Saturday, January 17, 2026

Speed cameras are legal in CT. Why do so few towns use them?

In the two years since the Connecticut Department of Transportation released guidance for cities and towns interested in installing speed or red-light cameras, fewer than 10% of the state's municipalities have submitted and won approval of their plans.

Comments

More from the article ...

... But more approvals could be coming in 2026. Multiple municipalities have taken steps toward meeting the many requirements they must fulfill before sending their plans to the state DOT for review.

A bill signed into law by Gov. Ned Lamont in June 2023 allowed Connecticut's cities and towns to use speed and red-light cameras for the first time. DOT issued guidelines for municipalities six months later, as required by the law.

In late 2024, the small town of Washington in Litchfield County became the first municipality in the state to receive approval of its plan. ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-01-17 02:01 AM

@#1 ... the small town of Washington ...

I've been there.

In the area is a great preserve called Steep Rock, in Washington Depot, a section of Washington, CT.

Steep Rock Preserve
2 Tunnel Road, Washington Depot, CT
06794

... The 998-acre Steep Rock Preserve offers hiking trails which follow the river banks and provide access into the hillsides above. ...

Yeah, I've hiked those trails (when I was able to do so).

The views were great.


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-01-17 02:09 AM

@#2

Oops, forgot the link ...

steeprockassoc.org

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-01-17 02:52 AM

" Speed cameras are legal in CT. Why do so few towns use them?

Let's talk about red light cameras. Some people run red lights are accelerate through yellows because they are in a hurry in certain circumstances or just feel entitled. Most people at least try to be responsible drivers, first and foremost because they don't want to get into an auto accident. I'm going to personalize this a bit - when I drive I take the necessary steps to be aware of my surroundings at all time and I I believe that is how most people drive. Sometimes it's safer to run a yellow even to the point of being in the niter section when the light turns red than it is to slam on the brakes to avoid running a yellow. That's a split second safety minded decision we've all made on countless occasions based upon situational awareness and common sense safety. When drivers know intersections have a camera the calculus changes. Now it's all about avoiding a ticket which not only costs initial out of pocket money for the fine, but also generally triggers an increase in insurance premiums. So, now drivers want to avoid that so if that light turns yellow at the worst possible moment drivers are incentivized to slam on the brakes even if it's safer to run the yellow.

#4 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-17 03:20 AM

Red light cameras, the actual impact on public safety:
Places that put up red light cameras saw an increase in rear-end collisions and a decrease in T-bone collision.
It's much safer to get rear ended than it is to get t-boned, so the overall effect is that of harm reduction.

This is not to say I support red light cameras, which don't really exist for public safety, but for revenue generation for the state. It's a fine on scofflaws, which I don't find morally indefensible. But if the goal is safe streets, suspend somebody's license for a week when they run a red light. Next time it's a month. They'll learn.

But the key reason we do that is not because we don't think it's good to punish people.
It's because it impedes Capitalism when the State hinders a workers ability to work.
And it reinforces Capitalism when the State fines a worker, thus inducing labor demand for work to pay the fine.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-01-17 03:45 AM

I am actually in favor of cameras in public spaces for reasons OTHER than enforcing traffic law. Let the cops do that the same way they always have. Put the cameras out there and make it abundantly clear they are far public safety and are NEVER admissible as evidence in a traffic stop that didn't involve an accident. As it is, public spaces have become increasingly public due to smart phones.

#6 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-17 03:52 AM

There's speed cameras around where I live.
They have to post signs indicating there are cameras, so everybody knows they're there.
Traffic slows down in that section and then starts going back to the normal speed once you're through it.

Is it safer? Probably. People tend to drive pretty crazy.

There are sections of road there that are ten lanes and the speed limit is 35 MPH. This is right off the highway. That's where they put the cameras. I don't consider doing 45 through there unsafe driving, because people did it for decades before they put the cameras up. So I didn't enjoy getting that ticket just because I haven't been off that exit in years and there's cameras there now. That did not make the roads any safer, that was just a shakedown. But if we're going to have the government shaking us down, well, why not have AI do that instead of an actual policeman. The way police are today, it's much safer to get tickets in the mail than to get pulled over by an officer who just took his steroids and is looking for any excuse to escalate violence.

I agree with the part in the article which says they tried everything else, this is the only thing that is changing behavior.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-01-17 03:55 AM

Texas banned photographic evidence of traffic infractions several years ago.

... when I drive I take the necessary steps to be aware of my surroundings at all time ...

I received my first drivers license in 1969 to operate a 5 h.p. or less motor cycle. I quickly learned the roads were not friendly to me. I became a defensive driver out of necessity, live or die. A learned behavior I practice to this date. I'm ever watchful of the complete and total idiots around me.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2026-01-17 04:22 AM

@#7 ... Traffic slows down in that section and then starts going back to the normal speed once you're through it.

Is it safer? Probably. People tend to drive pretty crazy. ...

Exactly.

The people (drivers) are intelligent, the cameras are not.

And then there becomes the issue of being in Court for a violation and being able to confront your accuser. Is there the camera there to answer your questions?



#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-01-17 04:34 AM

" #7 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2026-01-17 03:55 AM | FLAG: "

That was a good post. As I've observed tendencies on this site one thing jumps out at me - given how prolifically you post you may be the most ignored person on this site. I don't have anyone plonked and on the rare occasions I've plonked anybody it was rare and never lasted more than a few weeks. I see your posts. I quickly peruse them and mostly ignore them because that's what I felt was necessary.

It can be fun to troll sometimes. It can be fun to trade insults at times, ask JPW about that.

Things are best when serious people from differing viewpoints have serious discussions on serious issues. I deliberately used the word "serious" for a reason.

I come here, first and foremost, to make sure I'm diversifying my news and informational sources. To challenge my beliefs. To try and learn and understand ideas from an opposing perspective. Do I Fock around sometimes via trolling, personal insults and being adversarial? Duh! Of course I do. However, it's not the primary reason I come here.

If you really want to change hearts and minds, work for it. At one point in my life I opposed gay marriage. Then i got involved in a chat group about the subject and was put into a situation where I had to defend and justify my views on that subject. The people who I discussed the issue politely broke down the fallacies underlying my position that I hadn't considered. Today I am fully supportive of gay marriage and have been so for years, because caring lefties decided that going through the effort of laying out all of the better counter arguments that supported it was better than "You are a homophobic Nazi!!" The view I had was bested by superior arguments so I changed my view.

If your goal is to influence people to try and see things your way, much more of #7 and much less of everything else. My 2 cents.

#10 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-01-17 04:42 AM

@#10 ... It can be fun to troll sometimes. ...

Yeah, your current trolling alias should know of that.

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-01-17 04:48 AM

If your goal is to influence people to try and see things your way, much more of #7 and much less of everything else. My 2 cents.
#10 | Posted by BellRinger

Why?
Did I convince you of anything in #7?

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-01-17 04:53 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Medical Examiner: ICE Detainee Death Likely Homicide (253 comments)

Trump Threatens to Use the Insurrection Act to End Protests (57 comments)

Another Fed Shooting in Minneapolis (48 comments)

New Docs Show Renee Good's Ties to ICE Monitoring Efforts (46 comments)

Infant Needs CPR After Feds Unleash Flash-Bangs on Family Van (37 comments)

Joe Rogan Criticizes ICE Tactics (33 comments)

How to Afford a Nutritious Meal in MAGA America (32 comments)

Trump Threatens Major Crackdown on ICE Protestors (22 comments)

New Food Pyramid Guidelines (21 comments)

European Troops Arrive in Greenland (14 comments)