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!

How do you know these aren't part of the group of people that bring it in? I think any fentanyl bust is a good one.

I’ve seen more than normal in my area

Haha absolutely

At least robotic police haven't killed anybody

...yet.

Damn now I kinda wanna go watch Robocop, the best film of the 1980s.

Okay, but fentanyl is also everywhere so the only important story is if you bust the main supplier. When they arrest the people bringing it into the state, they will have made progress.

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.

Tolland

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

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

Because then they'd have to wake up from their nap

Definitely sailors, lol

It is to punish those they catch, I've said it once and I'll say it again although I'll probably be downloaded again. Law abiding gun owners shouldn't have anything to fear

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

• For starters, what the heck is even a “caliber rifle?”
• That ar is basically an sbr because given the slide length of the hi point just underneath, that ain't no 12.1" barrel.
• Is that a red dot mounted to the underside of the mlok handguard? That's sus as hell that an actual person mounted that. I hope I'm wrong and that's just forced perspective.
• illegal mags and alleged auto sears once again. Great to see our gun control is working when these MFs have more firepower than the average cop let alone legal citizen defender. 🤦‍♂️
• funny this is the first time I've seen a ruger 10/22 in a weapons confiscation ever. I wonder if this has anything to do with Lamont's proposed ban that includes semi-auto 22 firearms. 🤔
• not a single auto switch is on any of those pistols

That's not what I said. I asked you if you or the place you work at would hire criminals?

Do you not know how much fentanyl you need to kill a human? What could fit on the end of a pencil is enough to kill a man. Any amount of fentanyl is a dangerous amount.

We're waiting

If you're proposing pilot programs in which we pay / offer tax credits to companies that employ them,

then yes, I agree that sounds like a more effective option.

you clearly don’t know any of these people. a lot are predatory manipulators, scum. most of y’all are good people so you can’t even comprehend their line of thought. they don’t give a fuck about society.

Yes, many years ago and had to pay a ticket too.

>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.

Unfortunately, time is necessary to prove theories and experience is necessary to understand results. My daughter participated in a Yale psychology study as an infant and it took thirty years to publish their findings. You can learn about their findings in the documentary, ‘Babies’ on Netflix. It is really fascinating. I wish I knew the things they learned while she was still a child but that is the paradox of education and experience.

10/22 good for Wabbit hunting

>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.