You Can’t Outsmart This Speed Camera: It Doesn’t Care Where You Slow Down

For too many drivers, keeping within the speed limit is not a rule to be obeyed, and instead a game: accelerating when the road seems clear, checking their smartphone or Waze, lifting their foot just before the radar and accelerating again a few meters later. In short, “what can I get away with?”.

Those days may soon be over, at least in the northwestern US state of Colorado, which has just launched a speed enforcement program: like a growing number of speed cameras here in Spain (link in Spanish), it no longer measures how fast you are going at a particular point, but over a measured distance.

The system is supported by separate speed control cameras, usually between a quarter and a half mile. Every time a vehicle passes through one of them, the system registers it with a timestamp. It then calculates the average speed between two points by dividing the distance traveled by the time taken to cover it. If that average exceeds the applicable limit, you’re fined. It doesn’t matter so much what you did right in front of the camera as what you did during the entire monitored journey. That is what is truly disruptive about the model, and also what makes it much more difficult to avoid with opportunistic habits.

In the specific case that has attracted attention in Colorado, the state has activated eight cameras in both directions of I-25 between Mead and Berthoud, in a work zone, located between 244.3, 245.9, 247.5 and 249.4, according to the official map of active locations. The state announced a warning period from March 1 and the start of penalities from April 2, and after that period, fines became $75 in work zones and are sent directly to the vehicle’s registered owner. The department itself further explains that signage must be placed in advance, and that public notices are mandatory before activating the system. In Spain, there are section radars covering stretches of up to 32.9 kilometers (link in Spanish).

The fact that the the registered owner is fined, as opposed to the driver, introduces another interesting layer. We are no longer dealing with a patrol car stationed with radar, who stops a specific person and identifies them on the spot, but with a logic of administrative responsibility linked to the vehicle. SB23–200’s website makes it clear that the state opened the door to these systems in 2023, further requiring 30 days of public notice and an initial 30 days with warnings only. The official CDOT FAQs add that these violations do not carry points on the license, and there is an appeal process. It is a very significant evolution: less punishment penalized in points, more administrative automation, more traceability and less room for driver improvisation.

What is really interesting, however, is not the fine, but the cultural change it implies. Drivers who only slow down when passing through the radar no longer have an advantage. If they accelerate between cameras, their average speed will give them away. In other words, the system does not force you to appear obedient for three seconds, but to behave consistently throughout the monitored section. That’s precisely why this model erodes the traditional value of one-off alerts from browsing apps. Knowing where the cameras are is of little use if what is being monitored is not a point, but a sequence. The only reliable way to avoid being penalized is respecting the speed limit throughout the controlled route. This conclusion follows directly from the official functioning of the system.

From a road safety perspective, the approach reasoning makes sense. The expansion of these systems is first planned in construction zones, because they are dangerous environments and difficult to monitor conventionally. CDOT now maintains that on I-25, during the warning period, excessive speeds on the corridor dropped by 90%, and that on the previous CO119 corridor they had dropped by more than 80%. These are official figures that will have to be followed carefully, because they come from an administration interested in demonstrating the effectiveness of the program. That said, they point to something reasonable: when control ceases to be sporadic and becomes continuous, behavior changes.

Furthermore, the accumulated evidence on radars and speed cameras is quite consistent. One study concluded that speed cameras are a useful way to reduce road traffic injuries and fatalities, with reductions observed in average speed, in the proportion of drivers exceeding the limit and in serious accidents near controlled points. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is going in the same direction, delivering results that links these technologies to less speeding and fewer serious accidents. One can discuss how they are implemented, with what guarantees and with what limits, but it is increasingly difficult to seriously maintain that they do not modify behavior.

The uncomfortable part in all this is that every time an administration implements such a system, the discussion about surveillance, privacy, collection and depersonalization of punishment is raised, and not without a certain reason. The official FAQ insists that images are only kept when there is a breach, that the associated materials are confidential and that they are destroyed within up to three years after the case is resolved. All well and good, but it does not eliminate the underlying issue: we are normalising infrastructures that turn the road into an increasingly measured, more traceable space governed by automatic systems. Radar is no longer a visible exception.

The question, really, isn’t whether Colorado has found a more effective way to ticket speeding. The question is whether we are witnessing the end of a driving culture based on the simulation of compliance. For decades, many drivers have not respected the limits: they have respected, at most, the possibility of being caught. The average-speed system undermines that by forcing drivers to truly comply, not just to stage compliance. And therein lies all its strength, but also all its symbolic charge: it does not just correct an infraction, it corrects a whole way of thinking.

That’s why Colorado’s novelty deserves attention. Not because an app is going to give less warning, but because it introduces a much deeper and probably irreversible idea: on the roads of the future, the driver who used to play hide-and-seek with a radar will have to choose between two much less fun options: driving within the norm or financing the state’s technology.

—

This post was previously published on Enrique Dans’ blog.

***