Speed 

Safety Cameras 

Safe Speeds is a core principle of the Safe System Approach since humans are less 

likely to survive high-speed crashes. Enforcing safe speeds has been challenging; 

however, with more information and tools communities can make progress in 

reducing speeds. Agencies can use speed safety cameras (SSCs) as an effective 

and reliable technology to supplement more traditional methods of enforcement, 

engineering measures, and education to alter the social norms of speeding. SSCs 

use speed measurement devices to detect speeding and capture photographic or 

video evidence of vehicles that are violating a set speed threshold. 

Applications

Agencies should conduct a network 

analysis of speeding-related crashes 

to identify locations to implement 

SSCs. The analysis can include scope 

(e.g., widespread, localized), location 

types (e.g., urban/suburban/rural, 

work zones, residential, school zones), 

roadway types (e.g., expressways, 

arterials, local streets), times of day, and 

road users most affected by speedrelated crashes (e.g., pedestrians, 

bicyclists).

SSCs can be deployed as: 

• Fixed units—a single, stationary

camera targeting one location.

• Point-to-Point (P2P) units—multiple

cameras to capture average speed

over a certain distance.

• Mobile units—a portable camera,

generally in a vehicle or trailer.

The table below describes suitable 

circumstances for SSC deployment.1

Considerations

• SSCs can produce a crash reduction

upstream and downstream, thus

generating a spillover effect.2

• Public trust is essential for any type of

enforcement. With proper controls in

place, SSCs can offer fair and

equitable enforcement of speeding,

regardless of driver age, race, gender,

or socio-economic status. SSCs should

be planned with community input and

equity impacts in mind.

• Using both overt (i.e., highly visible)

and covert (i.e., hidden) enforcement

may encourage drivers to comply with

limits everywhere, not only at sites they

are aware are enforced.

• Agencies should conduct

evaluations regularly to determine if

SSCs are accomplishing safety goals

and whether changes in strategy,

scheduling, communications, or public

engagement are necessary.

• Agencies should conduct a legal

and policy review to determine if SSCs

are authorized within a jurisdiction and

how the authorization and other traffic

laws will affect a SSC program.

• Agencies should develop an SSC

program plan with consideration of

the USDOT SSC guidelines for planning,

public involvement, stakeholder

coordination, implementation,

maintenance, evaluation, etc.3

FHWA-SA-21-070

Fixed units can reduce 

crashes on urban 

principal arterials up to:

for all 

crashes. 54% 4

for injury 

crashes. 48% 4

For more information on this 

and other FHWA Proven 

Safety Countermeasures, 

please reference the: 

Speed Safety Camera Program 

Planning and Operations Guide.

Safety Benefits:

Considerations for Selection Fixed P2P Mobile

Problems are long-term and site-specific. X X —

Problems are network-wide, and shift based on enforcement efforts. — — X

Speeds at enforcement site vary largely from downstream sites. — X X

Overt enforcement is legally required. X X X

Sight distance for the enforcement unit is limited. X X —

Enforcement sites are multilane facilities. X X —

1 Speed Safety Camera Program Planning and Operations Guide. FHWA, (2023). 

2 (CMF ID: 7718) Montella et al. “Effects on speed and safety of point-to-point speed enforcement systems”. 

Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 75, (2015). Note that this is an international study.

3 Speed Enforcement Camera Systems Operational Guidelines. NHTSA, (2008).

4 (CMF ID: 2915,2921) Shin et al. “Evaluation of the Scottsdale Loop 101 automated speed enforcement 

demonstration program.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, (2009).

5 (CMF ID: 7582) Li et al. “A Before-and-After Empirical Bayes Evaluation of Automated 

Mobile Speed Enforcement on Urban Arterial Roads.” Presented at the 94th Annual 

Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Paper No. 15-1563, Washington, D.C., (2015). 

Note that this is an international study.

6 Automated Speed Enforcement Program Report 2014-2017. New York City DOT, (2018).

In New York City, fixed units 

reduced speeding in school 

zones up to 63% during 

school hours.6

P2P units can reduce crashes on 

urban expressways, freeways, 

and principal arterials up to:

for fatal and injury crashes.2

37%

Mobile units can reduce 

crashes on urban principal 

arterials up to:

for fatal and injury crashes.5

20%

The contents of this Fact Sheet do not have the 

force and effect of law and are not meant to 

bind the public in any way. This Fact Sheet is 

intended only to provide clarity regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies.

OFFICE OF SAFETY

Proven Safety 

Countermeasures