The provincial government in Ontario (Canada) has announced that it will ban municipal automated speed enforcement (ASE) cameras, with municipalities required to remove them by mid-November. (Global News)
The move comes under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, who has described the cameras as a “tax-grab” and claimed they are ineffective at reducing speeding. (The Guardian)
In essence: what began as a road-safety measure has become a political battleground between municipal authorities, road-safety advocates and the provincial government.
The cameras were originally introduced under provincial regulation (Regulation 398/19) for use in school-zones and other designated “Community Safety Zones”. (Wikipedia) But with the change in government attitude, the legislation now requires camera removal. (InSauga)
Why is Ontario doing this?
There are several motivations behind the decision:
- Political/populist appeal: Doug Ford is positioning the removal of speed-cameras as a win for drivers and taxpayers. He argues many municipalities used the cameras more for revenue than for safety. (The Guardian)
- Cost and legitimacy concerns: The government has promised a substantial fund (CAD $210 million) for traffic-calming measures (signage, speed-bumps, etc.) to replace the automated cameras. (CityNews Toronto)
- Citizen complaints & backlash: Some municipalities have expressed frustration at the perception that cameras were used as “cash traps” rather than purely safety tools. (City of Mississauga)
Put simply: For the Ontario government the message is “we’ll remove the cameras, because our citizens told us they don’t want them used as cash-cows”.
What do the safety experts say?
Not everyone is convinced this is a good move from a road-safety perspective.
- A study in Ontario found that automated speed enforcement cameras reduced the proportion of speeding vehicles in downtown school zones by 45 %. (The Guardian)
- The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) told the media that the cameras “have been proven to reduce speeding, change driver behaviour and make our roads safer for everyone”. (The Guardian)
- In many municipalities that used them, they were regarded as effective deterrents in high-risk zones. For example, one city reported speed reductions of around 9 km/h following camera deployment. (City of Mississauga)
So while the political rhetoric frames cameras as revenue tools, the evidence suggests they did contribute to behavioural change and injury-reduction in many contexts.
UK Evidence: What the data tells us
From a UK audience’s perspective, the story has interesting echoes and comparisons.
Collision & casualty reductions
Research in Great Britain has shown meaningful benefits from speed-cameras. A report prepared for the RAC Foundation found that average speed cameras (ASC) have achieved reductions in injury collisions and higher severity casualties. (racfoundation.org)
Key findings:
- At sites with permanent average speed camera systems: fatal and serious collisions dropped by 25–46%. (racfoundation.org)
- A government factsheet stated that camera locations saw 22 % fewer personal-injury collisions and 29 % fewer pedestrian + serious injury casualties. (RoSPA)
Speed limit compliance
Recent UK statistics show how often drivers exceed speed limits:
- In 2024, under “free-flowing” conditions across Great Britain: 43 % of cars exceeded the limit on 30 mph roads, 9 % on national speed limit single carriageways, and 44 % on motorways. (GOV.UK)
- These figures show that speeding is still very prevalent, especially in built-up zones, reinforcing the logic behind enforcement and deterrence.
Public opinion & acceptance
- A survey found 86 % of respondents believed average speed cameras were “very or reasonably effective”. (Road Safety GB)
- Evidence submitted to the UK Parliament revealed that at certain routes where average speed cameras were introduced, the number of killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties dropped by more than 70 % on average. (UK Parliament Committees)
Taken together: In the UK, speed-camera programmes appear to have a solid evidence base for safety benefits — particularly when deployed on high-risk routes, in conjunction with signage, road-design, and speed limits. These are not just punitive tools but measured interventions supported by data.
Implications for motorists and public safety
From a UK vantage point, the Ontario story and UK data combine to raise several insights:
- When cameras are removed, enforcement gap emerges
If cameras are taken out (as Ontario is doing), then enforcement must shift to other methods — mobile speed patrols, improved road-design, signage, physical traffic-calming. Without that, you risk speed creeping up again. - Behavior change vs. revenue tool debate
In Ontario, part of the backlash was due to perception that cameras generate revenue rather than deter speed. The UK evidence shows that legitimacy, transparency and deployment in high-risk zones improve acceptance. - Technology isn’t everything — road design matters
The UK evidence emphasises cameras work best when combined with other improvements: signing, linings, physical calming. (UK Parliament Committees) If you remove cameras but do nothing else, you may lose the deterrent effect. - Data-driven deployment is key
UK studies show large variation in effect size depending on site selection, pre-existing conditions and supporting measures. (PLOS) - Public trust & fairness matter
The Ontario case shows that even effective tools falter if public perception is negative. UK authorities who explain why cameras are positioned where they are, and how revenue is used (or isn’t used) may build greater legitimacy.
Lessons for UK policy-makers & motorists
- For UK drivers: Don’t assume enforcement will drop just because certain technologies might be scaled back. Police and local authorities may rely more on mobile units or other infra-measures.
- For UK policy-makers: If cameras are reduced, replaced, or scaled down, ensure alternative measures (speed cushions, narrowed lanes, school-zone signage) are in place — otherwise casualty levels may creep up.
- For UK road-safety advocates: The UK evidence underscores that speed cameras do work — so any policy move away from them must be supported by robust data and alternative interventions.
- For drivers: The central message remains the same — obey posted limits, especially in 30 mph and school zones, because a significant percentage of drivers still exceed those limits (43 % on 30 mph roads in 2024).
- For local authorities: Be transparent about where cameras are located, why, the results they’ve achieved, and how revenue is used. This builds legitimacy and public compliance.
The final verdict: good for drivers, mixed for safety?
From many drivers’ perspective, Ontario’s decision may look like a win – fewer surprise camera-locations, fewer perceived traps, and a move towards physical traffic calming rather than automated fines. But from a road-safety standpoint, there is likely a trade-off. With speed being a major factor in both the likelihood and severity of collisions (especially in areas with pedestrians and children), any reduction in enforcement needs to be matched by a thoughtful alternative strategy.
For the UK, the Ontario example is a timely reminder that speed-camera policy is not just about technology — it’s also about how you combine enforcement, road-design, communication and data. The UK evidence still strongly supports camera-based enforcement as an effective component of a broader road-safety strategy.