Every Fairfield resident wants safer streets. As a father of two young children, I certainly do.
That is why I understand the appeal of speed cameras, traffic-calming measures, bike lanes, curb extensions, and other initiatives Fairfield is currently implementing under its Vision Zero framework. Reducing accidents and improving safety is a goal everyone can get behind.
But supporting that goal does not mean we should stop asking questions about how we get there.
As a former member of the Representative Town Meeting, I participated in the debate over Fairfield’s speed camera ordinance in 2025. I introduced an amendment that would have limited cameras to only school zones, where the safety rationale is strongest. When that amendment failed — allowing the possibility of cameras being installed anywhere in town — I voted against the ordinance.
My concern was never whether cameras could improve safety. In fact, early results suggest they are reducing speeds where installed. The more important question is what happens everywhere else.
A speed camera can influence behavior in a specific location. It cannot create a culture of safe driving across an entire town.
And that matters because traffic safety cannot be separated from another reality we all face: traffic congestion.
Fairfield already contends with some of the most congested highways and roads in the country. At the same time, Connecticut continues to encourage housing and population growth. Regardless of one’s position on development policy, more residents inevitably mean more trips, more vehicles, and more pressure on an already strained transportation network.
I worry that we aren’t seeing the forest for the trees. By piecemealing “traffic calming” measures together, we can slow down drivers in specific locations. But slowing drivers on one block of road is not the same as changing behavior. What it may do is increase congestion, frustration, and the likelihood that drivers seek alternate routes through neighborhoods or make riskier decisions.
Years ago, when I was in high school, a Fairfield police officer pulled me over for speeding. Instead of immediately writing a ticket, he explained why my behavior mattered. He pointed to my sister in the passenger seat and reminded me that my decisions behind the wheel affected not only me, but everyone around me.
I still remember how embarrassed I felt. More importantly, I remember how much that interaction changed the way I drove afterward.
A speed camera cannot do that. It can issue a ticket and reduce speeding within an enforcement zone, but it cannot exercise judgment, educate drivers, build community, or reinforce the expectations that create a safe driving culture.
Human interaction changes behavior. Technology can help reinforce it. But technology shouldn’t replace human engagement. That distinction matters because it reflects a broader policy discussion about how we approach public safety.
Fairfield is very fortunate to have a professional, well-respected police force that works hard every day to keep our community safe.
Yet, as the town expands automated enforcement and physical traffic interventions, the proposed increase to police funding for the coming fiscal year is only a little over three percent.
At the same time, the town is projecting speed camera revenue to exceed $1 million next fiscal year. But that revenue flows directly into the general fund rather than a dedicated road safety fund. Residents deserve greater transparency – not just promises – into how that money is being used. Without it, skepticism is inevitable.
Traffic safety is ultimately a human behavioral challenge. New tools and technologies can be part of the solution. But tech cannot replace human-to-human interaction that ultimately changes behavior. Our investments should reflect that priority. I’m not convinced they do.
A speed camera can issue a ticket. A police officer can change a driver. We need to remember that nuance to create a culture of safe driving.
Collin Colburn lives in Fairfield.
