Los Angeles is installing 125 speed cameras to slow drivers down. Now the city must show whether lower speeds lead to fewer serious crashes and traffic deaths.
Los Angeles has started installing 125 automated speed cameras across the city. The first cameras are expected to begin issuing warnings on Oct. 26, with the full network scheduled to be operating by the end of the year. Los Angeles Department of Transportation — Speed Safety System Program
The goal is simple: Get drivers to slow down.
But as the cameras prepare to go online, people are still being killed on Los Angeles-area streets.
That raises a bigger question:
Will lower speeds actually mean fewer people are seriously hurt or killed?
The timing is hard to ignore.
In Malibu, 51-year-old Nobu employee Ryo Uchimiya was killed Oct. 3 when a Range Rover crashed into his parked car on Pacific Coast Highway. The driver was 16. Authorities said it appeared the teenager had been speeding, but the investigation was still underway.
In Encino, two people were killed when their car crashed into a tree on Burbank Boulevard near Balboa. People who live nearby told local media that the stretch has a long history of speeding and serious crashes. ABC7 report on the Encino crash
And in North Hollywood, a 71-year-old woman was killed in a hit-and-run after an SUV struck her near Lankershim Boulevard and Oxnard Street. Police are still looking for the driver. LAPD report on the North Hollywood hit-and-run
These crashes did not all happen for the same reason. And there is no evidence that a speed camera would have prevented each one.
But they show why the city’s new program matters.
Los Angeles has spent years trying to bring down traffic deaths through its Vision Zero initiative, street improvements, education and enforcement. Yet traffic deaths remain a serious problem.
Now the city is adding another tool.
The cameras are being placed at 125 locations across Los Angeles, including areas with histories of serious crashes and speeding.
Each camera will have its own 60-day warning period. Drivers traveling 11 mph or more above the posted speed limit will receive a warning during that period.
After the warning period, civil fines can range from $50 to $500, depending on how fast the vehicle was traveling.
The idea is pretty straightforward.
If drivers know they can get a ticket without an officer pulling them over, they may slow down.
And there is good evidence that cameras can change driver behavior.
San Francisco’s speed-camera program found a 79% reduction in the share of vehicles traveling at least 10 mph over the speed limit at camera locations after one year. The findings were reported through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s transportation research database.
That’s a big change.
But it is not the same thing as proving that fewer people will die.
Speed matters. The faster a vehicle is moving, the less time a driver has to react, and the more severe a crash can become.
But speeding is only part of the problem.
A camera cannot stop someone from driving drunk. It cannot keep a driver from looking down at a phone. It cannot redesign a dangerous intersection or give a pedestrian a protected place to cross.
It also cannot stop a driver from leaving the scene after a crash.
That matters because people who live on these streets often know where the danger is.
They see drivers race through intersections.
They watch people try to cross wide roads.
They hear the crashes.
Sometimes they see the same thing happen again and again.
The question is whether the new cameras can make those streets safer—not just whether they can produce more tickets.
Los Angeles has already tried different approaches. The city’s Vision Zero program uses data to identify dangerous locations and guide safety improvements.
The cameras should be part of that bigger effort, not the whole plan.
We also found other forms of automated enforcement in Los Angeles, including the city’s expansion of license-plate reader cameras and the questions those systems raise about privacy and public oversight.
The real test starts after the cameras go live
Los Angeles should judge the program by what happens on the streets, not simply by how many tickets are issued.
The first measure will be whether speeding falls. Then comes the bigger test: whether serious crashes, life-changing injuries and pedestrian deaths fall with it.
The city should make those results public and track what happens at camera locations before and after installation. It should also watch nearby streets to see whether dangerous driving simply moves somewhere else.
San Francisco’s experience suggests cameras can change driver behavior. What Los Angeles needs to show is whether that change translates into safer streets.
Because the goal should not be more tickets.
The goal should be fewer people getting hurt and killed.
A camera can measure speed.
It cannot measure what it means when someone makes it home safely instead of a family having to plan a funeral.
Los Angeles is about to find out whether changing driver behavior can change something much bigger.
The cameras may catch the speeders.
The real question is whether they can help stop the deaths.
