Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-219
(1949 Rev., S. 2407; 1961, P.A. 379, S. 2; 517, S. 15; 1963, P.A. 289; 595; February, 1965, P.A. 92; 1969, P.A. 450, S. 1, 2; 670, S. 1, 2; P.A. 73-253, S. 1; P.A. 75-577, S. 6, 126; P.A. 79-609, S. 1; P.A. 80-276, S. 1, 6; P.A. 84-372, S. 5, 9; P.A. 90-213, S. 7; P.A. 98-181 , S. 2 ; P.A. 08-32 , S. 13 ; P.A. 09-187 , S. 14 ; P.A. 10-110 , S. 18 .)
The effect of exceeding former statutory speed limits. 81 C. 500; 90 C. 707 ; 98 C. 490 ; 99 C. 727 ; 106 C. 386 . Former statute applied. 102 C. 44. Excessive speed and failure to look ahead. 105 C. 693 . Duty of driver to keep reasonable lookout. 108 C. 508 , 546, 560. Permissible rate of speed depends on existing conditions. Id., 706. Endangering life of occupant of vehicle being driven should be distinguished from endangering life of another, which is a violation of Sec. 14-222 . 124 C. 270 . Cited. 125 C. 448 . Where jury was cautioned that plaintiff was limited to negligence specified in complaint, it was not prejudicial to read inapplicable portion of statute. Id., 512. Cited. 139 C. 719 ; 140 C. 274 . Trier to decide whether the speed was actually unreasonable under all the circumstances; if plaintiff's speed was unreasonable, it cannot be said that as a matter of law, under the circumstances of the case, the excess speed was a proximate cause of the collision. 146 C. 470 . Violation constitutes negligence per se. 147 C. 644 . Cited. 148 Conn. 456 . Prima facie evidence discussed. Id., 481. Cited. 149 C. 385 . Court may take judicial notice that radar is an accurate speed-measuring principle. 153 C. 365 . Cited. 154 C. 100 ; 170 C. 495 ; 202 C. 629 ; 208 Conn. 94 ; 209 Conn. 98 . Cited. 14 CA 816 ; 17 CA 416 ; 19 CA 432 ; 27 CA 346 ; 29 Conn.App. 791 ; 34 CA 201 ; 46 Conn.App. 633 . Right of Merritt Parkway Commission to fix speed limits under former statute discussed. 7 Conn.Supp. 165 . Cited. 16 CS 398 . Prima facie presumption that driving at rate of speed exceeding posted speed limit is not reasonable; proof of favorable conditions is effective neither to rebut, as a matter of law, state's prima facie case nor to constitute, as a matter of law, a defense to a prosecution under section. 22 CS 464 . Cited. 23 CS 303 , 342. Passing at speed in excess of posted speed limit and returning to right-hand lane are among circumstances for trier to consider in determining reasonableness of speed; court may take judicial notice of regulations of State Traffic Commission. Id., 437. Radar can show speed, and it is for the trier to believe or disbelieve testimony with regard to the accuracy of the radar. 24 CS 13 . Cited. Id., 91; Id., 124; Id., 160; Id., 167; Id., 345. Plea of guilty and absence of affidavit of explanation can result in inference that speeding was proximate cause of accident. 25 CS 380 . Cited. 26 CS 513 . Officer's testimony that speedometer had recently been tested satisfies requirement in speeding prosecutions of some showing of instrument's accuracy prior to admissibility. 37 CS 601 . Cited. 39 Conn.Supp. 313 ; 41 CS 356 . Speed recorded on radar unit admissible in evidence if accuracy of unit is established and car identified. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 68. Defendant has right, prior to trial, to inspect radar equipment; not abuse of discretion to refuse postponement of trial when request made during trial. Id., 369. Speeding violation may be established by circumstantial evidence; where facts conflict with witnesses' estimates of speed, the facts control. Id., 439. It is for the trier to decide under all the circumstances, some of which may be favorable to the driver, whether the speed was greater than was reasonable at the time. Id., 644. Cited. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 461. Testimony of state trooper as to speed of defendant's vehicle during "clocking" period is admissible although no foundation has been laid to establish accuracy of device by which trooper reached his conclusion; speedometer reading is only prima facie evidence; trier of facts shall determine its credibility. Id., 566, 568. Operation of police radar requires no technical knowledge of radar science; individual graphic record containing alleged speed of defendant is admissible without producing graphic record covering entire period of operation. Id., 575, 577. Prima facie evidence of defendant's speed of 70 miles an hour as unreasonable is rebuttable but casts on defendant burden of going forward with the evidence his speed was reasonable under the conditions. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 93. It is not double jeopardy to prosecute offender for two successive speeding offenses in different towns in same hour of one day. Id., 102. Court will judicially notice that radar instrument measures speed accurately. Id., 109. Expressed intent of legislature was to distinguish between the types of highways described in statute. Id., 374. Cited. Id., 499. Statute does not go much beyond the common law rule and the jury must decide whether defendant's speed was negligent under the circumstances. Id., 671. Failure of officer issuing summons to defendant to correctly identify him in court or trial did not affect the establishment of the identity of the driver where defendant had entered a general appearance and appeared for trial. Id., 697. Where there was no evidence of the testing of the speedometer of the state trooper within a reasonable time before the clocking of defendant's car, evidence of the clocked speed was inadmissible. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 190. Cited. Id., 333. Defense of entrapment must establish the criminal design arose solely in the mind of the police. Id., 379. In a trial for violation of section, the court may not direct the jury to find a verdict of guilty even where there was a stipulation of all facts. Id., 223. Cited. Id., 618; 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 161, 162. No clocked measurements are necessary to establish prima facie evidence of speed in excess of the maximum limits. Id., 334. Cited. Id., 560, 599. Subsec. (a): Each of the two sentences in Subsec. states a separate interdict. 144 C. 399 . Violation of Subsec. would be negligence per se. 165 C. 635 . Cited. 176 C. 451 . Cited. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 580; 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 516. In crime of speeding which is malum prohibitum, the intent to do the prohibited act is only intent necessary for conviction and motive of defendant is of no consequence. Id., 573. Subsec. (b): Degree of excess speed over posted limit is factor to be considered by trier in determining whether, under all circumstances, a motor vehicle has been operated at greater than reasonable speed. 144 Conn. 399 . Violation of posted speed limit not negligence per se. 165 Conn. 635 . History discussed; State Traffic Commission has authority to post speed limits on Merritt Parkway and it is proper to admit evidence of posted speed. 23 CS 468 .
See Sec. 14-107 re liability of owner, operator or lessee of vehicle. See Sec. 14-111g re operator's retraining program. See Sec. 14-219c re use of radar to support conviction. See Sec. 14-222 re penalty for operation at rate of speed greater than eighty-five miles per hour.