Since the start of the year, a rise in accidents has been observed in 13 regions on road sections monitored by fixed cameras. Local officials point to the camera system as well as the removal of fines for exceeding the average speed, arguing these changes alter driver behavior. Some experts, however, view the widespread camera installation as driven by commercial motives rather than road safety benefits.
Turning to the data, the first nine months of 2022 show an increase in incidents under camera surveillance in several areas due to a combination of factors:
- 19% in the Moscow region;
- 45% in the Chelyabinsk region;
- 71.4% in the Irkutsk region;
- 2.3% in the Ryazan region;
- 41.7% in Kamchatka;
- three hundred percent in Crimea.
Some regions did see a decline in the number of road traffic accidents captured by cameras, yet still face a higher share of fatalities. This pattern is seen in Moscow with a 33 percent rise and in Tatarstan with a 66 percent increase in deadly outcomes among camera-detected incidents.
Multiple explanations are offered for the uptick in accidents. When drivers become aware of a camera through a warning or notification, attention can shift away from the road, causing distraction and a focus on the speedometer rather than vehicle control. The Road Safety Science Center within the Interior Ministry notes that sudden steering changes and abrupt speed adjustments in response to camera presence can trigger crashes. Both dissatisfaction with the camera program and concerns raised by the prosecutor general’s office, as well as traffic police leadership, contribute to the debate.
A prominent statement attributed to Kommersant, based on remarks from Mikhail Chernikov, who leads the traffic police in Russia, notes an initial plan to deploy a network of photo and video recorders with the expectation that familiarization would lead to fewer violations over time. The speaker suggests that the current approach should emphasize camera placement only in zones with real danger, rather than broad, indiscriminate coverage. The underlying aim is to balance enforcement with genuine safety needs rather than pursue a blanket surveillance strategy.