By on February 4, 2008

camera1.jpgDespite previous public prevarication causing camera climbdowns, Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell is asking for funding for a pilot program of speed-detection cameras along a “treacherous” stretch of I95. "Those who choose to break the rules of the road need to learn the hard way," Rell said, showing her sympathy for drivers braving this treachery. In case you missed the point, Rell said she's “declaring war” on dangerous drivers. According to The Hartford Courant, the I-95 cameras would be the first such devices deployed on Connecticut highways. If the cameras raise susfficient new revenues for the cash-strapped state government– I mean, "reduces the number of speeders and traffic-related deaths," Rell says she'll expand the system throughout the Constitution State. Meanwhile, Rell's also hankering for 20 new state troopers for "increased traffic enforcement." According to the Gov., “The goal is to get ingrained into motorists' heads that they should not even consider breaking the law because there may be a state police car right around the corner to pull them over." Really? Just for thinking about speeding? Wow, that’s harsh.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

6 Comments on “CT Gov Wants Speed Cameras on I-95...”

  • avatar

    Just for thinking about speeding? Wow, that’s harsh.

    This shouldn’t come as a surprise. There are already laws that punish thought; they are the increased penalties for “hate crimes”.

    If I beat someone because they cut me off in traffic or I wanted their wallet, that is just assault (or some form of assault). However, if I beat someone to death because of their race or religion, that is assault with hate crimes punishment tacked on to boot. That is punishing thought. Period.

    If you beat someone, you obviously don’t care much for them. Adding an extra penalty for “hate crimes” is thought punishment.

    I suppose they could start by adding extra fines or jail time for speeding in minority neighborhoods; you obviously think less of the minorities or you wouldn’t speed in their part of town. It’s ludicrous, but so is “hate crime” punishment.

  • avatar

    No big deal. Connecticut is a small state and easy to navigate around. If they want to install greed cameras then I don’t need to spend any money in their state.

  • avatar

    I will throw this on the pile of reasons not to visit Connecticut. I can spend my disposable income in 49 other states.

  • avatar

    I drive through Connecticut a lot, and it would be costly in terms of time to have to navigate around it. On the other hand, I-95 through Connecticut is awful, at least between New Haven and NYC, with narrow lanes and heavy traffic, and I almost never drive that route. If she were to put the speed cameras on 84, especially the absolutely wonderful stretch between the Mass Pike and Hartford, where everyone does 75-80, then I’d be really upset.

  • avatar

    Great photo shop guys. “Greed Cameras” Priceless.

  • avatar

    Landcrusher: Great photo shop guys. “Greed Cameras” Priceless.

    Actually, it’s a real photo, taken in the UK.
    A driver over there ummm, “modified” the sign.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: “Build thousands of homes in a forest that you know is going to burn.” My understanding of...
  • Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – thanks for the rebuttal. I’m obviously not a sled guy. I looked at a bunch of...
  • Lie2me: I would be interested in an AWD hybrid, hopefully that’s coming next
  • ponchoman49: I wouldn’t say the Hemi’s are stone reliable at this point. Several repair shops including...
  • eng_alvarado90: HWY MPGs are a bit low for a Hybrid but keeping in mind the boxy shape and weight this is not bad....

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber