BETHLEHEM, Pa. — Pennsylvania lawmakers are being urged to tread carefully as they consider whether to allow speed cameras on municipal roads statewide, according to a bipartisan report that outlines both potential safety gains and public concerns about automated enforcement.

The 2025 report from the Pennsylvania Local Government Commission was mandated under Act 38 of 2023 and examines whether automated speed enforcement — commonly known as speed cameras — should be expanded beyond Philadelphia and highway work zones.

The report was released in December.

While the commission did not endorse or oppose expansion, it warned that any authorization should be tightly limited, grounded in data and structured to avoid turning safety programs into revenue generators.

A system municipalities say is outdated

Outside Philadelphia and active work zones, Pennsylvania’s municipal police officers are barred from using radar technology to enforce speed limits.

Local police instead rely on methods such as pacing or time-distance calculations — tools many officials describe as outdated, labor-intensive and increasingly difficult to maintain as manufacturers of antiquated equipment exit the market.

Municipal associations told the commission that speeding on neighborhood roads is among the most frequent complaints from residents.

“When residents are complaining about someone going fast on their 25 mph roadway, we have almost no recourse,” Bethlehem Police Capt. William Audelo said Friday.

“The amount of residents and citizens in Pennsylvania that don’t know we can’t enforce speeding as municipal officers is surprising, but it’s going to take our legislators to make this happen.”

At the same time, state crash data show that only about 1% of crashes occurring solely on local roads are classified as speeding-related — a discrepancy the report says highlights the tension between public perception and available data.

“Stefko Boulevard and Route 412 and Third Street as it comes past the casino are two areas of concern (in Bethlehem),” Audelo said. “And we have a high number of crashes on Route 378 and Wyandotte Street as it turns back into the Southside.

“Anywhere where we have a straightaway and people can gain speed they are more likely to ignore the posted speed limit. And because of their speed and aggressive driving there are more accidents, and the higher the speed the more likely we are to see more injuries and a bad outcome.”

“I think it’s something (speed enforcement) that has been lingering for years and years, because people don’t want to see another way to get a citation,” he said.

“At the same time we have a number of residents complaining about the speed on our roadways. If we really want to see a decrease in aggressive driving and speeding we have to do something that allows officers to enforce and be a deterrent to the actions that cause these crashes.”

The commission also noted that some of the most problematic speeding locations involve state routes passing through municipalities, raising questions about whether enforcement decisions should hinge solely on road ownership rather than safety conditions on the ground.

“If we really want to see a decrease in aggressive driving and speeding we have to do something that allows officers to enforce and be a deterrent to the actions that cause these crashes.”

Bethlehem Police Capt. William Audelo

Safety benefits — and persistent concerns

PennDOT data cited in the report show that speed absolutely remains a significant contributor to serious crashes statewide.

In 2024, Pennsylvania recorded more than 23,000 speed-related crashes, resulting in 357 fatalities. For 263 of those fatalities, speed was found to be the primary cause.

The report cited research that consistently shows how even small reductions in speed can dramatically reduce the risk of severe injury or death, particularly for pedestrians and other non-motorists.

Allentown Mayor Matt Tuerk said he supports equipping city officers with new technology, including speed and red-light cameras.

He highlighted a corridor — Tilghman Street/Union Boulevard — where four people died in crashes in 2025.

“So every person that died in a motor vehicle crash (last year) died on that street, that roadway. That’s our high injury network. We need people to slow down there,” Tuerk said.

Cameras would be helpful, Tuerk said, but local police using speed radar is “the Holy Grail.”

“Giving our police officers the appropriate tools that every other department in the country — outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania — has access to, that’s just critically important.

“If we had access to radar, we’d be able to make a demonstrable improvement on speeding in the city,” Tuerk said. “And if you can cut speed, you can reduce the severity of crashes and you can reduce the severity of pedestrian crashes.

“Cutting speed down in Allentown will reduce death and injury in Allentown. Our Vision Zero commitment is as strong now as it’s ever been. I’m confident that with speed cameras, we can make real improvements.”

“Giving our police officers the appropriate tools that every other department in the country — outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania — has access to, that’s just critically important.”

Allentown Mayor Matt Tuerk

Still, automated enforcement remains controversial. Critics argue that speed cameras rely on “implied liability,” issuing citations to vehicle owners rather than drivers, and raise concerns about privacy, surveillance and fairness, the report said.

The report also documents widespread distrust that camera programs can become focused on revenue rather than safety — a criticism that has fueled legal challenges and rollbacks in other states.

Lessons from other states

The commission examined speed camera programs in more than 20 states and the District of Columbia, identifying guardrails that lawmakers elsewhere have used to limit abuse. Those include capped fines, mandatory warning periods, strict limits on camera locations, public reporting requirements, and dedicating excess revenue to traffic safety improvements rather than general funds.

Some states also require periodic reauthorization or approval by state transportation agencies to ensure cameras are deployed only where safety data can justify their use.

Decision rests with lawmakers

Ultimately, the report concludes that automated speed enforcement should not be treated as a universal solution. Instead, lawmakers are encouraged to evaluate roadway design, traffic patterns, enforcement capacity and public trust before expanding camera authority to municipalities.

The question, the commission said, is not simply whether automated speed enforcement works, but whether it can be implemented in a way that improves safety while addressing “the very real liberty, privacy and revenue concerns of many members of the public.”

The findings will now move to state legislators who will decide whether – and how – automated enforcement should play a larger role on Pennsylvania’s local roads.