Some States Are Limiting Speed-Camera Programs
Across the United States, speed and red-light cameras have become a flashpoint in the debate over road safety versus fairness. While dozens of cities continue to expand their automated-enforcement programs, a growing number of states and counties are either restricting, suspending, or outright banning them. Recent developments in Iowa, Florida, Ohio, Hawaii, and elsewhere show how politics, due process, and community sentiment are reshaping the future of these devices.
Iowa: When Safety Data Isn’t Enough
In September 2025, the Iowa Department of Transportation rejected Des Moines’ request to reinstall several speed cameras, concluding that the city hadn’t proven the devices made roads safer under new state standards (Axios Des Moines).
The DOT required evidence that cameras reduce crashes rather than simply issue tickets. Des Moines argued that the cameras deterred speeding on high-risk corridors, but the state cited insufficient crash-reduction data. Iowa’s ruling limits where both fixed and mobile units can operate and gives municipalities only narrow grounds to appeal.
The case highlights a broader shift: state officials want clear proof of safety benefits before granting or renewing camera permits. Iowa isn’t alone—transport agencies in several states now require yearly safety audits and public reporting before re-approval.
Florida: Public Backlash Ends a School-Zone Program
In early 2025, Manatee County, Florida, became the latest jurisdiction to pull the plug on automated enforcement. County commissioners voted 5–2 to end their school-zone speed-camera program after just months of operation. Local reports say more than 55,000 tickets were issued in that short window.
Coverage from The Sun and Spectrum News 9 described widespread frustration: drivers claimed they were ticketed when flashers weren’t active, during times when no students were present, or on stretches where speed limits suddenly dropped.
Critics called the system a “money grab,” noting that camera vendors received a portion of each fine. Supporters argued that school-zone safety outweighed the inconvenience. But public sentiment quickly turned, and commissioners concluded that the loss of trust outweighed any potential safety gain.
Florida law still allows cameras in certain school zones, but counties must adopt them voluntarily—meaning local politics often determine their lifespan.
Ohio: State vs. Local Tug-of-War
In 2025, Ohio lawmakers banned speed cameras in counties and townships, though they remain legal in cities and villages under strict conditions (Cleveland 19 News). The law reflects years of wrangling between state officials who view cameras as unfair and municipalities that rely on them for revenue.
Supporters of the ban argued that some small jurisdictions had turned cameras into cash machines, positioning them on remote highways far from population centers. Critics said this practice distorted the purpose of enforcement—safety near schools and intersections—into a form of “taxation by citation.”
Cities that wish to keep their cameras must now demonstrate clear safety data and follow rigorous reporting rules. The result is a patchwork system: drive ten minutes across a county line, and enforcement rules can change entirely.
Hawaii: A History of False Starts and Public Resistance
Hawaii’s relationship with automated speed enforcement has been one of the most turbulent in the nation. In the early 2000s, the state launched a photo-radar program nicknamed the “van cam”, which was designed to deter speeding along Oahu’s busiest highways.
However, the experiment quickly collapsed amid massive public backlash. Drivers complained about hidden vans, confusing signage, and tickets that arrived weeks after the alleged violation. The public viewed the system as an unfair “speed trap,” and by 2002, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to shut it down after only five months in operation.
Two decades later, in 2023, Hawaii tried again with a red-light and speed-camera pilot program in Honolulu. The new system focused on high-crash intersections rather than mobile vans, with the goal of improving transparency and accountability. While supporters praised early data showing fewer serious crashes, critics remain wary that the program could expand too far or reintroduce the same fairness issues as before.
As a result, Hawaii remains divided: the state technically allows cameras under limited pilot conditions, but longstanding public distrust continues to limit their acceptance. It’s a vivid reminder that once a camera program loses public confidence, rebuilding it can take decades.
Georgia: “Gotcha” Cameras Under Fire
In Georgia, state lawmakers are weighing whether to ban or overhaul school-zone cameras amid mounting complaints from drivers and parents. An Associated Press report from March 2025 detailed accusations that vendors were exploiting confusing signage and inconsistent school-zone hours.
Residents described tickets arriving when warning flashers weren’t on or after school had dismissed for the day. One legislator called the programs “modern-day speed traps for parents.” Bills under consideration would limit enforcement to specific hours, require clearer signage, and redirect revenue toward physical safety improvements instead of general funds.
Supporters counter that the cameras have reduced excessive speeding by more than 30 percent in some districts and that most violations occur well above the posted limit. Still, the debate underscores the balancing act between safety and fairness that defines camera politics nationwide.
Legal and Ethical Fault Lines
1. Due Process and the Burden of Proof
Opponents of automated enforcement argue that cameras violate due-process rights by ticketing vehicle owners rather than actual drivers. In some states, such as Texas and West Virginia, courts ruled that assigning liability to the car’s registered owner—without identifying who was driving—creates constitutional problems. That’s one reason both states have banned camera enforcement entirely.
2. Vendor Contracts and Revenue Dependence
Public records often reveal that private camera operators receive per-ticket commissions. In Manatee County’s case, for example, the contractor Verra Mobility reportedly collected a share of each fine. This business model incentivizes high citation volumes and reinforces the perception that revenue, not safety, drives enforcement. Cities are now rewriting contracts to use flat fees or performance-based safety metrics instead.
3. Trust and Transparency
Transparency—or the lack of it—regularly fuels community anger. Residents want to know where cameras are, when they operate, and how data is used. Failure to disclose that information breeds suspicion. Florida’s reversal showed that once public trust erodes, even well-intentioned programs can collapse quickly.
4. Selective Enforcement
Many critics see uneven deployment as a fairness issue: cameras tend to cluster in lower-income neighborhoods or along commuter corridors rather than affluent residential areas. Civil-rights advocates say this can disproportionately penalize certain communities, deepening distrust in local government.
The States That Say “No”
According to Philomath News, six states—Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia—ban both speed and red-light cameras outright. Their reasoning varies:
-
Maine & New Hampshire: Lawmakers argue that automated enforcement removes essential human discretion.
-
South Carolina: The state Supreme Court ruled that ticketing by machine violates the requirement of an officer’s presence.
-
Texas: The legislature banned red-light cameras in 2019 and extended restrictions to speed cameras later, citing privacy and abuse concerns.
-
West Virginia: Lawmakers concluded that photographic citations conflicted with state evidentiary rules.
These states still enforce traffic laws aggressively—just through traditional patrols. Their stance reflects a philosophical preference for human judgment and the belief that fairness outweighs efficiency.
What Comes Next
Expect more states to adopt conditional legality—allowing cameras only in narrowly defined situations such as school zones or construction sites, with annual safety reviews. Some jurisdictions, like Maryland and Washington D.C., continue to expand automated enforcement but publish quarterly performance dashboards to maintain transparency.
Meanwhile, technology is evolving: newer radar-based systems can differentiate between vehicles in multiple lanes and adjust for temporary limits during events or weather, reducing false positives. If paired with better data practices and community outreach, such systems could regain credibility.
Still, the national momentum is mixed. While urban planners emphasize Vision Zero safety goals, legislators in many states remain skeptical. For now, the American landscape on speed cameras is exactly what it looks like on the ground: fragmented, contested, and shifting with every local vote.
Key Takeaway
The question isn’t whether speed cameras can reduce speeding—it’s whether the way they’re deployed earns public trust.
-
Iowa showed that states want data-driven justification.
-
Florida proved that community trust can evaporate overnight.
-
Hawaii demonstrated how a single failed rollout can haunt policy for decades.
-
Ohio illustrated the power struggle between local and state control.
-
Georgia highlighted the fine line between safety and entrapment.
Until policymakers resolve those tensions, expect the nation’s speed-camera debate to continue—flashing between progress and pushback, one ticket at a time.