Expanding Auto-Enforcement Cameras Statewide

By Erik Noonan

BikeMN has been working to make automated traffic enforcement cameras legal in Minnesota for years. Not because cameras are our favorite tool — they’re not, and we’ll explain why — but because the evidence that they save lives is overwhelming, communities across the state are asking for them, and people are getting hurt in the meantime.

Minneapolis launched a pilot in October 2025 with early results demonstrating exactly what the research has shown time and time again. Reductions in speeding of every kind, but perhaps most impactfully, drivers exceeding speed limits by greater than 20mph. It’s time to extend this option statewide. 

Our ask is narrow: extend the authority the Legislature granted Minneapolis to any Minnesota city or county that wants to explore it. No mandates. No statewide rollout. Local control over a proven, short-term tool — available to any community that looks at its own crash data, hears from its own residents and decides cameras make sense for its streets.

Is Enforcement the best strategy?

It is a part of the short term solution, and should be used sparingly. However, we also value safety that allows us to build towards long term solutions. Traditional enforcement is not a cost effective solution, endangers law enforcement officials, and takes them away from activities where they have a more impactful presence. 

BikeMN organizes its work around five E’s: Education, Encouragement, Engineering, Equity and Evaluation. Enforcement isn’t one of them. Traditional traffic enforcement depends on who gets pulled over, by whom and why — and it has a long, documented history of being applied unequally across race and class lines. It puts the burden of street safety on individual behavior rather than on system design. It treats a structural problem as a personal failing. And it has never meaningfully moved the needle on speeds at a citywide scale, because it depends entirely on someone being in the right place at the right time. We left enforcement out of our framework because it is not, on its own, a reliable or equitable path to safer streets.

Automated cameras are a different category of tool entirely.

A camera doesn’t decide who looks suspicious. It doesn’t escalate. It measures whether a vehicle exceeded a speed threshold and records the plate. That’s it. Research from Chicago — which has operated school zone cameras for more than a decade — found no racial disparity in how camera citations were issued. The Minneapolis program reinforces this structurally: citations carry no criminal consequence, can’t result in arrest, don’t appear on driving records and can’t be used to tow a vehicle. Fines are modest ($40 to $80) and can be satisfied with a free traffic safety class. Revenue by law goes to supporting further traffic safety improvements, not the general fund. The program is administered by Public Works — not a law enforcement agency — because it is a street safety tool and it’s housed where it belongs.

We also want to be clear about what cameras can’t do. They don’t redesign a street. They don’t build a protected bike lane or raise a crosswalk or reclaim a travel lane. Our five E’s framework is aimed at that kind of durable, structural change — where the environment itself produces safe behavior without ongoing intervention. Cameras don’t get us there.

What they do is buy time, measurably and cheaply, while the harder work of infrastructure redesign happens. They sit outside our five E’s not because they contradict it, but because they’re a bridge, not a destination.

What Cameras Actually Do

The short version: they change driver behavior fast, and the change sticks.

In Minneapolis, before paid citations even started, drivers going 10 or more mph over the speed limit dropped by nearly 30%. Drivers going 20 or more mph over dropped by 76%. That second number matters most for people on bikes and on foot. Extreme speeding is where fatal crashes happen, and that’s exactly the behavior cameras reach most effectively.

In 2023, MnDOT reviewed every credible U.S. study of speed camera programs and reached a conclusion that, for transportation research is unusually unambiguous:

Every methodologically sound study of U.S. speed camera systems has found reductions in deaths, injuries, crashes and speeds.

Not most studies. All of them. Severe and fatal crashes at camera locations drop 19% to 56%. No study found an increase in crash rates.

New York City started with 20 cameras in school zones in 2013. It now runs 2,200 of them around the clock across all 750 school zones in the city. A 2024 NYC Department of Transportation report found a 14% reduction in injuries and fatalities at camera locations compared to control sites. A 2025 study from C2SMARTER, a U.S. Department of Transportation research center at Rutgers University, found cameras reduced total collisions by roughly 30% and injuries by roughly 16% within 900 feet of camera locations in the first seven months. Drivers didn’t just slow down near cameras and speed back up — violations dropped and stayed low. Most cameras reached their full effectiveness within six months.

Chicago’s peer-reviewed data found a 12% reduction in fatal and injury crashes and a 15% reduction in the most serious crashes at camera locations. When Philadelphia saw similar results, the Pennsylvania Legislature expanded its program. Strong evidence led to action.

Why This Is Urgent

Our streets became a lot more dangerous, fast. This has occurred consistent with  two converging trends.

The first is long and structural. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE standards created a loophole that quietly reshaped the American vehicle fleet: trucks and SUVs faced a much lower bar than passenger cars, so that’s what the market pushed. The average vehicle got bigger, heavier, taller and as engine technology improved, faster. The F-150, America’s best-selling vehicle, weighs close to a ton more than it did during my childhood in the 1990s. Taller hoods create larger blind spots; a modern pickup’s front end can completely hide several small children. More mass means exponentially more forcein a collision. The vehicles sharing our streets with people walking and biking are more dangerous than they’ve ever been.

The second trend is more recent. Something shifted around 2020 — pandemic stress, emptier roads that trained drivers to go faster, probably both. Whatever the cause, in 2024 451 people died on Minnesota roads — more than one every single day. Fifty-six were pedestrians, a 25% jump in a single year. Eight were cyclists. The Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety called the pedestrian number “alarming.”

Speed is the through-line. Minnesota’s Toward Zero Deaths program identifies it as one of the four leading causes of traffic fatalities. In Minneapolis, speeding contributed to 50% of fatal crashes in 2020 and 65% in 2021, compared to a national average of 29%.

For people walking, biking and rolling, these numbers land differently than they do for people inside vehicles.

• Pedestrians are 16% of trips in Minneapolis but 31% of severe injuries and deaths.
• Cyclists are 3-5% of trips and 11% of severe injuries and deaths.

The physics explain why. A person hit at 20 mph has about a 13% chance of dying or suffering severe injury. At 30 mph, it’s 40%. At 40 mph, it’s 73%. Getting a driver to slow down from 40 to 25 mph isn’t a minor ask. For the person in that driver’s path on foot or on a bike, it’s the difference between a close call and a funeral. Slowing vehicle speeds down makes people safer. The harm from a collision is far less severe and the chances of a collision are far less likely. 

Speed management has historically depended on someone being in the right place at the right time. Traffic stops in Minneapolis dropped 82% between 2018 and 2024 — for reasons BikeMN isn’t here to litigate. The point is that the gap between how fast people are driving and how often anyone notices has grown large. Cameras fill that gap continuously, without judgment calls, without ongoing personnel costs, at 2 a.m. on a Tuesday the same as at noon on a Saturday.

Cameras Are a Bridge, Not the Destination

We’ve already said cameras aren’t our preferred tool, and we mean it.

The real long-term answer to dangerous streets is infrastructure. Streets designed to make driving too fast, physically more difficult. Narrower lanes, protected intersections, raised crosswalks, separated bike facilities, road diets that change how drivers experience a corridor. When a street is built right, you don’t need cameras. The geometry does the work permanently, without ongoing cost or controversy. Engineering — not enforcement — is what our five E’s framework is aimed at, and it’s the right goal.

But rebuilding streets is slow. Environmental review, funding cycles, community engagement, engineering, construction — a road diet can take the better part of a decade from first conversation to ribbon-cutting. Communities with dangerous streets today cannot wait for that timeline to protect the people on them now.

State Rep. Brad Tabke made this point well during a recent legislative debate. He compared automated cameras to a medication still working its way through FDA approval that’s already being used by patients who have run out of good options. The treatment isn’t perfect. We’re still learning exactly how and where it works best. But people are being hurt right now, and treating “we’d prefer a better solution” as a reason to withhold a working one isn’t principled caution. It’s negligence dressed up as principle.

Cameras are a bridge. BikeMN supports both — the cameras now, and the infrastructure that makes them unnecessary is the long term strategy. They’re not competing strategies. They’re the same strategy on different timelines.

This Is a Local Control Issue

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have camera programs. More than 221 communities across 21 states use them. This is not an experiment — it’s a proven tool that Minnesota communities are currently being denied access to because of an overly narrow pilot.

Communities in Duluth, Rochester, St. Cloud, Moorhead, Mankato and across Greater Minnesota and the metro suburbs are dealing with the same speeding problems Minneapolis is. Their residents are walking and biking on dangerous streets. Their local officials are asking about this tool. They deserve the same ability to make this decision for themselves that Minneapolis and Mendota Heights currently have — and they shouldn’t have to wait until 2029 for a legislative evaluation when Minneapolis’s own early data is already telling the story.

The framework the Legislature built in 2024 is well-designed with: privacy protections, equity requirements, independent evaluation, annual public reporting, geographic distribution requirements. That framework should travel with any expansion. What shouldn’t stay is the restriction limiting it to two cities.

A Direct Question for Opponents

Reasonable people can disagree about implementation — governance, privacy standards, fine levels, location criteria. BikeMN has been part of those conversations and welcomes more of them.

But if the position is that camera authority simply shouldn’t be extended to other communities — that cities and towns across Minnesota should just not have access to this option — we have a genuine question: what’s the alternative?

Not the long-term alternative. We’re aligned on infrastructure. The question is what you offer a community right now, while that process plays out. What is the cost-effective, rapidly deployable tool that demonstrably reduces dangerous speeding on a timeline that helps people who are being hurt today?

Cameras can be installed in weeks. They’ve been proven in dozens of cities to reduce dangerous speeding by double-digit percentages within months. Minnesota’s own transportation department says every sound study found them effective. If there’s a better near-term option, the conversation should absolutely be about that option. Until it’s on the table, opposing cameras without a realistic alternative isn’t a safety position. It’s an obstacle to one.

The burden of proof is a two way street.

What We’re Asking For

In the 2026 session:

• Let Minneapolis expand to all 42 authorized locations based on its early pilot data — there’s no good reason to wait for 2029.
• Authorize additional pilot cities, particularly in Greater Minnesota and the inner-ring suburbs where there is demand and compelling crash data. Or lift the moratorium all-together and allow pilot projects to be run in any municipality that wants them.
• Extend MnDOT’s work zone camera authority to more locations.

Going forward:

• Extend camera authority statewide as an opt-in for any Minnesota city or county, under the same privacy and equity framework already in place.
• Create a startup grant program so smaller and lower-resourced communities aren’t priced out.
• Expand eligibility to county roads and state trunk highways, where some of the most dangerous speeding happens on roads cities don’t control.
• Require annual public reporting from every jurisdiction using cameras. Transparency is how this program keeps trust.

The framework is built. The evidence is in. Communities are asking. The only thing missing is the political will to treat local officials and residents across Minnesota as entities capable of making this decision for their own streets.

Talking Points

For conversations with neighbors, at city council meetings and in legislative offices. Take what’s useful, make it yours.

“This is about changing behavior, not collecting fines.” The Minneapolis pilot started with warnings only — no citations — and extreme speeding dropped 76%. Fines are low, don’t affect your driving record, can’t be used to tow or arrest and can be satisfied with a free safety class. By law, revenue goes back into traffic safety initiatives.

“When you’re on a bike or on foot, speed is the difference between going home and not.” A person hit at 40 mph has nearly a three-in-four chance of dying or suffering severe injury. At 25 mph, it’s closer to one in 10. Getting drivers to slow down isn’t a minor ask. For the people most exposed on our streets, it’s everything.

“The camera measures speed and records plates. It doesn’t know what you look like.” Research from Chicago found no racial disparity in how camera citations were issued. The Minneapolis program was also designed with equity in mind: administered by Public Works, cameras required by law to be distributed across communities with different socioeconomic conditions, low fines with an education alternative.

“MnDOT reviewed every credible U.S. study and found the same result every time.” This is Minnesota’s own transportation department, in 2023, concluding that every methodologically sound study of speed cameras found reductions in deaths, injuries, crashes and speeds. The evidence is settled.

“The real answer is better-designed streets — and cameras protect people while we build them.” BikeMN wants streets designed so fast driving is physically uncomfortable. That’s the durable solution. But it takes years, and people are being hurt on dangerous streets right now. Cameras are the bridge.

“This is about local control. Let communities decide for themselves.” We’re not asking for a mandate. We’re asking for an option. Communities that want this tool should be trusted to evaluate their own crash data, hear from their own residents and make this decision for their own streets. Keeping that authority locked at the state level isn’t caution. It’s just limiting local options.

“If you’re against cameras, what’s your alternative — right now, not in a decade?” The evidence is clear. The cost of inaction is in the crash reports. Show us a cost-effective, rapidly deployable alternative that produces equivalent results and we’ll engage with it seriously.

Minnesota is a national leader in forward-thinking transportation policy — and that didn’t happen by chance. For over 17 years, BikeMN has been at the table, fight after fight, shaping a future where biking, walking, and rolling is safe, accessible, and valued. That work is funded by members like you. Join as a sustaining supporter today at bikemn.org/join — $5 or $10 a month helps ensure Minnesota stays ahead. We all move forward together.

Sources

City of Minneapolis. (2025). Traffic Safety Camera Pilot Program. minneapolismn.gov

City of Minneapolis. (2025, September). Minneapolis flips the switch on City’s first-ever speed safety cameras. minneapolismn.gov

City of Minneapolis. (n.d.). Safety Data / Vision Zero. minneapolismn.gov

Gao, J., et al. (2025). Assessing the impact of fixed speed cameras on speeding behavior and crashes: A longitudinal study in New York City. Accident Analysis & Prevention. rscj.newark.rutgers.edu

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2024). Speed cameras. iihs.org

KRWC 1360 AM. (2025, March). 25% Increase in Pedestrian Fatalities in Minnesota in 2024. krwc1360.com

Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2023, February). Speed Safety Cameras Technical Research Synthesis (TRS2303). mdl.mndot.gov

Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2025). Traffic Safety Cameras. dot.state.mn.us

Minnesota Legislature. (2024). Minn. Stat. § 169.147: Traffic Safety Camera System Pilot Program. revisor.mn.gov

Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths. (n.d.). Pedestrian Safety. minnesotatzd.org

New York City Department of Transportation. (2024). Speed Camera Program Annual Report. nyc.gov

Sieben Alexander, P.A. (2024). Minnesota Motor Vehicle Accident Statistics. siebenpolklaw.com

Tilahun, N. (2023). Safety Impact of Automated Speed Camera Enforcement: Empirical Findings Based on Chicago’s Speed Cameras. Transportation Research Record. journals.sagepub.com

USDOT / Safety21 & Mobility21. (2024). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Urban Speed Cameras (Philadelphia). rosap.ntl.bts.gov