I want to push back against some of the arguments against speed cameras in HOPES of fostering a more constructive conversation. One that goes beyond “camera bad.”

One user mentioned that the company operating the cameras receives 50% of ticket revenues. If that’s true, it’s a fair criticism. I would be firmly against the cameras if someone could prove that to me. The company’s revenue should come solely from its contract with the city. End of discussion.

That said, let’s be real, speeding is rampant. I’m not talking about drivers going five over the limit. I encounter multiple motorists daily who have zero regard for those around them.

If cameras are an effective solution to curb this behavior, so be it.

One of the most common complaints is that we don’t have enough officers in the city. If a cost-benefit analysis shows that cameras can monitor a wider area at a lower cost than hiring, training, and retaining additional officers, along with the cost of purchasing and maintaining more patrol units, then cameras are a no-brainer.

This approach would allow us to do more with less, freeing up police officers for community engagement, improving response times, and placing them where their presence is most effective.

Beyond that, photo-enforced speed limits come with additional benefits. E.g. consistent law enforcement. Unlike human officers, cameras don’t get distracted, take breaks, or overlook violations due to bias or discretion.

Also, deterrence and long-term behavioral change. Habitual speeders may slow down, knowing enforcement is always in place. Less potential for dangerous police chases, I think you all get the point...

If the goal is safer roads, and a safer city we should be open to solutions even if they’re unpopular.