Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician working in a maternity ward in the 1840s. He noticed something disturbing: Women giving birth in the ward staffed by doctors and medical students died from “childbed fever” at rates of 10% to 35%, while a nearby ward staffed by midwives had death rates under 4%.
The key difference was that doctors went straight from performing autopsies to delivering babies, without washing their hands. They would dissect cadavers in the morning, then examine pregnant women in the afternoon with just a quick rinse. In 1847, Semmelweis instituted a policy requiring doctors to wash their hands with a chlorine solution between their stints in the autopsy room and the maternity ward. Death rates plummeted dramatically to around 1% to 2%.
Great news, right? But instead of celebration, the medical community mocked Semmelweis for his claim that handwashing was worth the time and effort. He was driven out of the profession, and the “childbed fever” deaths went back up. It took more than 50 years after his discovery for handwashing to go mainstream in hospitals.
{“blockType”:”mv-promo-block”,”data”:{“imageDesktopUrl”:”https://images.fastcompany.com/image/upload/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit/wp-cms-2/2025/12/speakeasy-desktop.png”,”imageMobileUrl”:”https://images.fastcompany.com/image/upload/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit/wp-cms-2/2025/12/speakeasy-mobile.png”,”eyebrow”:””,”headline”:”u003Cstrongu003ESubscribe to Urbanism Speakeasyu003C/strongu003E”,”dek”:”Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit u003Ca href=u0022http://urbanismspeakeasy.com/u0022u003Eurbanismspeakeasy.com.u003C/au003E”,”subhed”:””,”description”:””,”ctaText”:”SIGN UP”,”ctaUrl”:”http://urbanismspeakeasy.com/”,”theme”:{“bg”:”#f5f5f5″,”text”:”#000000″,”eyebrow”:”#9aa2aa”,”subhed”:”#ffffff”,”buttonBg”:”#000000″,”buttonHoverBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonText”:”#ffffff”},”imageDesktopId”:91453933,”imageMobileId”:91453932,”shareable”:false,”slug”:””}}
The case for cameras
Right now, in early 2026, some state legislatures across the country are trying to outlaw a proven treatment for traffic injuries and fatalities.
Speed enforcement cameras are proven to reduce vehicle speeds and reduce crashes. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Proven Safety Countermeasures initiative, fixed speed cameras can cut the number of collisions on urban principal arterials by up to 54% for all crashes, and by 47% for injury crashes.
For obvious reasons, school zones are the first place that communities tend to install safety cameras. Speeding near schools creates unacceptable risks for kids crossing streets or waiting at bus stops.
In Maryland, Montgomery County’s automated speed enforcement program found that cameras reduced the likelihood of a crash involving a fatality or an incapacitating injury by 19%, decreased the chance of drivers exceeding the limit by more than 10 mph by up to 59%, and fostered long-term changes in driver behavior that substantially lowered overall deaths and injuries.
In New York City school zones, fixed cameras have reduced speeding by up to 63% during active enforcement hours. Many other case studies demonstrate similar outcomes. The bottom line is that automated speed enforcement saves lives.
Pre-installation surveys at some Virginia schools revealed a whopping 95% of drivers were blazing through school zones at 10-plus mph during arrival and dismissal. Nearly every driver was risking the lives of young kids, including parents. In Fairfax County, the safety cameras at Key Middle School issued 7,429 citations from August 2024 to May 2025. But after the cameras had been in place for a while, average speeds fell from 33.1 mph to 27.8 mph.
People need consequences for dangerous driving. Automated cameras deliver fair, unbiased enforcement in places where officers can’t patrol constantly, holding reckless drivers accountable in high-risk areas like school zones while freeing up police for other duties.
Bills to ban
But while automated enforcement is saving lives, politicians in multiple states are advancing bills to ban, restrict, or phase out speed cameras.
- Virginia: SB 297 (introduced January 13, 2026) repeals the authority for law enforcement agencies to use photo speed-monitoring devices. It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation and remains under consideration in the 2026 regular session.
- Arizona: SCR 1004 (advanced through the Senate Appropriations, Transportation, and Technology Committee in mid-January) aims to place a statewide ban on photo radar enforcement (including speed cameras) on the November 2026 ballot for voter decision.
- Georgia: HB 225 repeals all laws authorizing automated traffic enforcement safety devices (speed cameras) in school zones, with an effective date of July 1, 2028, to phase out existing contracts. Reintroduced in the 2025-2026 regular session (published January 13), it previously passed the House, 129-37, in 2025 but stalled in the Senate.
- Texas: Building on the state’s existing prohibitions on most fixed-speed and red-light cameras (banned statewide in 2019), recent efforts like HB 2810 (introduced in the 2025 session but died) sought to expand bans to include portable devices enforcing speed limits. Similar measures could resurface in the 90th Legislature starting January 2027, driven by complaints about distractions from flashes and potential safety risks in local deployments.
- Minnesota: Rep. Greg Davids (R-Preston) announced in late 2025 that he would author a bill to ban automated speed cameras statewide, to be introduced in the 2026 legislative session. This follows the Rochester City Council’s narrow approval of a request for a speed camera pilot program, highlighting opposition amid concerns over enforcement fairness and local authority.
Robust evidence from federal and local sources supports speed cameras as effective for slowing drivers and preventing crashes—especially in child-heavy school zones. It’s a shame to see politicians working to dismantle them.
Speed enforcement cameras save lives. The victims and survivors of traffic violence deserve better than the misguided bills that will directly lead to more life-altering crashes.
{“blockType”:”mv-promo-block”,”data”:{“imageDesktopUrl”:”https://images.fastcompany.com/image/upload/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit/wp-cms-2/2025/12/speakeasy-desktop.png”,”imageMobileUrl”:”https://images.fastcompany.com/image/upload/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit/wp-cms-2/2025/12/speakeasy-mobile.png”,”eyebrow”:””,”headline”:”u003Cstrongu003ESubscribe to Urbanism Speakeasyu003C/strongu003E”,”dek”:”Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit u003Ca href=u0022http://urbanismspeakeasy.com/u0022u003Eurbanismspeakeasy.com.u003C/au003E”,”subhed”:””,”description”:””,”ctaText”:”SIGN UP”,”ctaUrl”:”http://urbanismspeakeasy.com/”,”theme”:{“bg”:”#f5f5f5″,”text”:”#000000″,”eyebrow”:”#9aa2aa”,”subhed”:”#ffffff”,”buttonBg”:”#000000″,”buttonHoverBg”:”#3b3f46″,”buttonText”:”#ffffff”},”imageDesktopId”:91453933,”imageMobileId”:91453932,”shareable”:false,”slug”:””}}