(WFSB) - Speed cameras continue to appear across the state.
Cameras are already approved in 15 towns and cities, but an I-Team investigation raises questions about whether the data used to justify them is accurate. A local researcher says the data doesn’t add up.
ROUTE 109:
Phil Dutton grew up on Route 109 in Washington, Connecticut. He still lives there, decades later.
“You’d be taking your life in your own hands,” says Dutton.
That’s how Dutton describes driving on the long highway, also known as Old Litchfield Road.
“Speeding like you wouldn’t believe,” says Dutton. Dutton says he’s witnessed several serious accidents himself.
Until, he says, the town began using speed cameras in May 2025. One of the two cameras the town has, sits up the road from Dutton, at Route 109 and Wkyeham Road.
“People are driving slower. It’s a godsend,” says Dutton.
Washington was the first municipality in the state to have speed cameras. The state has approved the use of speed cameras individually, in 14 other towns and cities, so far.
But Patricia Peiffer has questions, and serious concerns over how and why some of these cameras were approved.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DATA:
“Much of that data is inflated, there’s misinformation, there’s wrong information,” says Patricia Peiffer. Peiffer is a research analyst, she’s worked for trade commissions, universities and more.
She lives in Litchfield and as a member of the (now-disbanded) Traffic Action Community Group there, she was asked to see if cameras could work for Litchfield.
“I started looking at the data,” says Peiffer.
The plan was later scrapped, but Peiffer started looking at the municipal plans, town and cities that were approved for cameras, submitted to the state. The plans detail where those municipalities want to put the cameras and why. She says she found problems.
The state requires each submission for speed camera approval includes:
Speed studies, measuring how fast cars are going and how often, a history of traffic crashes caused by speeding, average daily traffic, and a history of traffic stops, at each proposed location.
Peiffer found problems across many plans, but the ones submitted from Washington, the first town approved, got her attention.
“I thought, well this isn’t right,” says Peiffer.
For example, in Washington’s approved plan, there is a map, outlining where crashes happened in Washington, and how serious they were. The map uses 2015-2017 data. Washington submitted their plan in late 2024. Peiffer thinks that was intentional. In that time period, there were three fatal crashes. There’s been one since. The town even notes more current data, from 2020 to 2023, in other areas of their plan, when talking about crashes. “That’s what I mean by this inflated data,” says Peiffer. Peiffer also pointed out a section that details what crashes happened at each location, and what kind of injury (if any). The law says the plan should include whether speed caused each crash.
Washington’s submitted plan doesn’t specify whether speed played a role. Peiffer looked up the data herself, using the same system towns and cities are encourage to use, the UConn crash data repository.
“There’s crashes recorded in this because a deer ran out,” says Peiffer.
There’s also a section for the number of speed-related traffic stops, Washington used data from all of Troop L’s coverage area.
“All of Troop L would also include Route 8, that goes through all of Litchfield County, Torrington, Litchfield data,” says Peiffer. “That’s what I mean by this inflated data.”
WASHINGTON RESPONDS:
Jim Brinton is Washington’s first selectman. He says the cameras work. “It has had an impact. We needed these cameras, there’s no doubt about it,” says Brinton. “In the local area, people are becoming more aware of it so they tend to slow down.”
Brinton sat down with the I-Team to answer questions about the plan. He says DACRA, the company that installs and runs the cameras, created their municipal plan.
“They filled out the application for the town, on behalf of the town, submitted that to the state, did data collection to make sure these roads did indeed warrant a speed camera,” says Brinton.
But when we asked about using data from ten years ago on the application, he told the I-Team. “The only thing I can imagine is it was the latest available,” says Brinton.
He stands by the plan, and believes DACRA followed state law. State law is silent on whether a vendor can write the plan.
DACRA has not responded to our emails.
We asked Brinton if this was a conflict of interest, considering DACRA benefits monetarily from the cameras. Brinton said, “we vetted everything with our attorney and there were no issues obviously them submitting on behalf. Almost like a CPA submitting your taxes on your behalf.”
When we asked more specific questions, Brinton said, “I’d have to defer to the DOT. You know, they gave approval for those three roads.”
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:The I-Team went to DOT, specifically Commissioner Garrett Eucalitto. When we asked, he did say it’s okay for DACRA to help with plans, adding “it doesn’t change how we review what is submitted.”
He says everything in Washington’s and the other municipalities’ plans, is above board. He says DOT verifies all the data in the plans.
We pressed Commissioner Eucalitto on the specifics, including Washington’s use of Troop L data.
Eucalitto says municipalities themselves must consider data, like traffic stops and traffic enforcement due to speeding, when picking locations to place cameras. The DOT doesn’t use it for final approval. The state statute doesn’t make that clear.
“What we look at is speed and crash history,” says Commissioner Eucalitto.
The Commissioner showed the I-Team the pages of the plan the DOT is mostly concerned about: where the crashes are happening, and speeds at the specific proposed locations.
“What’s the average speed that 50% of the vehicles are traveling in this location? What’s the speed that 85% of the vehicles are traveling at this location? That is you know, used to determine are people blowing way past what the speed limit is in that locations,” says the Commissioner.
We asked the Commissioner if it was normal for Washington to use 2015-2017 crash numbers.
“It depends on each individual municipality and when data is available. There probably is some updated data available,” says Commissioner Eucalitto.
The Commissioner says his engineers do look up more recent numbers when approving plans.We asked if there is any talk about changing how municipalities apply for the cameras, after pointing out the confusion between municipal plans and the statute.
“Not yet. I mean, it’s very, it’s been around for less than a year and a half,” says Commissioner Eucalitto.
He says the state will wait for municipalities to file their 18-month status reports, as required by law.
Peiffer would like to see more immediate action.
“I would say take that technology down. It’s up there under false pretense.” She wants those towns and cities to rewrite and resubmit the plans, and, “follow the state statute.”
But Phil Dutton of Washington says, the cameras are finally making people follow the laws of the road, by slowing down. He wants them to stay, and he wants more of them.
Marlborough was the second municipality in Connecticut to put up speed cameras. In their plan, it says they were also assisted by DACRA.
Some of the issues we found in Washington’s plan, were also in Marlborough’s, including using 2015-2017 data and Troop K data.
The Public Safety Director there currently, was not here at the time of the plan’s submission in 2024, so could not answer our questions. The Town Manager did not respond.
The DOT Commissioner says his ultimate goal is that municipalities will not need cameras, because drivers will stop speeding instead.
Copyright 2026 WFSB. All rights reserved.