Patch Readers Split On CT Highway Speed Camera Proposal, But Safety Concerns Run Deep

Patch readers are split on a proposed speed camera pilot program on state highways, with a slight majority supporting the plan.

More than 530 readers responded to a Patch survey after a legislative committee advanced a bill that would allow the Connecticut Department of Transportation to test speed cameras on limited-access highways, including I-95, I-84 and the Merritt Parkway.

When asked how much they agreed with the proposal, 54 percent of respondents said they either “agree” or “strongly agree,” compared to 36 percent who said they “disagree” or “strongly disagree.” About 10 percent were neutral.

Many respondents said Connecticut highways feel increasingly dangerous. Readers gave themselves an average safety score of 5.3 out of 10 while driving on state highways.

“I have never driven on the highway where I did not see reckless drivers, speeding and weaving in and out,” one reader wrote. “It is extremely dangerous and something needs to be done. They are putting everyone else’s lives in danger.”

Others strongly supported the proposal.

“Just do it,” one respondent wrote.

“The cameras have shown to reduce speeding and save innocent lives,” another wrote. “This should have been done a long time ago. People argue it invades privacy. If you don't speed, you can keep your privacy. Speeders have NO rights. Victims DO!”

Still, opposition was consistent, with many readers questioning whether the program is more about generating revenue than improving safety.

“This is just another example of 'Big Brother' over-reach, and another revenue-generating program,” one reader wrote.

“IT IS JUST ANOTHER WAY FOR THE STATE OF CONN TO GET MONEY,” another respondent wrote.

On proposed fines — $75 for a first violation of 15 mph or more over the speed limit and $200 for subsequent violations — readers were divided.

About 41 percent said the fines are appropriate, while 23 percent said they are too high and 21 percent said they should be higher. Another 13 percent were unsure.

If the pilot program moves forward, readers were similarly split on what should come next. Some 38 percent said cameras should be expanded widely, while 30 percent said the program should remain limited. Another 29 percent said expansion should focus only on high-crash areas.

Several readers said cameras should not replace traditional enforcement.

“Cameras shouldn't replace proper policing of our highways. State troopers are nowhere to be found on our state highways. Cameras will only work if the law is enforced,” one respondent wrote.

Others questioned how effective cameras would be long-term.

“Overreach and accuracy are a concern. Once the bad drivers learn where the cameras are located, they will just behave in those areas,” one reader wrote.

The bill now heads to the full legislature for consideration. The proposal has not yet been approved and could still change.