Speed Cameras Are Not a Permanent Solution to Dangerous Streets
Public officials across North America are under pressure to address dangerous speeding on their streets. The demand for solutions is growing, and many are being pushed to adopt automated enforcement, like speed cameras. The problem? While speed cameras can issue tickets, they don’t actually fix the root cause of speeding, leaving officials stuck in a cycle of enforcement with no real improvement in safety.
A recent conversation on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation brought this debate to the forefront. Alberta’s Minister of Transportation, Devin Dreeshen, expressed skepticism about speed cameras, stating that many locations had been used as "cash cows" rather than genuine safety tools.
"We’ve had spots where we’ve had tens of thousands of infractions, and when you look at the number of collisions in these areas, they’re in the single digits. And so when you have a camera taking hundreds of photos and giving hundreds of tickets every day in a location, but it’s one of the safest locations in a city, that’s obviously not about traffic safety. That’s about revenue generation, the millions of dollars that it brings into the municipality."
On the other side of the debate, road safety advocate Valerie Smith from Parachute Canada pointed to research which shows that speed cameras can reduce collisions and injuries. "So we know from a variety of studies, both internationally and right here in Canada, that speed cameras are effective on a variety of levels. So A, they slow people down. And when people slow down, we know the number of total collisions is reduced. And in some studies, we’ve seen collisions were reduced by almost 55%."
Charles Marohn of Strong Towns brought a different perspective, arguing that speed cameras don’t address the core issue: street design. While speed cameras can ticket drivers, their impact on reducing speeds and preventing crashes is uncertain. The key question remains: Do they actually make roads safer, or are they just another enforcement tool that fails to address the underlying design issues that cause speeding in the first place?
Marohn emphasized that most people speed not because they want to break the law, but because streets are designed in a way that encourages it. "When you go out to a street and 95% of the vehicles are going over the speed limit, you can say, you know, we’re broken people and we’re all deviants. But the reality is the streets are overengineered for speed."
So what’s the alternative? Marohn laid it out clearly: "Essentially, you need edge friction. You need a driver to feel uncomfortable when they are driving at a speed that is unsafe. So if we need to lower speeds, we narrow up lanes, we bring in the curbs, and we add trees on the edge instead of taking them out.
"All of the things that we do to make a street wider and safer for driving at high speeds, we do the reverse when we want to lower speeds."
If communities are serious about reducing speeds and making streets safer, the focus should be on redesigning streets to naturally encourage slower, safer driving. Speed cameras may serve a temporary role, but they should never be treated as a permanent solution. The revenue generated from automated enforcement should not go into the general fund; it needs to be directed toward fixing the very streets where infractions are occurring.
Marohn stated that the ultimate goal of any speed camera program should be to eliminate the need for cameras entirely by creating streets where drivers naturally slow down.
If you’re considering automated enforcement in your community, contact Strong Towns to host a community conversation — an event that helps local leaders and residents understand how to do this the right way.
