Back in early February, we reported that Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell was asking for funding for a pilot program of speed-detection cameras along a "treacherous" stretch of I-95. "Those who choose to break the rules of the road need to learn the hard way," said Rell. Today, The Hartford Courant is reporting "a high-profile defeat" for the Gov. Invoking fears of Big Brother, a legislative committee has rejected her plan after "an unusual philosophical discussion" over the rights of drivers and the power of government. The majority say the public's right to privacy outweighs the risks to public safety from speeding. State Rep. Ernest Hewett said "The camera will take a picture, and 10 seconds later, someone will get into a catastrophic accident. This is about revenue." Rep. Linda Orange said the bill was well-intentioned, "but it does violate civil rights." Representative James Shapiro says "Cameras aren't proven to make any one safer." What's more, "State surveillance of our law-abiding citizens is not an area in which I am looking for Connecticut to lead. A lot of other right-thinking people have made that judgment, and that's why these cameras have not caught on. Placing importance on our civil liberties is an American characteristic. Benjamin Franklin said the man who trades his liberty for temporary security deserves neither."
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
hallelujah!
Is that the same I-95 that, for years, was “legally closed” through Connecticut? They still collected tolls and gave out tickets, but there were bright orange signs proclaiming that the road was legally closed. I presume that meant that CT couldn’t meet some maintenance standard.
I think I’ll be looking for a house in the Hartford area now.
Donal Fagan: Is that the same I-95 that, for years, was “legally closed” through Connecticut? They still collected tolls and gave out tickets, but there were bright orange signs proclaiming that the road was legally closed. I presume that meant that CT couldn’t meet some maintenance standard.
The signs meant that the road had been under construction some time, and the state would not pay “if the earth should open up and swallow your car, because you should know better than to drive on a road under construction.”
Eventually the Feds said something along the lines of “If all your roads are “legally” closed, but people can still drive on them, then you don’t need any federal highway money, do you?”
That was the end of the signs. :-)
Oh, and CT tore down all of its toll booths nearly 20 years ago after a horiffic crash: A large truck slammed into a line of traffic waiting at one of the I-95 toll plazas, killing several people (mostly women and children).
That sounded the death knell for tolls on Connecticut’s highways.
While there are those who sometimes resurrect the idea of toll roads (to raise money), we have none now. Hopefully, the memory of why we don’t will not be soon forgotten.
Anyway, as for rejecting speed cameras in CT:
For once, I’m proud of my State Legislators. :-)
Wow – someone did the right thing. This surprises me. The citizens of Connecticut should be proud of their state legislators and should reach out to let them know.
Sometimes I love living in CT. It seems that we have a gov’t that can work across party lines to get things done in a reasoned way – most of the time.
Most of the citizens aren’t so hardcore about any particular issue to have rallys etc and disrupt the normal negotiations, so we usually can resolve an issue peacefully.
We even got gay civil unions a couple of years ago – a very contentious issue that makes national news – and no one made a stink. I mean who cares really anyway.
And now we have a sane debate about traffic camera, and our gov’t comes to the correct conclusion that it would really be about the $$$ and not the safety. Good work CT!!
woo hoo… not that I ever drive on 95. I keep my driving on 91 and 84. 95 scares the crap out of me.
Hopefully they will also make a statewide ban on red light cameras so thoes dont become popular in CT.
Looks like I can safely speed in CT still.. and by safe I mean a reasonable and prudent speed of the conditions at hand where I still have full control of my vehicle and a good view of what is going on around me.
Horay for CT!
I have to add a dissenting opinion. While I don’t think cameras should be used willy-nilly as in the UK, I don’t buy the argument about the “right” to privacy on a public road, when you are in plain view with a readily visible means of identification (your license plate).
My recollection of that section of Connecticut I-95 is that it is in pretty bad shape and speeding there would certainly be more hazardous then say, on well-maintained sections in my own state, VA.
BTW, everywhere I go it seems, the all-seeing camera is there, even in the little gelato shop I patronize on weekends. My gym has them everywhere too (I’m reasonably sure not in the locker rooms). It’s not just in banks and convenience stores anymore where you “smile for the cameras.”
jaydez: Hopefully they will also make a statewide ban on red light cameras so those dont become popular in CT.
I’m with you there.
While there are reps from firms who sell them (read: lobbyists) who “suggest” red-light (“ticket cameras”) whenever possible, for the moment, there are no such camera’s in Connecticut. :-)
210delray: BTW, everywhere I go it seems, the all-seeing camera is there, even in the little gelato shop I patronize on weekends. My gym has them everywhere too (I’m reasonably sure not in the locker rooms). It’s not just in banks and convenience stores anymore where you “smile for the cameras.”
Well exactly. And what I believe the CT State Legislature’s saying is: Enough already!
I know that this is shocking, but if an interstate highway is supposedly “treacherous,” then the solution is clear — make improvements to the highway.
Limited-access highways are supposed to be designed specifically to facilitate safe travel at relatively high speeds. That requires adequate lines of sight, barriers between the opposing directions, well-maintained road surfaces, clearly marked lanes, well designed entry and exit points, and clear lane controls.
If I-95 or any other highway is lacking these attributes, then the roads need to be fixed. I can understand that two-lane back roads can sometimes require strict speed enforcement and preserved as-is, but interstates are meant to be fast roads, by design, and every effort should be made to keep them moving as quickly as their design speed allows.
95 betw NYC and New Haven, at least, has narrow lanes for an interstate and very heavy traffic.
PCH is correct. Roads are one of the primary responsibilities for our government, but they would rather spend time talking about steroids. Perhaps they should get out of the stadium building business and get back to work on the basics.
PCH and Landcrusher: Points well taken, but there’s that big bugaboo called raising taxes to fix the roads, and as we all know, it’s verboten and practically a pillar of current GOP dogma.
Its a fact that Connecticut possess the highest average IQ of all of the United States
coincidence?
I think not.
Mr 210delray, I believe that you miss the gravity of this moment: Landcrusher and I agree on something.
This sort of earth-shattering event, which occurs with the frequency of Halley’s Comet, should not go unrecognized. Given this cosmic convergence, only one thing can be clear — we must be right!
210delray: PCH and Landcrusher: Points well taken, but there’s that big bugaboo called raising taxes to fix the roads, and as we all know, it’s verboten and practically a pillar of current GOP dogma.
I work in state government. On the whole, Democrats are no more eager to raise taxes than Republicans for road construction and maintenance. And the last big increase in the gas tax our state had for road and bridge repair was pushed through a Republican-controlled state legislature by that arch-Democrat…Governor Tom Ridge.
Rep. Linda Orange said the bill was well-intentioned, “but it does violate civil rights.”
Speeding is a civil right? Wow. I must have missed that day in Constitutional Law.
Obviously they meant the right to privacy but of course the courts have held repeatedly that you do not have a reasonable expecation of privacy as to things you reveal to the public (like your license plate number or the fact that you were driving on a particular public street or road at a given date and time.)
I’ve never seen legislation railroaded through so fast as it was in Texas in regards to red cameras…well, except maybe the nonsensical automobile emissions testing. Anyway, now that the sheeple have let the red cameras in, the speed ones won’t be far behind.
Kudos to Connecticut citizens for cutting this one off at the pass.
210 delray,
As PCH said, we are usually at odds. Tread carefully.
At any rate, road taxes are a farce. As I said, roads are a PRIMARY role of government. If you cut all the non-governmental functions and transfer payments from the budget, you could cut taxes in half and have a surplus.
Now, PCH and I would likely disagree about the proper functions of government, but I won’t spoil the mood by starting that one up.
:)
How silly the legislator is!
They consider driving private. It’s funny because satellites are continually taking much higher quality pictures, and their are moving cameras on streets in New Haven RIGHT NOW taking live video & uploading it to television channels!
The truth is that a stationary camera which is triggered by a ton+ of metal running a red light and snaps one single photo is not going to “impinge” on your freedoms.
People who are against these are either unaware or want to break the law. It’s simply inconceivable that they think a still camera, in a fixed position, is going to “invade” their privacy when we have moving satellites & free-positioned cameras taking pictures & video minute by minute.
Nothing stops me from videotaping people driving by. Nothing stops me from setting up cameras on street corners. At the end of the day, if you are in a public spot doing something public (like driving a car) there is neither law nor precedent for you to be “private”. You are not private.
Driving is a regulated & licensed practice which is not a freedom–if it were a freedom, anyone could drive, whenever, with no checks or balances. The reality is you are required to possess insurance, pass tests, & demonstrate a certain level of competence & economic stability in order to drive a car. It is clearly neither a private action nor a right, and the sooner people realize that, the sooner they can approach this in an honest & realistic way.
Jaydez: kudos for your honesty! You do want to speed, and feel entitled to it. You should spend 30 seconds doing research into how many people die per year due to speeding, and then you should ask yourself “How many of those people set out to kill someone?”
The answer is probably pretty close to zero. I’m glad & thankful that your speeding has yet to kill or seriously injure anyone, but I do think that as you are so honest about your desire to speed, you should be honest that running red lights is probably a pretty risky activity, and it is good fortune that you haven’t injured yourself or anyone else.
Best,
David Streever
Dear Mr. Streever,
If you were more aware of the facts, you would be more understanding of those on the other side of your position.
My personal position is that we should expect protection in the form of severe punishments and penalties for those who abuse these tools; however, there are many on the privacy side that have quite HONEST positions towards banning these devices.
Not all these cameras are snap photo types, and they do not only see speeders. The technology does exist to use a full motion camera, video recognition, and databases to simply keep a report of EVERY car that passes them. This can be used, or abused, by anyone with access to the data. This can be used to track terrorists, kidnappers, thieves, or political adversaries. In the fine traditions of our country, many people do not want this level of power to tempt our leaders.
Many people believe it is time for our laws to address the incredible new capabilities to invade our privacy that have now been developed. They are not a bunch of law breakers, they are Americans in the finest tradition.
It’s one thing for us to all live with the idea that other people can see us drive down the street. It is a whole other thing to live with the idea that other people have a record of everywhere we drive, at what time, by what route, and how quickly.
Even if you don’t care about the possible abuse by nefarious folks, you should care that the revenue grubbing governments on every level will now be able to fine you for EVERY infraction you make. Even if you are an excellent driver, do you honestly expect to keep your license (or be able to afford retirement) if you get nailed for EVERY infraction?
How many victims do we need of this technology before we speak up? I already know one nice retired lady, with no record of bad driving or other malfeasance, who spent hours per week for several weeks, fighting a ticket from one of these cameras that accused her. The car in the photo was not owned by her, she had never owned a car of that model or even make, and the license plate was not close to hers. She was pretty well expected to prove she was innocent rather than the other way around.
Lastly, freedom to move about the country is not a privilege. It so happens that driving is presently the only practical means to that end today. You might want to consider how “honest and realistic” you are being by assuming that there will be no government abuse of these devices.
“Even if you don’t care about the possible abuse by nefarious folks, you should care that the revenue grubbing governments on every level will now be able to fine you for EVERY infraction you make.”
Excellent!
You can’t make a case for breaking a driving law to me.
I just look at the chart of fatalities & see the percentage of pedestrian death SOAR above 20 mph, and I wonder.
Driving is not the only practical means to that today. Don’t tell me something so stupid without knowing that I have clients 40 miles away, I visit them with a bike or mass-transit, and they have no idea that I am not driving.
It is practical to get around without having the right to speed.
As for my “lack of awareness”, perhaps you should reconsider what you are speaking about: Perhaps I’m confused but the cameras that CT (Connecticut, the state we’re talking about?) are NOT the “full motion anamatronic invader 1984 doom & gloom” cameras you are oh so worried about.
Nor are they as mobile & easily used as satellites.
Maybe you should go post on a state’s comments where the cameras actually do the things you are worried about.
Let’s assume, too that you have never seen this:
maps
What privacy? The genie has been let out of the bottle.