.png)
Given the mixed reactions from the public and the lack of concrete evidence suggesting that speed cameras reduce fatalities, it’s worth reconsidering whether this strategy will result in a safer PCH.
California’s Pacific Coast Highway is among the most iconic stretches of road in the nation. Winding along the Golden State’s rugged coastline, it offers some of the most breathtaking views of the Pacific Ocean and has been forever memorialized in song—from the music of The Beach Boys to The Mamas And The Papas. As picturesque as it may be, PCH has seen its fair share of fatalities; a 21-mile stretch of road running through Malibu—dubbed “Dead Man’s Curve” by locals—has seen over 60 deaths in the last 15 years alone.
In an attempt to address public safety concerns, California lawmakers introduced a new solution—speed cameras. In April 2024, Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) introduced SB 1297 which would authorize the installation of speed camera systems along PCH. The City of Malibu praised the bill and called it “landmark legislation.”
Others were less enthusiastic. It has again brought up questions about government overreach, surveillance, and control.
Nevertheless, the following September, Governor Gavin Newsom posted a video to Twitter/X of him proudly signing the bill into law on the hood of a car parked in Malibu.
“So I’m here on the Pacific Coast Highway and I just signed a bill that would authorize five cameras—up to five [enforcement] cameras—to be put on this 21 mile stretch,” Governor Newsom states. He goes on to explain that the cameras will “help with our enforcement [and] will aid the California Highway Patrol that’s working in partnership with the LA Sheriff’s Office and the City of Malibu, all in an effort to make Pacific Coast Highway safe.”
Reactions have, naturally, been mixed. Many constituents responded to the Governor’s video with questions about the efficacy of the cameras in enhancing public safety.
“Yes, mailing a ticket to speeders a week later will prevent accidents,” one user sarcastically replied.
“Or you could actually criminalize and prosecute wrongdoing as opposed to constructing an Orwellian Nanny State,” commented another.
The science is far from settled on whether or not speed cameras actually improve driving behaviors and reduce crash rates. An extensive study conducted by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine—which examined an appropriately comparable 26-mile stretch of road in Arizona onto which speed cameras were installed—concluded that little correlation exists.
“Our data did not show any statistical increase or decrease in total number of MVC (motor vehicle collisions) with speed cameras,” it reads.
And, irrespective of efficacy, the new cameras are also constitute a push for increased government monitoring, especially with regard to motor safety. This push is not an isolated incident. Last year, California lawmakers also attempted to advance SB 961, a bill that would have mandated the installation of speed-limiting devices in all new cars. This bill was vetoed by Governor Newsom after widespread backlash.
Despite the veto of SB 961, the debate it inspired continues. The PCH speed cameras are merely the latest example of what some see as the creeping intrusion of the state into the lives of everyday citizens.
Malibu is far from the only city to implement automated speed cameras; more than 200 communities across the United States implement them in some fashion. Chicago, for instance, has used speed cameras for over a decade. While the City’s cameras have done very little to curtail automobile accidents and dangerous driving, there is one effect that is clear, quantifiable, and unmistakable: they have generated upwards of $120 million in revenue for the City.
“The program was rolled out under the auspices that it was all about public safety,” City Council member Anthony Beale told PBS News. “We've learned that it's not about public safety, that the entire system is about generating revenue.”
Frankly, that $120 million is meager compared to the estimated $1 million per week that the PCH speed cameras are expected to generate. Perhaps that, more than any other factor, is the greatest motivator behind the cameras’ installation—and why its most ardent supporters are not Malibu residents and businesses, but government agencies and city officials.
Of course, the goal of making PCH safer is undeniably important. However, it is not clear that speed cameras are the best solution. Even supporters of the bill should acknowledge that the cameras are not a panacea and that they must be part of a broader strategy. What exactly that entails remains to be seen, but it should—at the very least—involve both road and infrastructure improvements as well as stronger, active enforcement by human officers. Not speeding tickets sent long after an infraction.
Comments