|

Evaluating the Decision to Ban Automated Speed Enforcement in Ontario

Hours Posted on Hours Updated on

Essam Dabbour, Ph.D., RSP1, F.ITE, P. Eng.

Author Bio: Dr. Essam Dabbour is a Professional Engineer (P.Eng.) licensed in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), a certified Road Safety Professional – Level 1 (RSP1), and an accredited Road Safety Auditor. He holds a Ph.D. in Transportation Engineering and has more than 35 years of combined academic and practical experience in the field of road safety. Dr. Dabbour is widely recognized as a leading expert in road safety, road design, and traffic engineering. He has authored more than 65 articles in leading peer-reviewed journals and professional publications addressing roadway design, traffic operations, and road safety analysis. He is currently the President of EDA Forensics, a firm specializing in the engineering investigation of traffic collisions and other personal-injury incidents, providing expert analysis to support the legal and insurance systems in determining liability. In addition, Dr. Dabbour serves as the instructor of three professional courses delivered to municipal staff across Ontario, focusing on municipal liability management and strategies to enhance safety for all road users.

Abstract

In November 2025, the Ontario government repealed its authorization for automated speed enforcement (speed cameras), arguing that municipalities had overused them for revenue generation and promising to replace them with physical traffic-calming measures. This article examines the evidence behind that policy decision by reviewing speed-reduction and safety data from Ontario and other jurisdictions, assessing the limitations of infrastructure-only strategies, and discussing how enforcement tools fit within the broader Safe System framework. The article evaluates whether a full ban may create enforcement and equity gaps, particularly in school zones and mid-block locations where conventional traffic-calming options are limited.

Introduction

In October 2025, the Government of Ontario introduced Bill 56, titled Building a More Competitive Economy Act (1), which amended several laws related to environmental protection, health-care licensing, and labor mobility. The aim was to make Ontario “the most competitive place in the G7 to invest, create jobs and do business”. Strangely, Schedule 5 of the introduced bill seemed unrelated to the bill's aim, since it repealed Part XIV.1 of the Highway Traffic Act (2), which previously authorized municipalities and police agencies to use automated speed enforcement systems (commonly known as ‘speed cameras’). Bill 56 has now been enacted as Chapter 11 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2025. Consequently, on Friday, November 14, 2025, speed cameras became officially banned across Ontario. 

This move by the Ontario government was inconsistent with several provinces in Canada that enforce speed cameras, including British Columbia (3), Saskatchewan (4), Manitoba (5), Quebec (6), and Newfoundland and Labrador (7). Ontario was also the first province in Canada to repeal the use of speed cameras after introducing them. Ontario Premier Doug Ford criticized speed cameras, calling them “cash grabs” and arguing that many municipalities use them primarily to raise revenue rather than improve safety. In their place, his government promised to promote or subsidize physical traffic-calming measures, such as speed bumps, raised crosswalks, curb extensions, and roundabouts (8). This article discusses the history of speed cameras in Ontario and how they were expected to support Ontario’s road safety strategy.

From Enabling to Banning

In 2019, Ontario introduced O. Reg. 398/19, titled Automated Speed Enforcement (9), which allowed municipalities and police agencies to use speed cameras. Proponents at the time argued that the cameras could act as a tool to slow traffic in school zones and community safety zones. Fast forward to 2025, the Ontario Government alleged that many municipalities now rely on these cameras as a source of revenue. Premier Ford cited figures such as one Toronto camera issuing over 63,000 tickets and generating more than $7 million in fines. He contended that if cameras truly worked to suppress speeding, such high volumes of infractions would not persist. In place of speed cameras, Premier Ford proposed a $210 million provincial road safety fund to support municipalities in deploying physical calming measures alongside enhanced signage, education, and enforcement. 

The decision to ban speed cameras has generated mixed reactions among municipalities and road safety stakeholders. Over 20 mayors and municipal leaders have urged Premier Ford to compromise (10), warning that removing speed cameras would have a serious negative impact on road safety. Furthermore, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police issued a statement expressing concern about this decision, noting that speed cameras have been proven to reduce speeding, change driver behaviour, and make roads safer (11).

Evidence from Ontario 

To assess the effectiveness of speed cameras, it is essential to review previous research from Ontario to determine whether their use has reduced speed, crash frequency, or crash severity. A study by SickKids and the Toronto Metropolitan University (12) found a 45% reduction in speeding in school zones following the implementation of speed cameras. Speed data from Brampton (13) indicate that the implementation of speed cameras resulted in an average speed reduction of approximately 9 km/h, with some sites experiencing reductions of up to 20 km/h. Similar results were reported in Mississauga (14). In York Region, the installation of speed cameras resulted in a 15 km/h reduction in average speeds and a 25% increase in compliance with posted speed limits (15). The implementation of speed cameras in school zones in Guelph (16) reduced average speeds by 8 km/h and increased drivers’ compliance with the posted speed limit (30 km/h) by approximately 3.05%. A recent research study by CAA South Central Ontario (17) found that speed cameras have a positive influence on drivers’ behaviour, with 73% of Ontario drivers slowing down when approaching speed cameras and 52% reporting they were unlikely to speed up after passing through areas with speed cameras. 

National & International Perspectives

Statistical evidence from other provinces also suggests that speed cameras were effective in reducing speed, crash frequency, and crash severity. A study by the Saskatchewan Government Insurance (18) found that between 2015 and 2017, speed cameras reduced speed-related collisions involving a casualty by 63%, reduced injuries by 51%, and reduced the average speed on Highway 12 (near Martensville) by 17.7 km/h. A pilot study on the effectiveness of speed cameras in Québec (19) found that average speeds at fixed installations decreased by 13.3 km/h, and crashes were reduced by 15% to 42% across mobile and fixed speed-camera sites.

Speed cameras in other countries were also found to be an effective tool to improve road safety. A study from the United Kingdom (20) found that speed cameras reduced all crashes by 1.8% to 34.6%. Another study from Chicago, USA (21) found that fatality and severe-injury crashes declined by approximately 15% after the introduction of speed cameras. Installing speed cameras (22) in the area around Roosevelt Boulevard, a particularly dangerous urban arterial in Philadelphia, USA, found that crashes and injuries decreased by about 50% compared with most similar arterials in the area. In Barcelona, Spain, speed cameras (23) were associated with a 27% decrease in total collisions. In summary, an overwhelming number of research studies have found that speed cameras are an effective tool for reducing vehicle speeds, crash frequency, and crash severity. Conversely, no studies have identified any negative impacts of speed cameras on road safety.

Comparison with Other Physical Measures

Premier Ford suggested that speed cameras can be replaced with other physical traffic calming measures, such as speed bumps, raised crosswalks, curb extensions, and roundabouts. However, the following facts should be considered:     

  1. Most of the physical traffic calming measures are more suitable for local roads and may impact capacity if applied on arterial roads that have large traffic volumes.
  2. Roundabouts require space and capital investment, often making them infeasible in dense urban areas.
  3. Speed bumps and raised crosswalks are challenging in Canada due to their interference with snow removal operations and the slowing of emergency vehicles.

Finally, each tool has situational strengths and weaknesses; effective road safety strategies depend on combining multiple measures. 

Maximizing Road Safety 

A Safe System approach requires multiple, layered interventions — education, engineering, policy, and enforcement — to manage human error and reduce, or even prevent, high-severity traffic collisions. Therefore, road safety is best achieved through a combination of:

  1. Engineering and Design (calming geometry, street redesign).
  2. Education and Awareness.
  3. Enforcement (automated and manual).
  4. Policy and Regulation (speed limits, zoning).

Speed cameras are just one tool in the toolbox. Removing them entirely without bolstering other measures could leave enforcement gaps, especially if mid-block speeding is an issue. On the other hand, the other suggested physical measures must be well-planned, adequately funded, and evaluated over time. In summary:

  • Enforcement and engineering serve different functions and are not always interchangeable.
  • Without speed cameras, the risk of mid-block speeding may increase without enforcement tools.
  • Physical measures require high capital costs and longer implementation timelines.
  • Public perception of “cash grabs” must be addressed through transparent communication.For example, the City of Saskatoon uses  any revenues generated from speed cameras to fund traffic safety improvements and initiatives.

Conclusion

The Ontario government frames its move to ban speed cameras as an affordability and fairness measure. However, this move may undermine proven safety enforcement. Statistical evidence from Ontario and other provinces suggests that speed cameras can reduce speeding and the frequency and severity of crashes. International research from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Spain provides similar conclusions. In general, speed cameras, when appropriately used as part of a larger system, are an effective tool for protecting children, older adults, and other vulnerable road users. Therefore, their benefits to society's safety and well-being far outweigh allegations that they are used as "cash grabs".  

References

  1. Legislative Assembly of Ontario (2025). Bill 56: Building a More Competitive Economy Act. Available online: https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-44/session-1/bill-56.
  2. Government of Ontario (2025). Highway Traffic Act (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter H.8). Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08.
  3. Government of British Columbia (2025). Intersection Safety Cameras. Available online:  https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/transportation/driving-and-cycling/roadsafetybc/intersection-safety-cameras/where-the-cameras-are.
  4. City of Saskatoon (2025). Photo Speed Enforcement. Available online: https://www.saskatoon.ca/moving-around/driving-roadways/driving/photo-speed-enforcement.
  5.  Winnipeg Police Service (2025). Photo enforcement. Available online: https://www.winnipeg.ca/police/services/traffic/photo-enforcement.
  6. Quebec (2025). About Photo Radars. Available online: https://www.quebec.ca/en/transports/traffic-road-safety/photo-radars/about-photo-radars.
  7. Newfoundland and Labrador (2025). Newfoundland and Labrador’s Speed Camera Program. Available online: https://www.gov.nl.ca/motorregistration/vehicle-ownership/drivesmartnl/speed-camera/.
  8. Government of Ontario (2025). News Release: Ontario Launching Road Safety Initiatives Fund. Available online: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1006726/ontario-launching-road-safety-initiatives-fun.
  9. Government of Ontario (2019). O. Reg. 398/19: Automated Speed Enforcement. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r19398. 
  10. CBC (2025). 22 municipal leaders sign letter urging Ford to reconsider plans for Ontario speed camera ban. Available online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/letter-municipal-leaders-speed-camera-1.7650385.
  11. Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (2025). Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police Statement on Automated Speed Enforcement. Available online: https://www.oacp.ca/en/news/oacp-statement-automated-speed-enforcement.aspx.
  12. Howard, A., Batomen, B., Zubair, S., et al. (2025). Automated speed enforcement reduced vehicle speeds in school zones in Toronto: a prospective quasi-experimental study. Injury Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2024-045561   
  13. City of Brampton (2025). City of Brampton’s Automated Speed Enforcement program delivers safer streets and neighborhoods. Available online: https://www.brampton.ca/EN/City-Hall/News/Pages/News-Release.aspx/1590.
  14. City of Mississauga (2025). News Release: Just because there are no speed cameras doesn’t mean there are no speed limits. Available online: https://www.mississauga.ca/city-of-mississauga-news/news/just-because-there-are-no-speed-cameras-doesnt-mean-there-are-no-speed-limits/.
  15. York Region (2025). News Release: Data shows Automated Speed Enforcement making a difference on regional roads. Available online: https://www.york.ca/newsroom/news/data-shows-automated-speed-enforcement-making-difference-regional-roads.
  16. City of Guelph (2025). Automated speed enforcement (ASE). Available online: https://guelph.ca/living/getting-around/drive/automated-speed-enforcement-ase/.
  17. CAA (2025). MEDIA RELEASE: Caught on Camera: CAA study finds more drivers are slowing down for speed cameras, with more drivers ticketed. Available online: https://www.caasco.com/about-us/corporate-news/spotlight?spotlights=10831.
  18. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (2018). An evaluation of the photo speed enforcement pilot program in Saskatchewan (March 2015 – March 2017) – Final Report. Available online: https://sgi.sk.ca/documents/37148/138073/Photo+Speed+Enforcement+Evaluation+Report.pdf.
  19. Québec Ministry of Transport (2025). Evaluation Report: Automated Speed Enforcement and Red-Light Camera Systems in Quebec (in French). Available online: https://canadacommons.ca/artifacts/1233293/cinemometres-photographiques-et-systemes-photographiques-de-controle-de-circulation-aux-feux-rouges/1786364/.
  20. Li, H., M. Zhu, D.J. Graham, and Y. Zhang (2020). Are multiple speed cameras more effective than a single one? Causal analysis of the safety impacts of multiple speed cameras. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 139, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105488 
  21. Tilahun, N. (2022). Safety Impact of Automated Speed Camera Enforcement: Empirical Findings Based on Chicago’s Speed Cameras. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2677(1), 1490-1498. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221104808
  22. Guerra, E. (2024). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Urban Speed Cameras on Traffic Safety in a Period of Dramatic Change – Final Research Report. U.S Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers. 
  23. Pérez, K., Marí-Dell’Olmo, M., Tobias, A., and Borrell, C. (2007). Reducing Road Traffic Injuries: Effectiveness of Speed Cameras in an Urban Setting, American Journal of Public Health, 97(9), 1632-1637. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2006.093195