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.

I know! Makes it even more of a wtf

It’s always a little jarring to see happen in a CT subreddit. We’re supposed to be better than this

would a high intensity UV or IR emitter hinder the camera?

Hopefully the pilot goes well and these are expanded elsewhere. School zones in my town could certainly use them.

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

You should thank the morons that don’t slow down when going past a work zone

Don’t forget there was legal issues with cams at traffic lights that they can’t be used to ticket

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?

Umm if that was what was happening this whole post and new systems wouldn’t be needed ..

I’ve seen a group of like 20 crossing some side roads in Simsbury lately!

I cant wait for the sensor to fall out of calibration and start throwing tickets at innocent drivers

It wasn't always illegal to have no front plate

>The law required Connecticut motor vehicles to have a front and a rear license plate until 1980. With the passage of PA 80-466, vehicles were required to have only a rear license plate and the normal registration period was made two years instead of one year. This legislation was enacted primarily for fiscal reasons. It originated in the Appropriations Committee and was referred to no other committees with cognizance over the substantive issues involved in going to a single plate. Going from two license plates to one and going to two-year registrations had been identified for the Appropriations Committee by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) as two of several budget options for cutting costs or raising revenue.
By 1986, the General Assembly had decided to reverse the requirement and go back to two plates for most vehicles. (Fire apparatus; motorcycles; camp trailers; commercial trailers; and vehicles displaying dealer, repairer, junk, or transporter plates were allowed to remain with one plate.) The legislature enacted PA 86-388 to convert back to two plates over a six-year period that began on July 1, 1987. All but the exempted classes of vehicles had to display two plates by July 1, 1993. The DMV commissioner had to issue two plates for all new registrations, beginning July 1, 1987. Two plates had to be issued for all registration renewals beginning July 1, 1991.

What’s your motivation for wanting speed cameras so badly?

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.

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.

Oh you will. Just wait. I saw a big Tommy yesterday at work. I’m waiting any day now for parades of 10-20 turkeys through my front yard in the morning

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?

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?

My son lives in Enfield, his yard has been full of turkeys. He has 5 acres, mostly wetland, field. Maybe yours are still sleeping.

They're all hanging out in my yard. Sorry.

Not sure. None of the bobcats or coyotes return my texts. Hope the turkeys are ok though. I love seeing them as well.

Just another way for CT to tax everyday working people. I wonder if these cameras will be be able to identify people with no registration.

It's great until you get a ticket in the mail because the car next to you was speeding.

I’ve seen evidence that they cause more harm than good in widespread cases. I don’t mind specific uses, though. I like the idea of construction zones on the highway for sure.