The city of Milton is now actively enforcing traffic violations through camera systems, targeting drivers in three strategic locations after completing a 30-day pilot programme.
During the trial period, drivers received warnings for violations, but now they will receive fines through the post.
The three cameras are positioned along Milton Way, with signage alerting drivers to their presence.
Two of the cameras target speeding drivers near Surprise Lake Middle School and Milton Community Park.
The third camera operates at the intersection of Milton Way and 28th Avenue, monitoring drivers running red lights.
The programme was developed in partnership with NovoaGlobal, which employs “advanced photo enforcement technology” to reduce speeding and traffic light violations.
“They drive too fast and it’s a busy street with a lot of children in this area with parks and schools. I’d like to have them slow down,” one homeowner stated. “Even now in rainy weather, they drive too fast.”
He acknowledged it remains too early to determine whether the camera has made a difference.
“I hope it does; I think it’s too early. We don’t know yet, but a few weeks of this, and after a few tickets, maybe people will slow down.”
Under the Automated Traffic Safety Programme, fines range from $115 to $290, depending on where the violation occurred.
The highest fines apply to school zone violations.
“Speeding and running red lights put everyone at risk, and these are tragedies we can prevent,” said Milton Police Chief Tony Hernandez. “Now that the education and warning phase is complete, payable violations will be issued to those who continue to disregard traffic laws. Our goal remains the same: to protect families, neighbours, and visitors by promoting safer driving habits.”
According to Milton Municipal Code, any photographs captured by the system can only be reviewed by authorised city employees and can only be used in court if the use relates to traffic violations.
The images cannot be retained any “longer than necessary” to enforce violations.
The transition from warnings to fines represents a significant shift in Milton’s traffic enforcement approach. The 30-day grace period allowed drivers to adjust their behaviour whilst becoming familiar with camera locations, a strategy designed to emphasise safety over revenue generation.
The strategic placement near Surprise Lake Middle School and Milton Community Park reflects prioritisation of areas where vulnerable populations, particularly children, regularly cross streets and navigate traffic. School zones and parks typically experience heightened pedestrian activity during specific hours, creating elevated risk when drivers exceed speed limits.
The intersection camera at Milton Way and 28th Avenue addresses a different but equally serious violation. Red-light running causes numerous serious and fatal collisions annually, with drivers entering intersections after signals change endangering cross-traffic and pedestrians.
NovoaGlobal’s “advanced photo enforcement technology” likely incorporates high-resolution cameras, radar or other speed detection systems, and automated processing that identifies vehicles, captures license plates, and generates violation notices without requiring officer presence at violation scenes.
The homeowner’s concern about speeding “even in rainy weather” highlights how dangerous driving persists despite conditions requiring extra caution. Wet pavement reduces traction and increases stopping distances, making speed limit adherence particularly crucial during rain.
His observation that determining the programme’s effectiveness requires more time reflects reasonable skepticism about immediate behaviour change. Traffic safety interventions typically require sustained enforcement before producing measurable reductions in violations and crashes.
The hope that “a few tickets” will encourage slower driving relies on deterrence theory: that financial penalties create sufficient motivation for compliance. However, effectiveness depends on drivers receiving tickets actually modifying behaviour and word spreading amongst the driving public.
The $115 to $290 fine range creates graduated penalties based on violation severity and location. This structure allows higher penalties for violations in particularly sensitive areas like school zones, theoretically providing stronger deterrence where consequences of speeding are most severe.
The elevated school zone fines acknowledge heightened vulnerability of child pedestrians who may be less predictable in their movements and less visible to drivers. School zones typically impose reduced speed limits during hours when children are arriving or departing.
Chief Hernandez’s characterisation of speeding and red-light running as preventable tragedies frames enforcement as public safety rather than revenue collection. This messaging attempts to position the programme as community protection rather than punitive action.
The chief’s emphasis that the “education and warning phase is complete” signals a shift in expectations. Drivers can no longer claim ignorance of camera locations or express surprise at receiving citations, as the warning period provided opportunity to adjust driving habits.
The stated goal of “promoting safer driving habits” rather than simply punishing violators suggests the city views enforcement as behaviour modification rather than punishment. This philosophy aligns with traffic safety research emphasising that sustained compliance requires more than occasional tickets.
Milton Municipal Code restrictions on photograph review and use attempt to address privacy concerns inherent in automated surveillance. Limiting access to authorised employees prevents casual browsing or misuse of images for purposes beyond traffic enforcement.
The prohibition on using images for anything beyond specified traffic violations prevents function creep where cameras installed for one purpose gradually expand to serve other law enforcement or surveillance objectives. This limitation addresses civil liberties concerns about government monitoring.
The requirement that images not be retained “longer than necessary” balances enforcement needs against privacy interests. Whilst images must be kept long enough to process violations and allow drivers to contest citations, indefinite retention creates unnecessary surveillance records of driver movements.
Questions remain about how “necessary” retention period is defined and whether adequate safeguards prevent premature deletion that could hamper drivers’ ability to challenge citations or establish deletion timelines that balance privacy with due process.
The signage alerting drivers to camera presence represents transparency intended to maximise deterrent effect whilst minimising entrapment concerns. Visible warnings allow compliant drivers to modify behaviour before violations occur.
