With Europe seeing major declines in traffic deaths thanks to speed cameras — why is Canada still treating them as a “cash grab”?
European countries show strong backing for enforcement
In much of Europe, automated speed-enforcement systems are broadly accepted and supported by the public. For example, in Italy — which operates over 10,000 speed cameras — a 2018 survey found nearly 70 per cent of Italians supported stricter speeding rules, even as about half admitted to speeding in the previous month.
This suggests that enforcement by speed cameras is not viewed purely as revenue generation but as a public-safety measure.
Canada’s political friction surrounding automated cameras
In Ontario, the issue remains contentious. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, recently labelled speed-camera programs a “cash grab” and threatened their outright ban.
This marks a sharp contrast to the European attitude of treating cameras as safety tools rather than revenue machines.
Campaigns and implementation in France and Italy
France launched a national campaign in 2002 after a spate of high-profile traffic fatalities; it now operates more than 2,400 speed cameras. A key factor in France’s approach was political commitment, say experts, enabling a system capable of levying fines nationally.
In Italy, the extensive camera network has been paired with public awareness and acceptance — although opposition remains in pockets.
Why Europe sees results, and Canada might benefit
Studies across Europe attribute reductions in average speeds by about 10 km/h or more, with crash rates falling between 20–70 per cent. Traffic-safety expert Laurent Carnis estimates that in France alone, “some 1,000 lives, and many more injuries, were avoided.”
In Canada, municipalities report local speed reductions of 20 km/h or more when cameras are installed — indicating a similar potential impact.
Key factors behind acceptance — and cautionary lessons
Experts argue that success depends on credible speed limits and transparent enforcement. “You have to make sure… the speed limit is meaningful,” Carnis remarks, pointing to wide lanes and design standards in Canada that may encourage higher speeds.
Moreover, targeting high-risk offenders rather than chasing small over-limit infractions helps maintain public trust. Enforcement perceived as unfair or indiscriminate tends to prompt backlash, as seen in parts of France where cameras have been vandalised.
What this could mean for Canada’s road-safety strategy
For Canadian policymakers, the contrast is clear: Europe’s system pairs visible enforcement with public acceptance and measurable safety gains. If Canada wants similar results, the path may require building political commitment, designing sensible speed limits, and communicating the safety rationale clearly.
Without these components, speed-camera programs risk being dismissed as revenue tools — rather than life-saving interventions.
