Speed Cameras Create Neighbourhoods We Actually Want to Live In

Optimizing for speed at all costs gets us nowhere

Ontario is at a crossroads when it comes to speed cameras. Premier Ford has announced legislation to ban them entirely, calling them a “cash grab,” while Toronto and other cities are fighting to keep what the evidence shows is one of their most effective road safety tools. But this debate isn’t just about safety, it’s about what kind of communities we want to build.

The Evidence Is Clear

The data makes it clear that speed cameras are effective at reducing speeding. A recent SickKids/Toronto Metropolitan University study found that speed cameras reduce speeding by 45% in school zones and an 88% reduction in vehicles traveling more than 20 km/h over the limit. Anecdotally, I witness drivers slowing down significantly as they encounter a sign indicating a speed camera is in use. So there is no doubt about the effectiveness of the cameras. They are doing exactly what they are intended to do.

The “cash grab” accusation doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. A cash grab implies that fines are being issued and cash is being collected without moving the needle on the desired outcome, which is reduced speeding and increased safety. That’s simply not the case here.

There’s also a certain irony in Ford’s position: his own government passed enabling regulations in 2019 that allowed municipalities to run these programs. What changed between then and now isn’t the evidence, which has actually gotten stronger. All that’s changed is the political calculation.

Understanding the Pushback

So what’s really going on here? Why all the pushback? It’s not just the Premier; if there’s one thing he’s good at, it’s tuning in to the sentiment of many citizens. Or, in this case, drivers. In each driver’s own head, they feel they’re a good, safe driver, and the bit of speeding they do is not really a problem. They’re not a danger to anyone. So while speed cameras might be a good thing in the big picture, they’re nothing but an annoyance. You either have to drive more slowly than seems necessary, delaying the arrival at your destination by a precious few seconds, or you have to pay an annoying fine. And because you believe you’re a good, safe driver, you don’t connect either of these scenarios to avoiding causing an injury or death.

This creates a tragedy of the commons situation. While each driver wants to feel like they’re getting to their destination faster, collectively faster driving leads to more injuries and deaths. The impact extends beyond individual locations, too. Research from Montgomery County, Maryland found that their speed camera program not only reduced fatal or incapacitating injuries by 39% on roads with cameras, but also saw safety improvements on roads without cameras. This is an spillover effect where drivers simply started driving more carefully throughout the community.

Therefore, while slowing down for a speed camera might feel unnecessary to any individual driver, the collective impact is overwhelmingly positive. Politicians won’t get more votes by asking people to slow down or pay a fine, but ultimately, it works, and each driver should accept that they’re serving the greater good.

Beyond Safety: Building Vibrant Communities

Preventing injuries and deaths is critically important. Road traffic injuries are the number one cause of death in children and youth in Canada. But it’s not the only positive outcome of driving more slowly. When vehicles slow down, something remarkable happens to our streets and neighbourhoods.

Consider the research from Paris, which implemented slow zones across large portions of the city. Researchers found 44% more walking, lingering, and socializing on streets with reduced speed limits compared to adjacent streets without them. Slower traffic brings people out onto the streets.

The economic benefits are also substantial. Studies show that reducing traffic speeds by just 5-10 mph increases adjacent property values by roughly 20%. Walkable urban areas with slower traffic command 35-45% premiums on rent and sales prices compared to car-oriented areas. Despite representing only 1.2% of land mass in America’s largest metros, these walkable areas generate nearly 20% of GDP.

Local businesses thrive when drivers slow down. On Valencia Street in San Francisco, after traffic calming measures were implemented, 40% of retailers reported increased sales. In Washington DC’s Barracks Row, streetscape improvements that slowed traffic led to 44 new businesses and 200 new jobs. In Lodi, California, pedestrian-oriented improvements brought 60 new businesses, dropped the vacancy rate from 18% to 6%, and increased sales tax revenue by 30%.

Speed cameras are part of creating these conditions. When streets feel safe, parents let their kids walk to school. People linger on patios and chat with neighbors. Cyclists feel comfortable riding. Local shops thrive because people can safely walk to them. Drivers themselves feel more connected to the communities they’re moving through when they slow down and have their eye out for pedestrians and cyclists. All of this creates more vibrant, welcoming, and pleasant neighbourhoods, and leads to stronger communities.

The False Choice

Premier Ford has proposed replacing speed cameras with funding for speed bumps, roundabouts, and raised crosswalks. These are good traffic calming measures, but they’re not replacements for speed cameras—they work alongside them. Physical measures affect specific locations; cameras change behavior across entire corridors and, as the research shows, even beyond them. Why ban a proven tool when you could have both?

Putting aside the fact that driving faster than the speed limit doesn’t actually save drivers much time, it’s clear that the perceived benefits to drivers of being able to make a judgment call and drive faster simply isn’t worth it. The evidence for keeping speed cameras is overwhelming: improved safety, stronger local economies, higher property values, more vibrant street life, and stronger communities. These aren’t tradeoffs. All of these benefits come as a package.

Reframing the Debate

The debate here seems to be about tax revenue or driver convenience, but that’s not really it. Really, it’s about whether we want communities designed around the perceived right of drivers to speed, or whether it’s more important to have vibrant neighbourhoods where kids can walk to school, where businesses thrive, and where streets are places for people, not just cars.