Speed safety cameras are recognized as an effective tool to deter dangerous speeds and improve safety on our roads, yet their use also raises valid concerns. These include the potential for camera programs to disproportionately burden low-income road users financially – and beyond. Another concern is that the revenue generated from speed safety camera programs may become a relied-upon source of funding for city budgets, creating a conflict of interest that shifts the goal of the program from safety to revenue generation. This has the potential to lead to overuse, misplacement of cameras, or unfair financial burdens on certain communities.
On February 19th, Vision Zero Network hosted the webinar, Addressing Financial Impacts of Speed Safety Camera Programs, exploring issues highlighted in our new report, Fair Warnings: Recommendations to Promote Equity in Speed Safety Camera Programs. (You can learn about the first webinar in our series on January 28th here.)
This webinar featured panelists from the national Fines and Fees Justice Center, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) and a community advocate pushing for more equitable speed safety camera practices in Seattle. This discussion explored the ways that speed safety programs can be structured to focus on the goal of behavior change and maximize safety benefits without placing undue financial burden on low income road users. Check out the slides and recording from our one-hour discussion.
Financial Impact Considerations for Speed Safety Cameras
Speed safety cameras are not meant to be a stand-alone strategy, but a component of a larger, more holistic safety approach to manage speeds that also includes designing streets for safety and setting speed limits to match the context of the roadway. Read more about preventing unsafe speeds.
Shanelle from the Fines and Fees Justice Center affirmed this, stating:
“We do believe and research has proven that speed Safety Cameras, if done as part of a holistic safety approach, can also be a part of that work [to improve roadway safety].”
However, monetary sanctions do not inherently change behavior and improve roadway safety. Instead, these systems can penalize individuals based on their ability to pay rather than the severity of the offense. Wealthier drivers can easily pay fines, while lower-income drivers face harsher consequences. As a report by the Fines and Fees Justice Center (FFJC) highlights, “Because ATE (automated traffic enforcement) sweeps exponentially more people into the legal system, it compounds these disparate racial and economic outcomes, but does so with ever-greater efficiency.”
To mitigate the potential for harm, Shanelle stressed that speed safety camera programs prioritize non-financial penalties whenever and wherever possible, such as issuing warnings in place of fines for the first violation. Programs should also incorporate graduated penalties based on the frequency and severity of the violations so that first-time offenders are not treated the same as repeat violators. Additionally, fines should be proportionate to an individual’s ability to pay, preventing undue financial hardship. Read more about how communities are restricting fines to the lowest possible levels to focus on influencing behavior change.
Another risk is that communities can become overly dependent on revenue from enforcement programs, automated or otherwise. An infamous example is that of the police department in Ferguson, MO, which used traffic enforcement practices that disproportionately impacted non-white residents, generating significant revenue for public services in the process. Therefore, excess revenue should be directed towards roadway safety projects, ideally those associated with camera locations, and not to a jurisdiction’s general fund or other expenses.
However, even when camera revenue is directed towards legitimate, relevant road safety improvements, communities could potentially develop an unhealthy overreliance on these funds to make much needed safety changes. This can create a conflict of interest in which critical street safety treatments are dependent on punitive measures. One way to prevent speed safety camera programs from becoming primarily revenue-driven is to direct excess revenue towards discretionary one-time expenses rather than ongoing operational costs, as highlighted in California's speed camera legislation (more on that below!).
Lessons from Seattle: Advocating for a More Equitable Approach
As highlighted in Fair Warnings, fines should be set with consideration of an individual’s ability to pay so that penalties are not disproportionate to their income. While there is no exact science to calculate the appropriate amount for a speeding ticket, it is a good practice to set fines at the lowest level that serves as an effective deterrent.
Ethan Campbell, a community advocate from Seattle, underscored that the city’s steep $237 fine is disproportionately burdensome for low-income drivers compared to lower fines in cities like New York ($50). Analysis of New York City’s program shows that 74% of vehicles that receive a citation receive no more than one or two per year, demonstrating that lower fines can still effectively deter speeding. Meanwhile, Connecticut and Minneapolis are also planning to set lower fines ($40–$50). Washington state has recently passed legislation which mandates a 50% fine reduction for first-time violators receiving public assistance under certain programs.
While speed safety cameras are often framed as an alternative to police-led traffic stops, a shift away from traffic stops is not inevitable and may require coordinated policies enacted in tandem with the implementation of speed safety cameras. Additionally, as Ethan highlighted, Seattle’s speed cameras issue 40 times more tickets than police officers, significantly expanding the total number of citations issued. Without intentional efforts to right-size enforcement, automated cameras risk amplifying financial penalties for communities already overburdened by unsafe infrastructure. To create a truly fair and effective program, cities must pair speed cameras with broader strategies that reduce reliance on punitive enforcement and prioritize systemic safety improvements. Read more about the role of right-sized enforcement in roadway safety.
Ethan Campbell’s framework to assess the equity impacts of a speed safety camera program from a mobility justice perspective. Source for aspects of justice: Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (2014)
Moreover, designing speed safety camera programs with thoughtful financial considerations is crucial to their long-term success. A survey conducted by Whose Streets? Our Streets! on the financial impacts of Seattle’s program found that those who struggled to afford tickets were more likely to advocate for eliminating cameras altogether. While these findings may not be representative of an entire community, they underscore the need for equitable fine structures that build public trust and sustain community support for automated enforcement as a tool for traffic safety.
A sampling of community views on the financial burden and impact of speed safety cameras in Seattle.
San Francisco’s Model: Thoughtful Implementation and Community Collaboration
After years of advocacy and legislative work, San Francisco is launching its pilot speed safety camera program in March. The City’s Livable Streets Program Manager, Shannon Hake, provided insight into how SFMTA is structuring this pilot program. Specifically, the city views speed safety cameras as a last (or, at least, later) resort rather than a primary strategy. The goal, she explained, is ultimately to foster behavior change — not after-the-fact punishment. For instance, the City wants drivers to be aware of cameras, so they’ll post clear signage and use no-fee warnings before fines are issued in the early phase. A well-run program should give drivers opportunities to adjust their behavior before financial penalties are imposed.
The City is designing its first program, a pilot which allows for 33 cameras over the next five years, with the following guardrails:
- Geographic Equity: San Francisco used a transparent, data-driven process to determine the placement of its 33 speed safety cameras. All cameras will be placed on the High Injury Network (which makes up just 12% of city streets but accounts for 68% of fatal and serious crashes). The city also prioritized areas with a high concentration of vulnerable road users, where there is a history of speed-related crashes, and where traffic calming measures were not feasible or had proven ineffective. To avoid over-saturation of cameras in low-income communities, cameras were placed to proportionally represent the city’s range of neighborhoods.
- Community Engagement: Policymakers actively engaged stakeholders, including skeptics, as soon as the program was authorized to build consensus and shape program implementation.
Snapshot of San Francisco's criteria for data driven camera placement
- Financial Impact Mitigation: California’s new pilot program incorporates several financial impact protections, including:
- Warnings are issued for the first 60 days: Only warnings are issued and are accompanied by inserts highlighting personal stories of those impacted by traffic violence to foster understanding.
- First-time violations at 11-15 mph over the limit receive a warning instead of a fine for the life of the program.
- Income-based fine reductions: Low-income offenders (as defined in the law) are responsible for only 50% of the fine, while those receiving public assistance are responsible for only 20% of the fine.
- Additional measures: Payment plans are available to those below a designated income level, with monthly installments capped at $25 and processing fees limited to $5 or less. In addition, the City eliminates late payment fees and offers community service options in lieu of payment.
Utilizing input from critics, CA developed legislation with various safeguards to minimize financial harm of these programs and align the program with safety as a core goal of the program.
- Revenue reinvestment for safety: California’s speed camera legislation mandates that excess revenue (beyond administrative costs) be used for traffic-calming measures within three years. If not used for safety improvements, the revenue is redirected to the state’s Active Transportation Program, encouraging municipalities, like San Francisco, to use funds in a timely manner for street safety investments.
Whether your community has an existing speed safety camera program or is considering one, you can draw from these lessons and others in our new recommendations, Fair Warnings: Promoting Equity in Speed Safety Camera Programs.
And don’t miss our next webinar on March 19 – Managing and Evaluating Fair & Effective Speed Safety Camera Programs – where we’ll dive deeper into the program administration and monitoring & evaluation sections of the report.