A controversial roadside feature that has long irked Australian drivers might be the key to saving lives on the nation’s roads. Authorities across Australia have increasingly turned to “safety cameras” in a bid to reduce the country’s soaring road death toll. These AI-powered cameras, which detect mobile phone use and seatbelt offences, have quickly gained acceptance among state governments, despite the skepticism of many motorists.
Motorists fearful of hefty fines are largely skeptical of the devices, but experts argue that improving driver behavior is crucial in reducing road fatalities. According to Professor Stuart Newstead, Director of the Monash University Accident Research Centre, roadside cameras that catch speeding, phone use, or improper seatbelt wearing “have the potential for immense behavioral change” if implemented effectively. The Monash Centre has evaluated numerous programs nationwide, highlighting the impact of these technologies.
Behavioral Change Through Enforcement
“It doesn’t come without pain; people really complain,” Professor Newstead explained. “The more they get caught, the more they fundamentally change their behavior and become more compliant. Because they’re getting caught, they complain, but it’s because people don’t really understand the collective risk that comes from mass poor behavior.”
Fines for road rule violations vary across Australia. For instance, in New South Wales, fines for speeding can range from $149 to $2,959, depending on how far over the speed limit a driver is caught, according to Transport NSW.
Advantages of Roadside Safety Cameras
Professor Newstead emphasized that roadside safety cameras are not only cost-effective for authorities but also have the potential to change the behavior of large segments of the community swiftly. “These laws are in place for a reason; they’re designed to improve safety. If you don’t comply with the laws, you reduce safety, and that’s exactly what we see,” he stated.
“A typical mobile speed camera program has probably reduced trauma, particularly in Victoria, by about 25 to 30 percent less than what it would have been without it,” Professor Newstead noted.
Despite their effectiveness, the technology often faces criticism from drivers who perceive it as unfair. “What people are often complaining about is not the fact that we’re enforcing the law; they’re just implicitly saying, ‘I don’t agree with the law,'” Professor Newstead explained. “There is plenty of evidence to show that all behaviors enforced by these automated technologies are actually dangerous.”
Rising Road Deaths and the Push for Zero Fatalities
In 2025, Australia’s national road death toll reached its highest level in over a decade, with 1,314 fatalities. A Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics (BITRE) report revealed that road deaths increased by 1.7 percent from the previous year, with New South Wales experiencing an alarming 8.6 percent rise.
To combat this trend, Professor Newstead highlighted the need to address “incredibly multifaceted” issues in road safety, including poor road design, inadequate vehicle performance, and risky behaviors like speeding and distracted driving. He also noted the challenges posed by Australia’s aging population.
Challenges in Road Design and Vehicle Compatibility
Professor Newstead pointed out a “fundamental incompatibility between how we design our roads and how we specify our vehicles and allow their use,” particularly in outer suburbs where drivers face dangerous conditions when merging onto high-speed roads.
“You’ve got to think about where we should invest in upgrading our road network to be compatible with those speeds. Without major discussions and changes, the goal of zero road deaths by 2050 remains out of reach,” he warned.
Ultimately, achieving significant reductions in road deaths will require a willingness to compromise and embrace new safety measures. “If we accept that a bit of compromise can have significant benefits, then we could have those benefits. But thinking we can somehow curtail the problem without doing anything significantly different is just the sort of the definition of madness,” Professor Newstead concluded.
