THE REVOLT OVER SPEED CAMERAS

Few transportation issues have divided Connecticut residents more quickly than automated speed cameras.

Warning signs in Greenwich

Supporters say the cameras slow drivers down and protect children near schools. Critics argue they represent government surveillance, outsourced enforcement, and a “money grab”.

The controversy has played out most visibly in Greenwich, Fairfield and Milford.

In Greenwich, the debate became so heated that town officials suspended the speed camera program in April after determining that mandatory public hearings required before launching the program had somehow been missed.  Oops.

That decision followed months of complaints from residents who questioned everything from privacy protections to vendor involvement and the town's vendor selection process.

By mid-December 2025 Greenwich had issued 12,006 warnings and 2,294 citations, and later reported 7,225 citations in January 2026 alone.

Coverage by my colleagues at Greenwich Free Press documented the outrage.  A citizen petition gathered more than 700 signatures calling for the cameras to be removed.

May 14th Hearing in Greenwich    

At a long-overdue public hearing in mid-May, residents raised concerns about the selection process of vendor Blue Line Solutions, its data collection and privacy policy, and whether the system was designed more to generate revenue than improve safety.  

Town officials and police strongly disagreed.  Greenwich Police Chief Jim Heavey recently argued the cameras were "working exactly as intended" and reported reductions in speeding around schools since they were turned on.   Greenwich First Selectman Fred Camillo repeatedly rejected claims that the program was a "cash grab," emphasizing that the goal was protecting children.  

The Greenwich RTM takes up the issue June 8.  My guess is voters' representatives will reject it, adding another chapter to the town's remarkably clumsy handling of this program.

The same tensions are now emerging in Fairfield.

Fairfield's cameras issued more than 114,000 warning tickets in their first 17 days, with officials projecting roughly 190,000 violations during the initial warning period.   The numbers immediately fueled skepticism.

In Fairfield the violations kick in when you go more than 10 mph over the speed limit.  The first fine is $50, with additional processing fees possible depending on how the citation is paid.

Residents questioned why cameras operate 24 hours a day rather than only during school arrival and dismissal times.  Others worried about revenues projected to reach approximately $3.2 million during the first month of enforcement.

State Sen. Tony Hwang publicly acknowledged the backlash and urged town leaders to create a dedicated roadway-safety account so residents would not see the program as a "revenue grab."

Fairfield First Selectperson Christine Vitale pushed back, saying the program is "fully about children's safety" and adding that zero revenue would actually be the best outcome, meaning drivers obeyed the law.

So far fifteen Connecticut municipalities have received CDOT approval to install the cameras.  At least one town, Kent, has voted (by a four to one margin) not to install the speed cams.

Still, many crucial questions about the program remain unanswered at the local level:  how are vendors properly vetted, what happens when the three-year test period expires, how do citizens know ticket revenue will be properly spent and even a more basic question… are our speed limits too low?

Supporters insist these cameras are not about revenue.  Fair enough.  If every driver obeyed the speed limit, the towns would collect nothing.  But when local governments begin projecting millions of dollars in future ticket revenue (and dreaming of how it might be spent), they shouldn't be surprised when taxpayers become suspicious.

The challenge for Connecticut isn't proving that speeding is dangerous.  Most of us already agree that’s a real issue.  The real challenge is convincing drivers that speed cameras are truly about safety and not simply the latest government innovation in “contactless fundraising”.