[JViello]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

It does factor into the state's revenue, yes, but I hardly think laws are on the books solely to make money, without the citizen's well-being taken into consideration. I think traffic fines are one part of their revenue they'd like to see decrease.

Laws and fines are two different things.

Laws are supposed to protect the public, fines just fill the coffers. There are ways to institute a penalty that does not automatically go to cash. Honestly, I think more about my insurance rates going up then the fine.

The less responsible we become as a people, the more the government will step in and take control until it's out of control.

[JayCT]

I must comment on this. Laws are fine if they represent what the majority of the public believe to be correct. Laws are not fine when they are arbitrary and designed by politicians to promote some politically correct cause and then are ignored by the public. Specifically I am talking about the 55 mile per hour speed limit which was imposed in the 70's as a supposed way to save fuel. The problem with this was that it assumes that 55 was an acceptable speed limit for all highways. It is not and as a result, the vast majority of people broke the law daily. Most highways were designed for a MINIMUM design speed of 70. Why then limit traffic to 55? The politicians responded that it saved fuel and lives. Well with that logic, why not lower the speed limit to 40? Or 25? This was protested for years by states that had a lot of rural freeways like Vermont and Arizona but did not get anywhere because it was not politically correct.

Eventually the feds conceded and agreed to increase the speed to 65 but in non urban areas which is defined as communities over a certain size. This was flawed too since it assumes the highway is designed based upon the borders it crossed. So if a highweay happens to cross into a larger town, the speed limit must drop to 55 whether it makes sense to or not. Again, it is just dumb.

Politicians need to let professionals do their jobs and trust them. Is it perfect, no. But then again neither are the politicians and the system they promote. Jay.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by wavehunter007

I only pass this along because it angers me that the fees are a bit outrageous for most middle class folks…

…but a second source (another Police Officers wife this time) has confirmed a story that I heard a few weeks ago - that is that there is a huge push by the State of Connecticut for local law enforcement (towns, cities, and State Police) to issue as many MV tickets as possible. You can draw your own conclusion as to why. However, safe to say... THEY WILL BE OUT IN FORCE THIS LONG HOLIDAY WEEKEND.

So if you want to keep your money in your pocket…I would pay attention to traffic, speed, and other issues.

Good timely post, thanks for the reminder. I will be extra careful driving this weekend to avoid any tickets.

[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by wavehunter007

a second source (another Police Officers wife this time) has confirmed a story that I heard a few weeks ago - that is that there is a huge push by the State of Connecticut for local law enforcement (towns, cities, and State Police) to issue as many MV tickets as possible.

Honestly, the state can push all they want. The reality though, is that cities and towns only receive 10% of any fines collected from citations. The state gets 90%. You may see a larger police presence on our highways, but i seriously doubt that you'll encounter any ticket blitzes locally. The incentive just isn't there.

[njguy]

Darn! I thought that the title meant free money for CT residents - lol!

I would move to CT immediately if that was the case.

NJ is pretty much the same as CT as far as police city/town "revenue-extortionists $$$ makers".

[brasscitybluenwhite]

Originally Posted by njguy

Darn! I thought that the title meant free money for CT residents - lol!

I would move to CT immediately if that was the case.

NJ is pretty much the same as CT as far as police city/town "revenue-extortionists $$$ makers".

Then don't drive fast. Just like people who whine when they get community service for stealing. Then don't steal. A crime is a crime.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite

Then don't drive fast. Just like people who whine when they get community service for stealing. Then don't steal. A crime is a crime.

I completely agree.

About the 55mph speed limit - especially parts of the Merritt Parkway, 95 and Rt 8, going too much over 65 (because we all know everyone does 10 over) can be a bad idea. I do think that going too slow can be dangerous also but with the congestion on the roads here, a posted 65 or 70 can yield bad results. We already live in a state where lots of people aren't held responsible for their actions.

[njguy]

Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite

Then don't drive fast. Just like people who whine when they get community service for stealing. Then don't steal. A crime is a crime.

Who said that I drive fast? - lol!

In fact when I drive in CT I wished that I had a forcefield around my vehicle driving in the right lane of the highways doing at or barely above the speed limit.

[goldenband]

Originally Posted by brasscitybluenwhite

Then don't drive fast. Just like people who whine when they get community service for stealing. Then don't steal. A crime is a crime.

Be careful here -- speeding is a civil offense, and stealing is a criminal offense. These are very different things in the eyes of the law (and rightly so, IMHO). That being said, I agree that if you don't want to get a ticket, you shouldn't speed.

However, it's crucial that the laws be enforced consistently, and broadly. The police can't just "cherry-pick" people here and there, while otherwise permitting traffic to travel in excess of the posted speed limit -- because if the vast majority of traffic is driving 10+ miles over the speed limit, you may have to break the speed limit in order to drive safely. (It's safer to travel with 75 MPH traffic in the center lane, than to constantly have to cut back and forth to get around vehicles going 40-50 MPH in the right lane.)

This means (in turn) that the police ALWAYS have a legal reason to nab you. This is a particularly acute topic for members of minority groups, for whom racial profiling can be a concern, but is generally a bad state of affairs for everyone. Maybe this contributes to why the speed limits are kept where they are -- not in terms of a conspiracy theory, but just in the "fringe benefit" sense.

It's interesting to learn that the towns only keep 10% of the revenue from fines. Perhaps that explains why the police don't camp out on 84, where they could easily make $1000+ per hour per officer on fines, even if they were only pulling over genuinely dangerous drivers. Still, I feel ambivalent about traffic fines as a source of tax revenue for a municipality.

I agree that many roads are signed too low. Down in Tennessee, the speed limit is 70 MPH on many stretches of road, and people seem to be able to handle it OK, with relatively few outliers going 80+. On the other hand, I agree that driving 75 on a road like Route 8 is nuts, especially in bad weather. I was there the other week during a storm, and things got a little hairy for my taste.

One thing I would love to see is a crushing penalty for weaving, aka unnecessary lane changes in heavy traffic. Weaving kills, and was responsible for the death of a close friend of mine. I think drivers who do that should be taken off the road permanently.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by goldenband

One thing I would love to see is a crushing penalty for weaving, aka unnecessary lane changes in heavy traffic. Weaving kills, and was responsible for the death of a close friend of mine. I think drivers who do that should be taken off the road permanently.

I agree with your last statement.