Speed Cameras: Guelph Residents Paid $2.3M+, Much of It Leaving the Community

Misconceptions About the Camera Program

Several common talking points are often used to defend the camera program, but they do not hold up under closer examination.

• ‘It is not a cash grab’ – Residents have paid millions in fines, with most of that money leaving the city to cover vendor and processing costs. Public reports show Guelph retained as little as 16% of the revenue. Regardless of who initiated the program, the effect is the same: large sums of local dollars extracted with little community return.
• ‘If you do not speed, you do not pay’ – This oversimplifies the issue. Cameras do not physically slow vehicles down when children are present. A driver speeding through a school zone at 60 km/h poses immediate danger, and a ticket arriving up to a month later does nothing to prevent that moment of risk.
• ‘The money funds safety improvements’ – City records show that after all costs were paid, automated speed enforcement contributed just $73,000 net in 2024 – a fraction of the millions collected. While policy dictates that revenue be directed into a transportation reserve, the actual amounts available locally are minimal compared to what was taken in.
• ‘Families feel safer now’ – Perception of safety and actual safety are not the same. Independent collision or injury data proving measurable improvements in school zones has not been provided.
• ‘It is not a tax grab’ – While not a tax in the traditional sense, fines still act as a revenue tool. They disproportionately affect families already facing financial strain, while channeling significant sums away from the community.
• Speed and survival rates – Infographics on this issue consistently show that survival chances for pedestrians drop dramatically as vehicle speed increases: survival is high at 30 km/h but plummets at 50-60 km/h. The lesson is clear: what saves lives is physically forcing cars to slow down in real time – something cameras cannot achieve.

The Real Path to Safety

If the priority is truly to protect children and vulnerable pedestrians, the most effective solution is infrastructure that reduces speeds immediately: raised crosswalks, narrowed lanes, flashing lights, and speed humps in school zones. These measures save lives in the moment, not weeks later through a fine in the mail.

Automated cameras, by contrast, are best understood as a delayed penalty system. They generate revenue, but they do not address the real-time risk to children on our streets. The millions already collected could have been invested directly into lasting, physical safety improvements for our community – instead, much of that money is gone to an American corporation.