Ontario’s Ford Govt Bans School Speed Cameras—Mayors Push Back

Ford Government Bans School-Zone Speed Cameras — But Ontario Mayors Want to Keep Them

The Ford government has banned automated speed-enforcement (ASE) cameras in Ontario school zones, a move that has sparked outrage among mayors across the province. What began as a local safety initiative to protect children walking to school has turned into a major political clash between Queen’s Park and Ontario municipalities.

Premier Doug Ford’s government says the devices are nothing more than “cash grabs,” but mayors argue they’re proven life-savers. From Toronto to Ottawa and Hamilton, local leaders are calling on the province to reverse course—or at least make exceptions for school zones.

---

What the New Law Does

In 2025, the Ford government passed Bill 56 – Building a More Competitive Economy Act, which includes an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act that bans all municipal speed cameras. This prohibition applies to cameras located in community safety zones and school zones, where most municipalities had placed their ASE devices.

Municipalities have been ordered to shut down their camera programs by mid-November 2025. Cities such as Mississauga and Guelph have already announced deactivation dates around November 14, 2025.

Under the new law:

• Cities must remove all ASE cameras and related warning signage.

• Any tickets issued before the cutoff remain valid and must still be paid or contested.

• The province will replace automated enforcement with larger, standardized school-zone signs and expanded police enforcement.

The government claims these changes will reduce “unfair” ticketing while ensuring students remain safe through alternative methods like flashing beacons, speed bumps, and crossing guards.

---

Why the Ford Government Banned the Cameras

Premier Ford insists the ban is about fairness for drivers and taxpayers. He argues that many cities were issuing tens of thousands of tickets per month, sometimes at locations where posted speed limits suddenly dropped—leading to perceptions of “speed traps.”

“The cameras have turned into revenue machines,” Ford said during a press conference in September 2025. “Municipalities should not be using drivers as ATMs.”

The government’s argument hinges on three main points:

1. Consistency – ASE programs were managed differently across municipalities, creating confusion and unequal enforcement.

2. Fair notice – Tickets arrived weeks later in the mail, offering no immediate feedback to drivers.

3. Better alternatives – The province says physical road-safety infrastructure, such as speed humps, curb extensions, and flashing signs, can slow drivers more effectively and transparently.

Ford’s critics, however, say the Premier is misrepresenting the data and ignoring years of evidence that ASE saves lives.

---

Mayors Push Back: “This Will Make Our Roads Less Safe”

Ontario mayors and regional chairs have banded together to oppose the province’s sweeping ban. A joint letter signed by leaders from Toronto, Ottawa, Mississauga, London, Kingston, Hamilton, and Waterloo urged Ford to reconsider.

They argue ASE has delivered measurable safety benefits since its introduction. For example:

• In Toronto, average speeds in school zones dropped by up to 45% after cameras were installed.

• Ottawa reported thousands fewer repeat offenders, as drivers learned where cameras were located and slowed down.

• Hamilton saw reductions in collisions and pedestrian injuries at several previously high-risk intersections.

• Mississauga noted a steep decline in extreme speeding incidents—vehicles traveling more than 20 km/h over the limit.

Mayors proposed compromises instead of an outright ban:

• Warning letters for first-time offenders.

• Operating hours limited to school times only.

• Uniform thresholds (for example, tickets only issued at 15–20 km/h over the posted limit).

Despite these proposals, the Ford government rejected any exceptions.

---

The Cities Most Affected

Ontario’s largest cities have invested heavily in ASE over the past five years. Their programs now face dismantling:

• Toronto operates hundreds of rotating cameras near schools and parks. The city says losing them will undo years of progress made under Vision Zero, its road-safety initiative.

• Ottawa, the province’s capital, had planned to expand its 36 cameras to 70 before the ban.

• Hamilton launched its first ASE pilot in 2022, targeting 12 school zones that saw chronic speeding.

• Waterloo and London both reported positive results in community-zone compliance but must now remove their cameras.

• Kingston had planned installations for 2026 that are now cancelled.

• Windsor recently launched its ASE pilot in 2024; the equipment will be removed after less than a year in service.

These cities now face sunk costs for cameras, software contracts, and processing systems—millions of dollars in infrastructure that will soon sit idle.

---

What Replaces Cameras Now

With ASE banned, municipalities are scrambling to maintain safe speeds around schools. The Ford government has directed cities to emphasize education and engineering:

• New high-visibility yellow school-zone signs province-wide.

• Flashing light beacons and digital “Your Speed” boards.

• Raised crosswalks and speed humps to physically slow traffic.

• Increased police patrols in known hot spots.

While most cities support these tools, they argue they can’t fully replace automated enforcement. Cameras provide continuous monitoring, freeing police for other duties.

---

The Evidence Debate: Safety vs. “Cash Grab”

The Case for ASE

Supporters point to peer-reviewed research and municipal data showing ASE reduces both mean speeds and severe crashes. Toronto’s analysis found that serious speeding (over 20 km/h above the limit) dropped by 88% in camera zones. Ottawa documented similar results.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP) has also publicly opposed the ban, calling ASE “a proven life-saving technology.”

The Case Against ASE

The Ford government and critics claim ASE is more about revenue than safety. Some cameras generated millions in fines annually, prompting concerns about disproportionate impacts on working-class drivers.

The province also argues that ticket processing is inefficient and that mailed fines weeks later don’t create real-time deterrence. They want police presence and road design—not bureaucracy—to shape driver behaviour.

Shared Ground

Both sides agree on one thing: school zones must be safe. The question is whether that safety comes best from a camera lens or a speed bump.

---

The Political Battle Ahead

Municipalities aren’t giving up. Some are exploring legal options to challenge the ban, arguing the province overstepped by revoking local authority to manage traffic safety.

Others plan to gather post-ban data. If collision or injury rates rise in school zones once cameras are gone, the pressure on the Ford government could intensify.

Local leaders in Toronto, London, and Windsor have already hinted they’ll track changes closely through 2026. The results could determine whether a future government reinstates ASE—possibly limited to school zones only.

---

What’s Next for Ontario Drivers

As of November 2025, all ASE cameras across Ontario will be powered down. Drivers won’t receive new photo-based speeding tickets, but they should expect:

• More visible police patrols near schools and parks.

• Expanded signage reminding them of speed limits.

• Community campaigns urging voluntary compliance.

Still, safety advocates warn that without constant enforcement, habitual speeders may return to risky behaviour—especially during off-peak hours when patrols are thin.

---

Bottom Line

Ontario’s ban on school-zone speed cameras represents a major policy reversal. The Ford government views the cameras as unfair and ineffective, preferring road design and education. Ontario mayors—from Toronto and Ottawa to Hamilton, Mississauga, London, Kingston, Waterloo and Windsor—see it as a setback for child safety and local autonomy.

Over the next year, the outcome will hinge on data: if speeding and collisions rise where cameras once stood, political and public pressure could force the province to revisit its decision. Until then, Ontario drivers will see fewer cameras—but the debate over what keeps roads safe is far from over.

Illinois Lawmakers Have Considered Statewide Bans on Red Light Cameras

Lawmakers in Springfield, Illinois are set to debate a new bill this week that could lead to a statewide ban on automated red light cameras—a move that may dramatically change how traffic enforcement is handled across the state.

Proposed Bill Could Eliminate Red Light Cameras in Illinois

The legislation, which has garnered bipartisan support from both leading Republicans and Democrats, seeks to eliminate the authority of counties and municipalities to use automated red light cameras. These systems, which automatically issue tickets to drivers who enter intersections after the light turns red, have been widely deployed throughout Chicago and its suburbs.

What remains unclear is whether the proposed ban would apply only to new camera installations or if existing red light cameras would be removed as well. Historically, similar efforts in other states have allowed existing contracts with camera vendors—such as Redflex and American Traffic Solutions (ATS)—to run their course before requiring removal.

Illinois Among the Top States for Red Light Cameras

According to PhotoEnforced.com, Illinois is one of the fastest-growing states for red light camera usage. The site tracks the growth of traffic enforcement cameras nationwide, and its open database reports over 700 monitored intersections across Illinois. More than two-thirds of those are located in Chicago, making it one of the most heavily monitored cities in the country.

The Ongoing Debate: Safety vs. Revenue

Supporters of red light cameras argue that they help reduce traffic collisions, especially at high-risk intersections. They claim the threat of a ticket encourages safer driving behavior and saves lives.

However, opponents argue that the cameras are more about generating revenue than improving road safety. Many critics cite short yellow light times and lack of due process as reasons to discontinue their use. Others point to data suggesting that while T-bone accidents may decline, rear-end collisions often increase due to sudden braking at camera-equipped intersections.

What's Next?

The outcome of Tuesday’s legislative session could determine the future of automated traffic enforcement in Illinois. If the bill passes, it may set a precedent for other states considering similar bans.

Drivers, local governments, and traffic safety advocates across Illinois will be closely watching to see whether lawmakers prioritize public safety or choose to pull the plug on a controversial enforcement tool.

Red-Light Camera Laws Differ by State in 2025

Red-light cameras have been one of the most controversial traffic enforcement tools in the United States. For decades, cities have argued that cameras improve safety by discouraging drivers from running red lights, while critics contend they are more about generating revenue than preventing accidents. What makes the issue even more complex is that red-light camera enforcement differs dramatically depending on where you are in the country. Each state sets its own laws, and even within those states, local governments often have different policies. This article explores the current state of red-light camera enforcement in 2025, how it varies nationwide, and what drivers need to know if they encounter one of these devices at an intersection.

The Purpose of Red-Light Cameras

Red-light cameras are designed to catch drivers who enter an intersection after the signal has turned red. The system works with a series of sensors embedded in the pavement or radar-based detectors that trigger cameras when a vehicle crosses the stop line illegally. Photographs or video footage are then reviewed by law enforcement or a third-party contractor before a citation is mailed to the vehicle’s registered owner. The intent is to reduce dangerous “T-bone” crashes caused by red-light running. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies show that drivers running red lights are responsible for thousands of serious injuries and fatalities every year. Supporters argue that cameras create a deterrent effect, especially in urban areas with high traffic volume.

States That Ban Red-Light Cameras

Not all states allow automated enforcement. As of 2025, several states have banned the use of red-light cameras entirely. These bans typically stem from privacy concerns, constitutional challenges, or political opposition to what is perceived as revenue-driven enforcement. Currently, states that prohibit red-light cameras include Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. In these states, cities cannot operate red-light camera programs, even if local officials want to adopt them. Drivers in these regions can expect that enforcement will remain limited to traditional policing methods.

States Allowing or Restricting Red-Light Cameras

In contrast, many states permit red-light camera enforcement but under specific guidelines. In some cases, the state authorizes cities to use cameras only if they follow engineering requirements, such as conducting traffic safety studies before installation. Other states require clear signage warning drivers that cameras are present. Some states restrict cameras to school zones, construction zones, or high-risk intersections that have a history of crashes. A few states allow local governments to decide for themselves whether to adopt red-light cameras, leaving the issue up to city councils or county boards.

States with Widespread Use

About 22 states and the District of Columbia currently use red-light cameras in at least one community. Large cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., have had widespread camera programs for years. These areas argue that cameras are necessary to manage dense traffic, reduce collisions, and free up police resources for other duties. For example, Chicago operates one of the nation’s largest networks of red-light cameras, generating tens of millions of dollars in fines annually. Washington, D.C., combines its red-light cameras with speed cameras to enforce multiple types of violations across the city.

How Tickets Are Treated

One of the most important differences between states is how violations are classified. In some states, a red-light camera ticket is considered a civil infraction rather than a moving violation. That means no points are added to your driving record, and insurance companies cannot use the citation to raise your premiums. Other states treat the ticket the same as if an officer had pulled you over, which means it could carry license points and affect your insurance. The fine amounts also vary widely. Some cities charge as little as $50 per violation, while others set fines as high as $500. In many cases, additional administrative fees are added, making the total cost even higher.

Court Challenges and Refunds

Legal challenges have shaped the red-light camera debate in many states. Opponents argue that automated enforcement violates constitutional rights, such as the right to confront one’s accuser or the presumption of innocence. Courts have issued mixed rulings over the years. In some cases, judges have struck down camera programs or forced cities to change how they operate. In other instances, courts have upheld them as legitimate safety tools. There have even been instances where cities were ordered to refund millions of dollars to drivers after fees were deemed improper. These rulings illustrate how contentious the issue remains and how local governments must tread carefully when designing enforcement systems.

Grace Periods and Camera Accuracy

Another point of controversy is how cameras determine when a violation occurs. Most systems are programmed with a short “grace period” — often one second — between the light turning red and the camera activating. This prevents drivers from being penalized for barely entering the intersection during the transition. Accuracy is also a major concern. Drivers frequently challenge tickets by arguing that the camera malfunctioned, the yellow light was too short, or the vehicle was making a legal turn. As a result, many states require that each violation be reviewed by a human officer before a ticket is issued. This human oversight is meant to ensure fairness and reduce false positives.

Revenue and Public Perception

Perhaps the biggest source of criticism is the revenue generated by red-light cameras. Cities and their private contractors often split the revenue from tickets, creating accusations that the programs are more about money than safety. Some municipalities have faced scandals involving shortened yellow light times, which increased violations and boosted revenue but arguably created more dangerous driving conditions. These controversies have led to public distrust and even ballot measures banning cameras in certain cities.

Recent Developments

In recent years, several developments have shaped the future of red-light cameras in the United States. Court rulings in some states have upheld camera programs, while others have invalidated them. Refund orders have been issued in certain areas after courts struck down additional fees attached to red-light citations. Cities like Phoenix and New York continue to expand or reinstate camera programs, citing safety statistics, while others have shut down programs due to political pressure, budget concerns, or legal challenges. These shifts demonstrate that automated enforcement is far from universally accepted. The landscape continues to change as technology evolves and public opinion shifts.

Key Takeaways for Drivers

Know your state’s law because rules vary widely. In some states, cameras are banned; in others, they are common. Understand the penalties since a ticket may be a civil fine in one state but a moving violation in another. Look for signage as many states require signs warning drivers of red-light camera enforcement. Expect human review because most systems require an officer to review footage before mailing a ticket. Challenge if necessary since most states provide a process to contest the violation if you believe you were wrongly ticketed.

The Future of Red-Light Cameras

The future of red-light camera enforcement will likely depend on a mix of technology, public opinion, and political will. As vehicles become more automated and safety systems such as automatic emergency braking become standard, the need for red-light cameras may diminish. At the same time, cities facing budget pressures may continue to view them as a reliable source of revenue. Public opinion will also play a crucial role. If voters continue to see cameras as unfair or exploitative, they may push for bans or restrictions. Conversely, if accident data strongly supports their effectiveness, more communities may adopt them in the name of safety.

Conclusion

Red-light camera enforcement is one of the most divisive traffic safety issues in the country. While some states embrace them as life-saving tools, others ban them entirely, and many more sit in the middle with restrictions. Drivers must recognize that the rules change dramatically depending on where they are driving. Until laws become more consistent nationwide, the best defense remains the simplest: always obey traffic signals. Whether or not a camera is watching, stopping at red lights is the surest way to stay safe and avoid costly fines.

Photo Enforcement Ballot Measures: Why They Always Fail

As cities across the United States grapple with issues of traffic safety and enforcement, photo enforcement measures—such as red-light and speed cameras—have emerged as potential solutions. However, attempts to implement these measures through public ballot initiatives have consistently failed to gain voter approval. This article explores the reasons behind the public's resistance to photo enforcement ballot measures, notable examples of failed initiatives, the implications for traffic safety, and what it means for the future of automated enforcement.

Understanding Photo Enforcement

Photo enforcement refers to the use of automated systems to capture images of vehicles that violate traffic laws, such as running red lights or speeding. While proponents argue that these systems enhance safety and reduce traffic violations, public sentiment has often leaned against their implementation through ballot measures.

Historical Context: Failed Ballot Measures

1. Voter Concerns About Privacy: One of the primary reasons photo enforcement ballot measures have struggled to survive public votes is widespread concern about privacy. Many voters fear that the increased use of surveillance cameras could lead to an infringement on personal freedoms and privacy rights. This sentiment often outweighs arguments about the potential safety benefits.

2. Perception of Revenue Generation: Voters frequently view photo enforcement as a revenue-generating scheme rather than a genuine safety initiative. When the public perceives that a measure is primarily designed to generate income for the city rather than improve safety, they are less likely to support it. The fear of "money traps," where municipalities profit from traffic violations, can lead to strong opposition.

3. Distrust of Government Motives: Distrust in government agencies can play a significant role in public sentiment against photo enforcement measures. Voters may question the transparency and accountability of how funds generated from fines would be used, leading to skepticism about the overall intent behind the ballot measures.

4. Concerns About Effectiveness: Critics of photo enforcement often argue that these systems do not effectively reduce accidents or improve traffic safety. Instead, they claim that such measures merely displace accidents rather than prevent them. This belief can significantly impact voter support when considering the implementation of these systems.

5. Successful Campaigns Against Initiatives: In various jurisdictions, organized campaigns have successfully mobilized public opposition against photo enforcement ballot measures. These campaigns often highlight the drawbacks and potential negative consequences of automated enforcement, swaying public opinion against the proposals.

Notable Examples of Failed Ballot Measures

1. San Francisco Proposition G (2010): This measure aimed to authorize the city to use speed cameras in specific locations to combat speeding and improve road safety. Despite support from some city officials and traffic safety advocates, it was met with strong opposition from civil liberties groups and ultimately failed in the ballot, reflecting the public's concerns about surveillance and privacy.

2. Red Light Camera Measures in Los Angeles (Various Years): Over the years, several proposals to expand the use of red-light cameras in Los Angeles have faced rejection at the polls. Voters expressed concerns about the perceived focus on revenue generation over public safety and the effectiveness of such measures in reducing traffic violations.

3. Arizona Red-Light Camera Initiative (2010): Arizona residents voted on a ballot measure that sought to expand red-light camera use throughout the state. However, the initiative was met with opposition due to fears about privacy, government surveillance, and the financial motivations behind the program, leading to its failure.

Implications for Traffic Safety

The failure of photo enforcement ballot measures to gain public support has significant implications for traffic safety efforts. Without these systems, cities may struggle to find effective alternatives to address speeding and reckless driving, leading to continued accidents and fatalities on the roads.

In the absence of photo enforcement, law enforcement agencies may need to allocate more resources to traditional policing methods, which can strain budgets and manpower. Moreover, without automated enforcement systems, the opportunity for consistent and fair traffic law enforcement may diminish, creating inequities in how traffic violations are addressed.

The Future of Photo Enforcement Initiatives

Given the history of failed public votes, cities considering photo enforcement must find new ways to engage with the community and build trust. Here are some strategies that could improve public perception and potentially lead to successful ballot measures in the future:

1. Public Education Campaigns: Effective communication about the benefits of photo enforcement and how it can enhance safety is essential. Engaging community members through educational campaigns can help alleviate fears and address concerns.

2. Transparent Use of Funds: Clearly outlining how revenue from photo enforcement will be allocated can help build trust with the public. Demonstrating a commitment to reinvesting funds into community safety initiatives may increase voter support.

3. Pilot Programs: Implementing pilot programs that demonstrate the effectiveness of photo enforcement in reducing accidents and improving safety can provide valuable data and build public trust. Success stories from other jurisdictions can also bolster community confidence in these measures.

Other Public vote outcomes

• In Mukilteo, Washington 70% of the voters banned the cameras and in Anaheim, California 73% voted against them. 
• Earlier in 2010, 61% of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, 86% of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. 
• The November 2009 elections included three votes: 72% said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio, and College Station, 
• Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. 66% of Steubenville
• Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the 1990s, speed cameras lost by 66% of the vote in Peoria, Arizona, and Batavia, Illinois. 
• In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64% of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras.

Conclusion

While photo enforcement ballot measures have yet to gain traction in public votes, understanding the underlying concerns can help cities refine their approaches to traffic safety. By addressing privacy concerns, ensuring transparency, and engaging communities effectively, cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose may find a path toward successful implementation of photo enforcement initiatives in the future. As public safety remains a top priority, the conversation around photo enforcement will undoubtedly continue, shaping the landscape of traffic enforcement across the country.

Anaheim Voters Banned Red Light Cameras: What This Means

In a significant move reflecting public sentiment toward traffic enforcement technology, Anaheim voters have decisively voted to ban red light cameras in their city. This decision has sparked discussions about traffic safety, law enforcement practices, and the effectiveness of automated ticketing systems. In this article, we’ll explore the implications of this ban and what it means for residents and visitors in Anaheim.

Understanding the Decision

On [insert specific date, if known], Anaheim residents participated in a referendum that led to the prohibition of red light cameras at intersections throughout the city. This decision was driven by a growing sentiment among voters that red light cameras may not effectively enhance traffic safety, and concerns over the perceived fairness of automated enforcement.

Key Factors Influencing the Ban

1. Public Sentiment: Many residents expressed frustration over red light camera tickets, citing a belief that these systems primarily generate revenue for the city rather than enhance safety. This sentiment resonated with voters, prompting a push for change.

2. Effectiveness of Red Light Cameras: Proponents of the ban argued that studies have produced mixed results regarding the effectiveness of red light cameras in reducing accidents. Critics of the cameras pointed to evidence suggesting that they can lead to rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes to avoid a ticket.

3. Financial Implications: The revenue generated from red light camera fines often contributes to city budgets. However, many voters felt that the financial burden on drivers outweighed any potential safety benefits.

What the Ban Means for Anaheim Residents

Changes to Traffic Enforcement

With the ban on red light cameras, traffic enforcement in Anaheim will return to traditional methods. This means that police officers will be responsible for monitoring traffic violations at intersections, rather than relying on automated systems. Residents can expect increased police presence in some areas to ensure compliance with traffic laws.

Impacts on Traffic Safety

The decision to ban red light cameras raises questions about the future of traffic safety in Anaheim. While some residents welcome the change, others worry about the potential for increased violations at intersections previously monitored by cameras.

Community Engagement

The ban on red light cameras highlights the importance of community engagement in local governance. Residents who feel strongly about traffic safety and enforcement are encouraged to participate in discussions and advocate for measures that align with their views. This can include community meetings, public forums, and outreach to city officials.

Alternatives to Red Light Cameras

As Anaheim transitions away from red light cameras, discussions about alternative measures to enhance traffic safety are likely to take center stage. Potential alternatives include:

1. Increased Police Presence: More frequent traffic patrols can help deter violations and improve compliance with traffic laws.

2. Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating drivers about safe driving practices and the consequences of traffic violations can promote a culture of safety on the roads.

3. Improved Traffic Signal Design: Enhancing traffic signals and signage at intersections can help reduce confusion and improve safety for all road users.

4. Community Traffic Safety Initiatives: Encouraging local organizations to develop traffic safety programs can engage the community and foster safer driving behaviors.

Conclusion

The decision by Anaheim voters to ban red light cameras marks a significant shift in the city’s approach to traffic enforcement. As the community navigates this change, it will be essential to prioritize safety and explore alternative measures to ensure that Anaheim remains a safe place for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike. Engaging in open dialogue and collaboration among residents, local authorities, and traffic safety advocates will play a crucial role in shaping the future of traffic management in Anaheim.

10 Questions If Your Photo Enforcement Database is Current?

10 questions to ask to confirm if your photo enforcement database is complete and up-to-date?

1)  How many locations have been deleted in the last 5 years?
2)  Do you have school safety zones and speed camera locations?
3)  Are you interested in toll road and HOV camera locations?
4)  Are you interested in the bus lane and stop sign camera locations?
5)  Are you familiar with the new red light sensors on traffic lights?
6)  How many of your locations are actually traffic monitoring cameras?
7)  Which States have removed the most red-light cameras in the last few years?
8)  Which Cities have added the most red light camera locations?
9)  Which States, Cities, & Counties have banned red-light cameras?
10)  Which States have increased fines recently?

Here is our most recent database count.

Email us if you are interested in licensing our red light camera database.

Which States Ban the Use of Red Light Cameras?

State Laws vs City Laws

Here is a list of fifteen US States that have banned the use of red light cameras.  Most State laws prohibit the use of new photo enforcement locations by cities and municipalities who might be considering it.  However,  there are a few cities that were using cameras before the State law was passed and the camera usage maybe grandfathered in.  It remains to be seen what will happen if States begin to pass laws banning cameras if they will require cities to remove them.  For example, the state of Florida used the State law to ban the cameras but they are still widely used in many cities.  Could this be a dirty legal tactic for the States to get leverage in order participate in the revenue share with the municipality?  I suspect were are going to see more State legislatures passing laws that ban the cameras simply to use this as leverage to share in the State revenue with the City.   Here are the States below that have passed laws banning them from 1995 - 2010. 

Wisconsin 1995 
Utah 1996 
Alaska 1997 
Nebraska 1999 
Nevada 1999 
Arkansas 2005 
New Hampshire 2006 
West Virginia 2006 
Michigan 2007 
Minnesota 2007 
Indiana 2008 
Maine 2009 
Mississippi 2009 
Montana 2009 
South Carolina 2010