pulling people over I’ll slow .. now we have to spend more money more tech when infact if the rules where just enforced these machines wouldn’t be needed
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea1fvq wrote
They're just there as a deterrent and to handle any incidents that happen. It probably ISN'T necessary, but the police unions will never, ever let them drop that requirement. OT from that shit sends their kids to college.
Nyrfan2017 t1_jea4f67 wrote
I’m fine with it being a ot job how ever . If there there have why not have them pulling people over if they are there to protect to project site . In my view that’s protecting the site
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea5sxm wrote
It might be a good idea to post a second officer down the road a bit from the work zone, and the first officer can radio reports of inappropriate driving and have the second officer pull the driver over. That way the first officer, and his lights, are still at the work site serving as a deterrent and source of visibility.
I wouldn't endorse making this a REQUIREMENT for work zones because I think there would be real availability problems that would slow down construction projects, and obviously construction is already slow enough in the US. But it might be a good idea for select work zones, on larger projects or on more dangerous stretches of road.
Obviously the troopers would endorse this - even more OT!
xMMM212 t1_jea4bq8 wrote
Because then they'd have to wake up from their nap
AtomWorker t1_jeaj21b wrote
Cops are good as a deterrent and for emergency responses. For catching speeders they're expensive and impractical. Plus, chasing them down is risky and overly disruptive, especially in construction zones. This is the sort of thing that's perfect for automation and I'd argue that these cameras should be implemented everywhere.
Boring_Garbage3476 t1_je9uykg wrote
Troopers can only leave the work zone for serious issues. So unless someone goes through at a high rate of speed, they won't leave.
Nyrfan2017 t1_jea4mti wrote
So what’s the point of the job being a state trooper. They can’t come up with a sept called highway security for the work zones t costing less money
Boring_Garbage3476 t1_jea6i47 wrote
It just gets most people to slow down. Without a cruiser there, many people don't care.
Nyrfan2017 t1_jeah9zh wrote
Umm if that was what was happening this whole post and new systems wouldn’t be needed ..
Boring_Garbage3476 t1_jeaj8xq wrote
I did say "most". But in reality, this is just an easy and justifiable way of trying out a new system that will eventually be used for bringing in revenue on all state roads.
Billh491 t1_je7at7m wrote
Last May late at night I was on 95 in Maryland and got hit with a ticket like this. The work Zone was not active. It was 40 bucks plus 2 buck processing fee. It said it was a civil fine. I did not get any kind of a bump in my insurance this year.
I remember reading it over and it seemed pretty much impossible to fight it as I would have to come back to Maryland and it felt more like a parking ticket based on my reading of it.
They send them out at 12 miles over.
From the site Violators must pay a $40 fine. Automated speed enforcement violations are considered civil violations; therefore, no license points are assessed.
mylastdream15 t1_je7ie31 wrote
MD has them all over. Speed trap cameras. Went there once almost a decade ago. Got two tickets for 15$ each. And yep. Pretty much impossible to fight since you'd have to drive back down to MD to do so. And they make them cheap enough that I bet most people don't because they don't want to bother to take the time. I bet they make bank on this. It's ridiculous. What's worse. The area I got them in was a backroad and there were literally no other cars around. I assure you. No one was being made safer by these cameras.
Billh491 t1_je7p58h wrote
Back roads even. At least I was on 95.
optifreebraun t1_je8181l wrote
And making it a lesser civil fine frequently makes it nearly impossible to fight. Fighting your average traffic citation written by police officer - in most jurisdictions - at least carries the fiction that you can fight it in court. You may not get that day in court with a civil violation.
Last part - these traffic cameras are incredibly regressive taxation. The wealthy hedge fund manager from Greenwich gets hit with the same fine as the single mother of two barely making ends meet that just missed a speed sign. Whether you like law enforcement or not, they are still human beings that likely wouldn't hesitate to write up the Greenwich guy or give a break to the single mom - you don't have that with a camera that sends a ticket to everyone.
I'd hear stories from Asian countries where wealthy conglomerate owners that liked cars wouldn't give two shits about the cameras and would speed everywhere because, well, when you can pay the fine, who cares?
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea2nug wrote
>And making it a lesser civil fine frequently makes it nearly impossible to fight.
State regs about marking work zones are strict and specific enough that if a contractor was violating them in any way, you could easily get one of these tickets thrown out. That's probably why they made the fines (warning, $75, $150 for the first three offenses) relatively low - people will just pay them without complaint to avoid further hassle, even if they are not actually legally liable.
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea2bou wrote
Sounds like a stealth toll, haha.
Out of curiosity, in what manner was the work zone closed, exactly? Was any of the roadway blocked off, or was the work zone just off to the side? Were there clearly visible orange signs indicating that you were approaching a work zone?
Billh491 t1_jeaqb0w wrote
Not closed just no one was working at 10pm.
It was a major project much like our state it is years long. I knew I was in a construction zone and I’m sure I saw a sign about speed trap. Just let my speed get away from me.
blumpkinmania t1_je890lq wrote
This sucks. It’s only the beginning. Really disappointed with Lamont on this one. His comments in the story - about always having an eye on us- are gross.
traanquil t1_jebc0hb wrote
What’s the problem? Shouldn’t speed laws be enforced?
blumpkinmania t1_jebepm3 wrote
Not by computers.
traanquil t1_jebrfxi wrote
Why not?
blumpkinmania t1_jecok98 wrote
Besides being unconstitutional IMO, it’s another in a long line of civil liberty violations. And if they make it a civil infraction only then it’s just another in a long line of regressive taxation. Finally, getting a fine, weeks after an infraction does nothing to solve the problem it purports to solve.
traanquil t1_jefmu99 wrote
I get the critique of computerized policing and the potential dystopian possibilities around it. That being said , the current practice of police pulling people over for minor traffic infractions is a huge problem for these reasons: 1 - it can lead to dangerous interactions for either the cop or the detainee 2 - minor traffic stops are often used as a pretext for racially discriminatory policing or other forms of biased policing. 3 - minor traffic stops are by default spotty and unfair. Among a line of 10 cars speeding , a cop will pull one of those 10 over while the other 9 get away
blumpkinmania t1_jefvsuy wrote
I Don’t care to argue those points. Let’s say they’re all true. At least in those cases you’ll get to face your accuser. When you get a ticket from a computer they don’t even know who was driving.
the-crotch t1_jebd9pd wrote
Yes, by human beings.
traanquil t1_jebdgjy wrote
Why? That’s dangerous for both the cops and the suspects. Camera enforcement for low level traffic issues is the smarter way to go
the-crotch t1_jebeg1x wrote
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
That's why. Because I care more about people's rights than your justice boner.
blumpkinmania t1_jebh3w6 wrote
Good use of the constitution!
Aware_Department_657 t1_je9keda wrote
What about my right to face my accuser? Isnt that the argument against red light cams?
mkt853 t1_je7ocfz wrote
Would you be able to contest a ticket from it?
Ok_Repair_92 t1_je7rvt5 wrote
No. Don’t let them test anything. These things suck joy out of driving. Visit Europe sometime. These speed camera traps are just sources of revenue. Locals will learn where not to drive, rest will get screwed by yet another tax.
coldnessofrain t1_je8cx2i wrote
Nothing strikes fear to a motorist then a state trooper. Utilize this resource instead of relying on cameras. What makes some of you think the state will stop at construction zones? Yeah excessive speeding needs to stop but there times when you have to speed up to avoid accidents because people are busy texting or putting makeup on.
phunky_1 t1_je9cu9l wrote
These things are a scam, usually run by politicians buddies' companies who get millions of dollars for providing the equipment, processing and maintenance.
It is more about revenue generation than safety.
AvogadrosMoleSauce t1_je6tagn wrote
It’s about time! Schools should have also been included in the pilot study.
TheDudeMaintains t1_jec2cf3 wrote
>GLUGGLUGGLUGGLUGGLUG
AvogadrosMoleSauce t1_jec74iv wrote
?
Knineteen t1_je752t9 wrote
What are the cops there for then!?
AvogadrosMoleSauce t1_je77kd7 wrote
Nap time.
Nyrfan2017 t1_jeahqox wrote
Exactly if they were there and pulled people over people would know ok I’ll get pulled over let me slow but people know they don’t stop you
ruffdaddysmooth t1_je9qcn9 wrote
FUCK THIS BULLSHIT
gurglepurge t1_je9p0iu wrote
Don’t we already pay cops to do this?
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea12lh wrote
Let 'em work, let 'em live.
If you see a retroreflective vest, slow the fuck down.
You wouldn't be driving anywhere without the work that people do out on those roads and you should damn well respect their safety.
flatdanny t1_jeatkus wrote
Red-light cameras undermine rule of law
>Specifically, use of these cameras could violate the Sixth Amendment. The Confrontation Clause grants criminal defendants the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. Since it is a camera and not a person that witnessed the offense, such violations generally cannot be considered a criminal offense. The ticket is issued to the owner of the vehicle, not to the person driving it, leaving a lack of certainty as to the identity of the offender.
> Therefore, the “ticket” in most places is nothing more than a civil fine, making enforcement and collection difficult. To date, governments have avoided this problem by requiring payment of the fine before motorists can renew their driver’s license or auto registration. Although there generally are appeals procedures, they typically do not give drivers a day in court. In other words, what happened to being innocent until proven guilty?
Ziggy1433 t1_jebexih wrote
Another money grab. This state is pathetic.
huntroy t1_je9veb2 wrote
The less robotic policing in this world the better. I don’t see this as a good thing
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea5a1z wrote
At least robotic police haven't killed anybody
...yet.
Damn now I kinda wanna go watch Robocop, the best film of the 1980s.
essaitchthrowaway3 t1_je9yy7t wrote
It always starts with small steps like this. Then within a year or two every cop car will be outfitted with these cameras and there will be polls put up scanning the roads continuously.
JR32OFFICIAL t1_jea0ovh wrote
This state is worried about the wrong shit
Fiend_Nixxx t1_je8ms41 wrote
So they'll fine people with speed cameras, but don't bother to pull over cars going 20mph or more over the speed limit? Just today I had the pleasure of being on route 12 with 2 brand new mustangs. Paper registrations couldn't even be seen through the wicked dark tint on the rear windshield. It's 45mph and 2 lanes. They legit raced one another reaching a minimum of 80. They flew past 2 SEPERATE speed traps! Neither the trooper, nor the town cop, reacted. Bullshit.
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea4bed wrote
Definitely sailors, lol
Fiend_Nixxx t1_jea5bmz wrote
Haha absolutely
mvanhelsing t1_je9vomc wrote
Enforce traffic lights first.
TheDudeMaintains t1_jec3glp wrote
Cute. I've got something even more cute for the one plate on my car.
I thoroughly respect work zones and adjust my driving accordingly, but fuck the police state. If you think this isn't just the beginning of the state fingerfucking your wallet via a camera lens, I've got a bridge to sell you.
[deleted] t1_je7q362 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_je7rg3e wrote
[deleted]
choite t1_je8177e wrote
There gonna blind ppl cause its just gonna flash constantly
Boring_Garbage3476 t1_je9vc1j wrote
I actually support this for work zones, but you know they will be on every highway before long. Once legislators see how much money comes in, they will be salivating to roll them out on every highway and state road.
new_Australis t1_je7v6yi wrote
They're already here st the mass border 91N
dkdaniel t1_je7xija wrote
Afaik there are no speed cameras in mass
new_Australis t1_je7yll7 wrote
Connecticut mass border 91N in the median
[deleted] t1_je8ftx6 wrote
[deleted]
gatogrande t1_jea1c67 wrote
So "low level" traffic stops are deemed racist...but cams are inclusive...hmmm
Nyrfan2017 t1_jeahi7h wrote
Don’t forget there was legal issues with cams at traffic lights that they can’t be used to ticket
gatogrande t1_jeai6ab wrote
I know! Makes it even more of a wtf
foodcoma85 t1_je90de3 wrote
Yes, you should do this in every work zone except mine and all the ones in my path. I have places to be
tonysnight t1_jeaknas wrote
Put several around the north end of the connector off 15 you frickin cowards.
Like really though.
The fact that I'm alive and get to whine about things happening in my life is just sheer luck. I drive on the slower side with some city habits so I'm stopping on yellows more often than not. I'm almost T boned once or twice a week turning off of Glover Ave or getting off the connector by the rare person trying to make that Grist Mill light.
Heck I was almost got boobled last night on my way to Chelsea Piers. I've had the habit of looking left and right before I go just bc of paranoia even on light changes. Looked like a teenage girl but I saw that phone glow on lighting up her face just blatantly not looking at the road.
Like aight let's be real, some people will text and drive that's not going to stop/ can't stop it completely. Buttttt sheesh these frickin teenagers/ new drivers/ or general A-holes or something they're literally burning holes through their phones while driving. At least use your damn peripherals if you're going to break the law. Driving comes first and side eye your phone if you're going to break the law and try to play out twisted metal.
777YankeeCT t1_je7rn3x wrote
It’s madness what people get away with in CT: Rt 91N out of New Have is like Mad Max.
Miles_vel_Day t1_jea51sw wrote
You're getting downvoted but yeah, it's pretty obvious that a six lane highway with a posted speed limit of what, 55, and a very heavy weave movement to take a left exit a few miles in, isn't really getting sufficient enforcement when it's a regular occurrence to have half the drivers going 85 mph+.
84E from Hartford is another area where incredibly high speeds are tolerated.
austinin4 t1_jeauf5h wrote
At this point, I want drones handing out tickets. Sick of driving around the set of Mad Max.
Corponation4 t1_je7l28u wrote
Thank you Overlord Lamont and CT Dem acolytes for slipping this in virtually unnoticed and unopposed.
Nyrfan2017 t1_jeahm5j wrote
You should thank the morons that don’t slow down when going past a work zone
maxanderson350 t1_je6tkl4 wrote
Excellent idea.
austinin4 t1_je7b21h wrote
Fuck yeah. Put them everywhere
DanHassler0 t1_je7a6hk wrote
Now expand them to all zones.
mes592 t1_je6vgt6 wrote
Route 8 is about to generate an awful lot of revenue.