Enforcing any kind of motor vehicle infractions effectively would require an incredible number of uniformed officers, if enforcement is to remain in the hands of officers. It is simply impossible to place officers at every intersection, or even every major problem intersection, and then so, the entire police force would be on traffic duty and not attending to more pressing matters.

This is why, revenue completely aside, traffic enforcement needs to be automated to the fullest extent possible both internally (speed governors inside cars, technology to prevent distracted driving, etc) and externally (red light & speeding cameras), and then if any human interaction is needed, it's done by department of transportation or DMV reps, not armed officers.

It has been known in CT for a while that camera enforcement is "illegal" per state statute, however, at a recent meeting of the CT Vision Zero Council (which I am a member of), it was brought up by the state that technically, camera enforcement isn't explicity prohibited, nor is it explicit that motor vehicle enforcement has to be done by an in-person officer. There is also prima facie presumption of accuracy for other speed-monitoring devices police use such as radar guns, and that presumption can be extended to "any other speed monitoring device approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Pubic Protection." But the state would likely still pursue some legislative changes if it moves forward to prevent any challenges.