On a cold day in 2024 in a suburban area near Padua, Italy, commuters woke up to a surprising sight: a speed camera that had been tampered with using an angle grinder, displaying the message “Fleximan is coming.”
Following numerous incidents of speed camera vandalism, the name Fleximan has gained a legendary status in Italy. An English school owner, Tom Roper, who has resided in the region for 15 years, described Fleximan as a local hero, with people frequently inquiring about him.
Despite the flashy nature of Fleximan’s vigilante acts, there exists a widespread consensus across Europe that speed cameras are effective and widely supported. Jenny Carson, a project manager at the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) in Brussels, noted that public backing for enforcement measures is high as citizens desire reduced speeds.
Italy, boasting over 10,000 operational speed cameras – the most in Europe, serves as a testament to this trend. A 2018 European survey revealed that nearly 70% of Italians backed stricter speeding regulations, although almost half admitted to speeding in the previous month.
While Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been at odds with speed cameras, labeling them as a revenue-generating scheme and considering banning the technology, it raises the question of how Europe managed to foster such extensive support for automated enforcement, potentially saving numerous lives yearly.
In 2002, following a series of notable traffic accidents, French President Jacques Chirac pledged to prioritize reducing traffic fatalities. Presently, France operates over 2,400 cameras, offering a crucial lesson for Canada that obtaining broad support necessitates top-level commitment.
Political dedication in France facilitated the establishment of centralized systems to impose fines nationwide. Similar to other European nations, France viewed speed cameras not just as punitive tools but also as educational resources. By utilizing fixed and mobile cameras for prevention and punishment, France successfully lowered average speeds and reduced road accidents significantly.
This success aligns with experiences in Canada, where municipalities reported substantial speed reductions near speed cameras. However, immediate impacts may lead to drawbacks, as noted in France where increased opposition arose due to perceived minor offenses remaining after major speeding incidents were curtailed.
Experts advocate for targeted and transparent implementation of speed cameras, focusing on high-speed outliers to garner public support. Ford’s criticism of Ontario’s speed camera initiatives revolves around allegedly unfair targeting of drivers for minor speed violations, despite set thresholds and instances of government officials exceeding the speed limit.
Prior to speed camera deployment, advocates emphasize the need for sensible speed limits that align with road design and evolving vehicle safety features. Despite these considerations, opposition to speed cameras persists, exemplified by Italy where vigilante actions against speed cameras have elicited political denouncement from Deputy Premier Matteo Salvini.
The erosion of support for speed cameras among politicians in Europe highlights the evolving landscape of automated enforcement. Despite occasional run-ins with speed cameras, Roper, the Italian school owner, remains a proponent of the technology, recognizing the necessity of controlling reckless driving behavior.
