Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras 

NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK

ISSUE STRATEGIES TAKEAWAYS

➤ Adoption of safety cameras is

often difficult due to legislative and

public concerns

➤ Data-driven approach

➤ Advocacy

➤ Comprehensive approach

➤ 63% decrease in speed

➤ 55% decrease in fatalities

➤ 60% decrease in violations

Background

Speed is a persistent traffic safety issue; particularly in areas with 

high pedestrian and/or bike users. One effective enforcement 

strategy that has been utilized is Automated Speed 

Enforcement (ASE), more recently termed “safety cameras.”

However, agencies have often struggled with implementing 

safety cameras due to citizen concerns, legislative resistance, 

speeding not being perceived as a safety issue, and privacy 

issues1. Implementation has also battled the perception that 

automated enforcement is a “money grab.” 

Due to the high number of pedestrians and bicyclists, New 

York City (NYC) had a particular interest in the use of safety 

cameras. In 2013, pedestrian and bicyclist crashes accounted 

for 28 percent of all police reported crashes but made up 65 

percent of fatalities in New York City. Additionally, unsafe 

speed was noted as a contributing factor in 7 percent of all 

crashes but accounted for 25 percent of fatal crashes2. 

New York City faced typical oppositions to safety cameras 

such as legislative restrictions and citizen resistance. They 

successfully instituted a safety camera program in school 

zones through several strategies. 

Strategies for Success

Data-Driven Approach

The first factor for success in NYC’s adoption of safety cameras 

and addressing crashes in general was the use of a data-driven 

approach. For instance, the New York Police Department (NYPD) 

combats traffic crashes by identifying traffic violations that 

have the greatest impact on crash severity and then focuses on 

changing the driver behaviors that contribute to these crashes. 

Under Vision Zero, crash data were utilized to identify the 

following six violations that had the greatest impact on safety3: 

• speeding

• failure to yield to a pedestrian

• red light running

• improper turning

• cell phone use

• disobeying signs

Corridors for improvements were identified based on 

where pedestrian deaths and severe injuries were the most 

concentrated4 and in some cases challenged conventional 

wisdom about what streets had safety issues. For safety 

cameras, sites were selected by ranking school zones 

according to the number of traffic injuries during school hours 

on school days. Site selection also included the use of speed 

data, roadway geometry, engineering judgment, and areas 

identified within Pedestrian Safety Action Plans5.

Advocacy and Outreach

Another factor for success was the active participation of 

advocacy and community organizations. Groups such as 

Transportation Alternatives and Families for Safe Streets

helped elevate road safety as a priority of the city. Advocacy 

included events, petitions, use of technical statistics along 

with personal stories, and even working with faith-based 

organizations within communities5,6.

Safety Camera. Source: Getty Images

Case Study 5: Noteworthy Speed Management Practices 1 FHWA-SA-20-081
Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras 

Another example was a joint venture between the NYPD and 

NYDOT to conduct on-street outreach. The Vision Zero Street 

Teams identify corridors with a significant crash history and 

pinpoint the types of crashes that occur. Next, the NYPD and 

NYDOT staff distribute fliers to pedestrians and drivers with 

safety tips that correspond to the most serious crashes along 

that corridor. The NYPD also targets enforcement resources to 

address the violations related to identified crash types3.

Other advocacy and outreach strategies include ads on 

television, radio, bus stops, and billboards to educate 

aggressive drivers about the consequences of negative 

behavior. Results have shown 72 percent of drivers recall 

having seen the media campaign5.

Advocacy was also critical in the initial implementation 

of the safety cameras. Later when NYC’s authority to use 

safety cameras was set to expire in July 2018 after the state 

legislature failed to reach a compromise on extension, 

advocacy groups pushed for a special session to vote on the 

proposed bill. Advocacy groups directly contacted legislators 

to encourage them to vote7. The bill was ultimately passed. 

Comprehensive Approach

Another important factor for success was the use of a 

comprehensive approach. Safety cameras were one piece of 

a comprehensive strategy4 to address pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety. For instance, NYC was the first to implement a Vision Zero 

policy. This included developing a pedestrian safety action plan 

for each of the City’s five boroughs. Safety engineering projects 

were completed in areas with high rates of severe pedestrian 

crashes. NYC was able to implement countermeasures at almost 

90 percent of priority corridors and intersections and 461 safety 

engineering projects have been completed4. 

Engineering strategies have included the installation of 

Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) which gives crossing 

pedestrians a “head start” before vehicles begin to turn with 

around 2951 LPIs installed4. Left turn speed management 

was also instituted based on findings of a study of the 

interaction between left turn speeds and pedestrian safety 

and included the use of paint, flexible delineators, and rubber 

speed bumps. Other engineering countermeasures include 

bus boarding islands, speed cushions, dedicated bike lanes, 

roadway redesign, raised crosswalks, rubber pedestrian refuge 

islands offset crossings, and improved lighting3,4.

Enforcement has also played a role. In addition to playing a 

key role in Vision Zero, NYPD assesses speeding conditions in 

conjunction with the NYDOT and identifies solutions including 

increased enforcement.

Implementation of Safety Cameras

New York conducted a safety camera pilot program in 20 

school zones starting in 2013, using fixed and mobile cameras. 

A data-driven approach was used to determine locations. 

Cameras were placed on streets within a quarter mile of 

selected schools. The system was specifically targeted to 

school safety. The cameras operate 1 hour before and 1 hour 

after school activities and the speed threshold was set at 10 

mph over the speed limit. Additionally, data collected from 

the program cannot be used for unrelated purposes. 

The program was expanded to 140 school speed zones 

in 20145 and will further expand to be the largest urban 

network of safety cameras in the US (2,000 cameras in 750 

areas within a quarter mile of a school)8. More recently hours 

of operation were expanded9.

NYC use of safety cameras has shown significant success. A 

63 percent decrease in speed in school zones where safety 

cameras were present has been reported. Additionally, a 15 

percent decrease in crashes, a 17 percent reduction in injuries, 

and a 55 percent reduction in fatalities have occurred in school 

zones with safety cameras5. By 2018, the daily rate of camera 

violations had decreased by 60 percent and only 19 percent of 

violations are repeat offenders3.

NYC has also reported success in addressing pedestrian safety 

overall. From 2008 to 2017 pedestrian fatalities in urban areas 

nationally increased by around 46 percent. Over that same 

time period, pedestrian fatalities in NYC dropped 31 percent. 

Additionally, a 36 percent decline in pedestrian fatalities has 

occurred at Vision Zero priority locations4.

Key Takeaways and Lessons Learned

Data driven – Successful adoption of safety cameras was 

due to NYC being able to respond to the key concerns about 

them. One strategy was use of a data-driven approach which 

highlighted the crash problem and focused on areas where 

safety issues existed. Camera locations were also selected 

using a data driven strategy.

Comprehensive strategy – NYC also used a comprehensive 

approach to address safety from a broad perspective which 

included utilizing a number of other countermeasures. 

This demonstrated safety cameras were just one piece of 

a larger strategy to address safety. Additionally, the use of 

a comprehensive approach addressed the problem from 

multiple angles rather than relying on one solution. 

FHWA-SA-20-081

2

Case Study 5: Noteworthy Speed Management Practices
Successful Strategies for Adoption of Safety Cameras 

Advocacy – Another key strategy was extensive outreach 

and advocacy activities. Educating the public helps them 

understand the problem and get buy-in. Citizen advocates 

were key since they demonstrated to both legislators and the 

public that speeding is a concern.

Continued vigilance – Another lesson learned is that 

continued vigilance is needed. After initial implementation 

in 2013, NYC’s authority to use safety cameras was set to 

expire in July 2018 after the state legislature failed to reach a 

compromise on extension. This required additional effort by 

the city and advocacy groups to ensure the program stayed 

active and was ultimately expanded.

Safety camera thresholds – Although not specific to the NYC 

case study, a general takeaway from the application of safety 

cameras is the use of thresholds. Most agencies set the system 

to activate at some threshold over the posted speed limit. This 

is generally 5 or 10 mph over. In the NYC program, a 10 mph 

threshold was utilized. Selecting a threshold over the speed limit 

is a typical approach, since most agencies do not want to ticket 

drivers right at the speed limit. It also allays concerns that the 

system is unfairly ticketing drivers and being used for revenue. 

However, once drivers become aware of the threshold, in reality, 

the target speed for drivers is likely to be the threshold limit 

rather than the actual speed limit. As a result, agencies should 

consider what the target speed is in selecting a threshold.

1 Miller, Richard, and J. Scott Osberg, Richard Retting, McKenzie Ballou, Randolph Atkins. System Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Behavioral Safety Research. DOT HS 812 257. April 2016.

2 Summary of New York City Motor Vehicle Crashes, New York State Department of Motor Vehicle Crashes. 2013. https://dmv.ny.gov/statistic/2013nyc.pdf

3 Vision Zero NYC. Vision Zero Year 5 Report. March 2019. www1.nyc.gov/assets/visionzero/downloads/pdf/vision-zero-year-5-report.pdf.

4 Vision Zero NYC (2019a). Borough Pedestrian Safety Action Plans Vision Zero Update. www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/vz-2019-update-city-hall.pdf

5 Automated Speed Enforcement Program Report 2014-2017. New York City DOT. June 2018. www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/speed-camera-report-june2018.pdf

6 Transportation Alternatives. www.transalt.org/citywide. Accessed December 2019.

7 Colon, Dave. “As speed camera deadline looms, advocates turn up heat on New York pols.” Curbed, New York. July 20, 2018. 

ny.curbed.com/2018/7/20/17596566/nyc-speed-camera-legislation-transit-advocates

8 Hu, Winnie. “2,000 Cameras Will Be Watching How You Drive in New York City.” The New York Times. July 1, 2019. 

www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/nyregion/speeding-cameras-nyc.html

9 Plitt, Amy. “NYC’s expanded speed camera program to take effect July 11.” Curbed, New York. May 24, 2019. 

ny.curbed.com/2019/5/24/18638686/new-york-speed-camera-program-vision-zero

School Children crossing a street in NYC. Source: Getty Images

Case Study 5: Noteworthy Speed Management Practices 3 FHWA-SA-20-081