Fairfield Police Chief's Latest Statement On School Zone Speed Camera Program

FAIRFIELD, CT — On June 23, Fairfield Police Chief Michael Paris delivered the following statement on the town's new school zone speed camera program, an initiative that has been the subject of debate in Fairfield since its implementation this spring.

Paris made the remarks during a Board of Selectperson's meeting in an effort to quell some of the opposition to the program.

The initiative will be among the topics discussed next week during a public information session on Fairfield's roadway safety efforts, at which Paris is scheduled to be one of the speakers. The session is scheduled for 7 p.m. on July 14 in the auditorium at Fairfield Warde High School.

"At the end of the day, every parent dropping off a child at school, every student crossing a roadway, every crossing guard standing at an intersection, and every pedestrian walking through one of these corridors deserves to be safe," Paris said in the conclusion of the statement. "That is the standard I will continue to apply. That is exactly why this program was implemented. And that is exactly what success looks like."

Read More:

• Fairfield Officials Project Millions In Revenue From New School-Zone Speed Camera Program
• Fairfield To Start Issuing Fines For Speed Camera Program Next Week
• Installation Underway Of School Zone Speed Enforcement Cameras In Fairfield

• Fairfield Speed Cameras To Continue Enforcement In School Zones This Summer

Below is Chief Paris' latest statement about the speed camera initiative:

Over the last several weeks, the Fairfield Police Department has received significant criticism regarding the implementation of the speed camera program. I understand that. Any new enforcement initiative that impacts thousands of motorists is going to generate discussion, disagreement, and scrutiny.

What I want to do today is separate opinion from fact.

The fact is that this program was implemented for one reason and one reason only:to slow vehicles down in school zones and improve public safety. This was not a revenue initiative. It was not a political initiative. It was a public safety initiative.

The Fairfield Police Department did not wake up one day and decide to install speed cameras. This program was developed after years of speeding complaints from residents, extensive traffic studies, crash data analysis, engineering reviews, public hearings, legislative review, state review, and public discussion. The purpose has always been the same: reduce excessive speed where children, pedestrians, and families are most vulnerable.

I think it is important that people understand why these six locations were selectedin the first place. These sites were not chosen randomly. They were identified through traffic studies, crash data, engineering analysis, and the Municipal Traffic Enforcement Plan approved by the Connecticut Office of the State Traffic Administration.

Collectively, these six school zones experienced 56 crashes and 11 injury crashes over a three-year period. In some of these locations, the eighty-fifth percentile speed reached as high as 46 miles per hour in a school zone where the reduced speed limit is 20 miles per hour. Think about that. Forty-six miles per hour. More than double the school-zone speed limit.

One corridor experienced two fatal pedestrian crashes. Another location saw a speed-related head-on collision that injured five students. Several of these school corridors have significant pedestrian activity, school crossings, limited sight lines, and roadway conditions that make excessive speed particularly dangerous.

These are not hypothetical concerns. These are documented safety issues. And that is precisely why these locations were selected. Not because they would generate revenue. Not because they were politically convenient. But because the data showed they represented some of the highest-risk school corridors in our community. The results speak for themselves.

During the warning period in May, 94,173 warning notices were issued across Fairfield's six school-zone corridors. Those warnings were intended to educate motorists, encourage compliance, and provide every driver with notice that enforcement was coming. Since transitioning to live enforcement, only 8,004 citations had been issued as of June 16.

Think about that for a moment. More than ninety-four thousand warnings were issued, yet only approximately eight thousand citations followed once enforcement began. That tells me that the overwhelming majority of motorists changed their behavior. That is exactly what we hoped would happen. In fact, speed violations across the monitored school-zone corridors have decreased by approximately 83 percent since the program began.

• At Burr Elementary, speeding events have decreased by approximately 85 percent.
• At Timothy Dwight Elementary, approximately 77 percent.
• At Riverfield Elementary, approximately 95 percent.
• At Notre Dame High School, approximately 79 percent.
• At Fairfield Ludlowe and Roger Ludlowe, approximately 88 percent.
• At Fairfield Warde High School, approximately 80 percent.

Those numbers are not opinions. Those numbers are measurable changes in driver behavior. That is the purpose of traffic safety enforcement. Not punishment. Not revenue.

Behavior modification.

I also think it is important to understand who is receiving these citations. Of the citations issued to date, approximately seventy-one percent have been issued to non-Fairfield residents. Twenty-nine percent have been issued to Fairfield residents. This is not a Fairfield issue. This is a regional traffic safety issue affecting everyone who travels through our community.

I also think it is important to remember the extraordinary steps this Town took to ensure fairness during implementation. Fairfield voluntarily limited citations during the rollout period. During the first two weeks of enforcement, motorists could receive only one citation regardless of how many violations occurred. During the second two weeks, motorists were limited to three citations per vehicle.

Those restrictions were not required by state law. We adopted them because we wanted education and voluntary compliance to come before enforcement. In doing so, the Town intentionally chose public education over potential revenue. That decision alone demonstrates the purpose of this program. If this program was about revenue, we would not have issued 94,173 warnings before issuing a single citation. The goal was never to issue as many citations as possible. The goal was to change driver behavior. And the data shows that is exactly what is happening.

I also want to address the process. This program did not happen overnight. It went before the Traffic Authority. It went before the Police Commission. It went before the RTM. It went through the budget process. All of these were public hearings. It underwent review by the Connecticut Office of the State Traffic Administration. It was publicly discussed, debated, revised, approved, and ultimately implemented through every required legal and governmental channel available.

The public had notice. Elected officials had notice. Town boards and commissions had notice. Questions could have been asked at every stage of that process because that process existed specifically for that purpose.

Reasonable people can disagree about policy. That is healthy and expected. But once a program has gone through years of review, multiple public hearings, legislative approval, state approval, budget approval, and implementation, it is important that we respect the process that was followed.

The Fairfield Police Department will continue to provide facts, data, and transparency. What we will not do is allow public safety decisions to become political decisions. Our responsibility is not to follow political winds. Our responsibility is to protect the public using objective data, sound enforcement practices, and the authority granted to us through law. That is exactly what we have done here.

If the data showed this program was not working, I would be the first person standing here recommending changes. Instead, the data shows compliance is increasing, speeds are being reduced, and driver behavior is changing. That is success.

At the end of the day, every parent dropping off a child at school, every student crossing a roadway, every crossing guard standing at an intersection, and every pedestrian walking through one of these corridors deserves to be safe. That is the standard I will continue to apply. That is exactly why this program was implemented. And that is exactly what success looks like.

Thank you.

Michael E. Paris

Chief of Police