TAKE YOUR PICK! Speed Cameras need multiple changes- contact your rtm before the vote on Monday 6/15!
Whether it's the poor placement of the cameras that prioritizes citations over safety, or the disregard for the statute terms passed to permit the cameras, or the step toward Orwellian surveillance in Greenwich and your data vulnerability, or other problems, we strongly urge you to contact our elected representatives to better protect our students and to avoid some of these unintended consequences.
SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT. LEARN MORE ABOUT THE FLAWS IN THE CURRENT PROGRAM
Legal & Procedural Violations
The town skipped mandatory public hearings before launching the program — a fundamental procedural failure that undermines the program's legal legitimacy
The contract fee structure with vendor Blue Line Solutions may violate Connecticut State statute
Core law-enforcement authority may have been improperly delegated to an out-of-state private equity company
IMAGINE: A resident successfully challenges a citation in court, a judge rules the entire program was launched unlawfully, and the town faces a class-action suit from thousands of ticketed drivers — resulting in mass refunds, legal fees, and a politically damaging settlement paid by taxpayers
Wrong Camera Placements
Walkable schools most likely to have children on foot (Cos Cob, Riverside, Old Greenwich, North Mianus) were passed over in favor of schools where children are predominantly driven
Parkway School was included despite zero crashes and zero traffic stops in seven years, and no children walking to school
IMAGINE: A child is struck by a speeding driver near Cos Cob or Riverside school — schools that were passed over for cameras — and local media reports that the town's own safety data supported placing a camera there; the town faces enormous reputational and legal liability. Residents near camera-free walkable schools, aware of the inequity, begin demanding cameras everywhere — leading to sprawling, poorly planned expansion driven by political pressure rather than crash data
Vendor Transparency & Accountability
No clear public accounting of what due diligence was done before selecting Stantec Inc. and Blue Line Solutions
The appeals process routes paperwork to an out-of-state commercial company with minimal information provided to residents — raising serious due process concerns
Basic financial questions remain unanswered: how revenue is split, how town proceeds are used, and whether fund usage complies with CT law
IMAGINE: A third party submits FOIA requests to Greenwich and dozens of other Blue Line client municipalities, aggregates license plate and citation data into a national database, and sells it to insurance companies — drivers see premiums rise based on camera records they didn't know were being compiled or shared
Operational Problems
Cameras have confusing warning lights and inconsistent speed limit postings
Violation notices list unintelligible or incorrect locations
IMAGINE: A Greenwich resident with a legitimate appeal mails paperwork to the out-of-state processing company, receives no acknowledgment, misses a response deadline, and is referred to collections — damaging their credit over a ticket that should have been dismissed
Safety Effectiveness Is Overstated
Speeding is not the primary cause of most traffic fatalities — distracted driving, impaired driving, and poor road design are significant factors cameras do not address
Evidence on the overall effectiveness of automated speed cameras is mixed
Better Alternatives Exist
Digital radar speed displays can improve driver awareness without surveillance or due process concerns
Enhanced targeted enforcement by the Greenwich Police Department could address actual crash hotspots more precisely
Resources could be redirected to road design improvements on Route 1, where 25% of severe and fatal crashes occur
IMAGINE: The GPD, instead of receiving resources for targeted data-driven enforcement, is sidelined as the private vendor effectively takes over school-zone enforcement — reducing officers’ skills and experience, and further distancing the department from community traffic safety work
Financial Motives Are Suspect
The revenue-sharing structure with a private vendor creates a financial incentive to maximize citations rather than genuinely improve safety
The Town of Fairfield's cameras issued 114,000+ warning tickets in 18 days in May — raising legitimate questions about whether this is enforcement or exploitation of drivers forced to hit the brakes.
IMAGINE: A future fiscal crunch leads the town to expand the camera program to non-school-zone roads primarily to generate revenue, using safety language as cover — precisely the "mission creep" critics warned about from the start