Speed Camera Myths Debunked: Separating Fact from Fiction

Speed cameras generate strong opinions. Online forums, social media, and pub conversations are full of claims about how cameras work, why they exist, and how to beat them. Some of these claims contain a grain of truth. Many are flat wrong.

This article takes the most common myths about speed cameras in New Zealand and examines them against the available evidence. Where possible, we cite official sources, legislation, and research. The goal isn't to tell you how to feel about speed cameras but to make sure the facts are straight.

Myth 1: Speed Cameras Are Just Revenue Raising

The claim: Speed cameras exist to generate revenue for the government, not to improve road safety. They're cash cows.

The evidence: This is the most persistent myth, and it deserves a thorough response.

First, the money. In the first two months of NZTA's operation (July-August 2025), fixed cameras generated $4.78 million in fines. The mobile SUV cameras generated an additional $928,960 in their first four months. Those are meaningful sums, but they need context.

All speed camera fine revenue goes into the Government Consolidated Fund, the Crown's general revenue pool. It doesn't go to NZTA, to the Police, or to any road safety fund. NZTA's operational budget comes from the National Land Transport Fund, which is funded by fuel excise duty, road user charges, and motor vehicle registration fees. There's no financial feedback loop where more fines mean more funding for the agency operating the cameras.

Second, the cost. Speed cameras are expensive to operate. The technology upgrade for the camera network cost approximately $100 million. Operating costs include camera maintenance, calibration, staffing, vehicle fleets, notice processing, and dispute handling. The net revenue after costs is far lower than the gross fine figures suggest.

Third, the trend. NZTA has stated that it considers declining fine volumes to be a sign of success. At Matakana Road in Warkworth, where the first average speed cameras went live in December 2025, speeding dropped from 12% to under 1%. Fewer speeders means fewer fines. If revenue were the objective, that'd be a failure. For NZTA, it's the intended outcome.

The Auditor-General examined the speed camera programme as far back as 2002 and found "no evidence to support the view that revenue collection is an objective of the speed camera programme." Performance targets were based on road safety outcomes, not revenue.

Verdict: The structural design of the system, with fine revenue going to general government coffers rather than to the operating agency, makes revenue-raising an implausible primary motive. The cameras are expensive to operate, and the most successful ones are those that generate the fewest fines.

Myth 2: Speed Cameras Cause More Crashes

The claim: Drivers slam on their brakes when they see a camera, causing rear-end collisions. Cameras create more danger than they prevent.

The evidence: This is a common assertion that sounds intuitively plausible but isn't supported by the data.

A Cochrane review analysing 35 international studies found that all 28 studies measuring crash outcomes reported fewer crashes near camera sites. Reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes, 8% to 50% for injury crashes, and 11% to 44% for fatal or serious injury crashes.

In New Zealand specifically, crashes dropped by approximately 60% at the Matakana Road average speed camera site in the first three months of operation. The NZ Police facts page on speed cameras states plainly: "There is no evidence that speed cameras cause crashes."

The "braking causes crashes" argument is weaker than it appears for several reasons:

1. If a driver needs to brake hard for a camera, they were already speeding. The camera didn't create the danger. The excessive speed did.
2. Average speed cameras eliminate the braking problem entirely because they measure over kilometres, not at a single point
3. The net effect is overwhelmingly positive. Even if there were occasional braking-related incidents (for which there's no systematic evidence), they'd be vastly outweighed by the crash reductions from lower overall speeds

Verdict: The evidence is clear and consistent across dozens of studies and multiple countries. Speed cameras reduce crashes. The "braking causes crashes" argument isn't supported by data.

Myth 3: You Can Beat Average Speed Cameras by Speeding Up Between Them

The claim: If you speed through the first part of an average speed camera corridor, you can make up for it by going slowly near the exit camera, bringing your average below the limit.

The evidence: Mathematically true. Practically very hard to pull off safely or reliably.

Average speed cameras measure total travel time between two fixed points. If the cameras are 10 km apart and the limit is 100 km/h, you need to take at least 6 minutes. If you drove the first 5 km at 120 km/h (taking 2.5 minutes), you'd need to drive the remaining 5 km at approximately 86 km/h (taking about 3.5 minutes) to average 100 km/h.

The problem: you don't know the exact distance between cameras, so you can't calculate precisely how much to slow down. You also don't know the exact tolerance being applied. And driving at variable speeds (fast then slow) creates its own safety risks and annoys other drivers.

More fundamentally, the entire approach is trying to game the system rather than just driving at the limit. The simplest and safest strategy is to set your speed to the posted limit and maintain it. I've driven through the Matakana Road corridor dozens of times now and can confirm: cruise control at 80 km/h is much less stressful than mental arithmetic at 120.

Verdict: Theoretically possible, practically unreliable, and entirely unnecessary. Just drive at the limit.

Myth 4: Speed Cameras Do Not Work at Night

The claim: Speed cameras can't see your number plate at night, so you won't be caught.

The evidence: Modern speed cameras use infrared illumination to capture licence plate images in any lighting condition, including complete darkness. Infrared light is invisible to the human eye, so drivers won't see a flash or any indication that a photograph was taken.

The retroreflective material on New Zealand licence plates is specifically designed to be highly readable under infrared illumination. The infrared light projected by the camera reflects off the plate's surface, creating strong contrast between the characters and the background. In fact, night images are often clearer than daytime ones, where glare can sometimes be an issue.

NZTA's mobile safety cameras operate 24 hours a day, including at night. Fixed cameras operate continuously.

Verdict: False. Modern cameras work just as well at night as during the day, thanks to infrared technology. You won't see a visible flash, but the camera has recorded your plate.

Myth 5: Flashing Your Lights to Warn Others Is Illegal

The claim: If you flash your headlights to warn oncoming drivers about a speed camera, you'll be fined or charged with an offence.

The evidence: This one's more complicated than a simple true or false.

There's no law in New Zealand that explicitly prohibits flashing your headlights to warn other drivers about speed cameras. Brake Aotearoa (a road safety charity) has confirmed that the act, while discouraged, isn't specifically illegal.

But there are potential legal issues:

• Section 22 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 makes it an offence to obstruct, hinder, or resist a police officer or other enforcement officer in the execution of their duty. Warning someone to avoid detection could theoretically fall under this.
• The Land Transport Act prohibits flashing "dazzling, confusing or distracting" vehicle lights, carrying a $150 fine. If your flashing impairs the vision of an oncoming driver, this could apply.
• Under both NZ and Australian law, it's illegal to "encourage another person to obstruct or resist a police officer," which could include warning someone who has committed an offence that enforcement is ahead.

In practice, police would have difficulty proving why a driver flashed their lights. As one legal commentary noted, "unless there's a driver silly enough to say they were flashing to warn someone to avoid detection by police, it'd be pretty hard for police to prove."

Police discourage the practice, primarily on safety grounds. Headlight flashing can blind oncoming drivers, particularly at night.

Verdict: Not explicitly illegal, but not without legal risk. There are laws that could be applied in certain circumstances. And flashing your lights can be a safety hazard in itself.

Myth 6: There Is Always a 10 km/h Tolerance

The claim: You won't be fined unless you exceed the speed limit by at least 10 km/h. Cameras have a built-in 10 km/h buffer.

The evidence: NZTA doesn't publicly disclose the tolerance thresholds applied to safety cameras. What is publicly known is that the infringement fee schedule starts at 1 km/h over the limit:

Speed Over Limit	Fine
1-10 km/h	$30
11-15 km/h	$80
16-20 km/h	$120

The existence of the 1-10 km/h band confirms that there's no legal buffer. Exceeding the speed limit by any amount is an offence that can result in a fine.

Historically, enforcement tolerances were wider, partly due to older camera technology and partly due to police operational decisions. Over time, tolerances have tightened as camera accuracy has improved and the policy focus has shifted toward stricter compliance.

The current tolerance is understood to be much lower than 10 km/h, though the exact figure isn't disclosed. With the rollout of average speed cameras, which measure over kilometres and smooth out brief fluctuations, the concept of a generous tolerance becomes even less relevant.

Verdict: Don't rely on any tolerance. The safest approach is to drive at or below the posted limit. The 10 km/h buffer is a relic of older enforcement practices that no longer reflects the current approach.

Myth 7: Red Light Cameras Photograph Everyone

The claim: Red light cameras photograph every vehicle that passes through the intersection, building a surveillance database.

The evidence: Red light cameras are triggered only when a specific violation occurs. The camera activates when a vehicle crosses the stop line after the signal has turned red. Vehicles that cross on green or amber aren't photographed (at least not by the enforcement camera, though there may be separate traffic monitoring CCTV cameras at the intersection that serve a different purpose).

For combined red-light-and-speed cameras, the speed camera component may trigger independently if a vehicle exceeds the speed limit while passing through the intersection, regardless of the signal phase. But that's a separate trigger based on speed, not a blanket photographing of all traffic.

NZTA's privacy policy states that safety cameras capture only the information needed to confirm an offence: the vehicle image, licence plate, speed reading, and timestamp. Images of vehicles that aren't committing an offence aren't retained.

Verdict: False. Red light cameras are event-triggered, not continuously recording every vehicle. Only vehicles that commit a violation are photographed and processed.

Myth 8: Motorcycles Cannot Be Caught

The claim: Because motorcycles only have a rear number plate, front-facing speed cameras can't identify them.

The evidence: This was partially true under the old Police-operated system, where approximately half of mobile speed cameras were forward-facing only. Motorcycles approaching these cameras from the front couldn't be identified by their plate.

But the new NZTA camera platforms have addressed this gap. Both the SUV-based and trailer-mounted mobile cameras can detect vehicles travelling in both directions, including from behind. Rear-facing capability means motorcycles' rear plates are now captured.

Fixed average speed cameras use ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) at both entry and exit points, and the camera systems photograph both the front and rear of vehicles. Motorcycles passing through these corridors will be identified.

Fixed spot speed cameras at many locations also photograph vehicles from behind (rear-facing installation), which captures motorcycle plates.

Verdict: Largely false under the current system. The enforcement gap that once existed for motorcycles has been greatly reduced with the introduction of bidirectional camera platforms. Motorcyclists shouldn't assume they're undetectable.

Myth 9: You Can Always Successfully Dispute a Fine

The claim: You can dispute any speed camera fine and it'll be dropped. The camera system has too many technical vulnerabilities to hold up.

The evidence: You can dispute any fine. That's your legal right. Whether the dispute will succeed is another matter entirely.

NZTA's offence verification process involves multiple checks: photo review, cross-referencing with radar data, camera alignment verification against baseline images, and licence plate matching. Speed cameras must hold a Certificate of Accuracy issued no more than 12 months before the date of the alleged offence, with calibration traceable to national measurement standards maintained by the Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand. The measurement uncertainty is plus or minus 0.5 km/h.

If you dispute a fine and request a court hearing, be aware that the infringement may change. You could be fined less, the same, or more. You could also be charged with the underlying offence rather than the infringement, which can carry additional penalties.

Legitimate grounds for dispute include:

• You weren't the driver and can identify who was (since camera fines are issued to the registered owner)
• The camera was demonstrably faulty (rare, given the calibration requirements)
• Procedural errors in the notice itself

Simply disagreeing with the speed reading or arguing that the speed limit was unreasonable are unlikely to succeed.

NZTA provides an online dispute process and, if you're not satisfied with the outcome, you can request a court hearing.

Verdict: You have the right to dispute any fine, but most disputes on technical grounds will fail because cameras are regularly calibrated and certified. The most common successful dispute is nominating the actual driver when the registered owner wasn't driving.

Myth 10: Speed Cameras Are Always Perfectly Accurate

The claim: If a camera says you were speeding, you were definitely speeding. Cameras never make mistakes.

The evidence: Speed cameras are highly accurate and subject to rigorous calibration requirements. But they're not infallible. There have been documented cases of errors:

• In May 2025, approximately $50,000 in fines were reversed after a camera error was identified
• In March 2026, NZTA reversed hundreds of fines near recently changed speed limit zones where signage was unclear or confusing

The calibration requirements are strict. Cameras must be certified by accredited testing organisations (such as SGS Australia), with certificates valid for no more than 12 months. The calibration is traceable to New Zealand's national measurement standards, and the laboratory conducting the calibrations is audited three times per year.

The measurement uncertainty is plus or minus 0.5 km/h, which is very precise. But errors can occur in systems adjacent to the camera itself: incorrect speed limit data, misaligned cameras, software glitches, or processing errors.

Verdict: Speed cameras are very accurate, but they're not perfect. Errors are rare but do occur, and NZTA has demonstrated a willingness to reverse fines when systemic errors are identified. If you believe a fine is incorrect, you have the right to request a review.

Myth 11: Covering or Spraying Your Number Plate Defeats Cameras

The claim: Products like "PhotoBlocker" spray or tinted plate covers can make your number plate unreadable to cameras while still appearing normal to the naked eye.

The evidence: This is both ineffective and illegal.

On effectiveness: modern camera systems use infrared illumination specifically designed to read the retroreflective material on licence plates. Commercial sprays and covers marketed as "camera blockers" have been consistently shown in independent testing to have little or no effect on camera readability. The retroreflective properties of the plate material are a fundamental physical characteristic that a surface spray can't meaningfully alter.

On legality: New Zealand law prohibits operating a vehicle with plates that are "wholly or partially obscured or not easily distinguishable." Fines range from $1,000 to $5,000 for displaying an object or design intended to deceive, and $100 to $1,000 for plates that are obscured or not easily distinguishable. If a coating prevents a clear photograph from being taken, you could also be charged with obstruction under the Summary Offences Act.

Verdict: These products don't work effectively against modern cameras, and using them is a criminal offence that carries fines far exceeding any speeding fine. It's a lose-lose proposition.

The Broader Picture

Many speed camera myths share a common feature: they frame cameras as an adversary to be outsmarted rather than a safety measure to be respected. That framing is understandable. Nobody enjoys being fined. But it obscures the fundamental purpose of the system.

New Zealand's road toll in 2024 was 289 deaths, the lowest since 2014 and the lowest per-capita rate in over a century. The road toll in 2025 dropped further to approximately 268. Speed cameras are one of many factors contributing to this improvement, alongside better roads, safer vehicles, and other enforcement measures.

The evidence from decades of research across dozens of countries is consistent: speed cameras reduce average speeds, and reduced average speeds reduce crashes, injuries, and deaths. That doesn't make cameras popular, but it does make them effective. And at the end of the day, I'd rather deal with a $30 fine than a funeral.

---

Sources

• NZ Police: Facts and myths about speed cameras
• NZTA: Safety Cameras
• NZTA: Safety Camera Notices and Penalties
• NZTA: Safety Camera Testing and Certification
• NZTA: How we confirm a safety camera offence
• Auditor-General: Bringing Down the Road Toll: the Speed Camera Programme (2002)
• Cochrane Review: Speed cameras for the prevention of road traffic injuries and deaths
• Flashing your lights to warn other drivers: The Spinoff
• New mobile speed cameras bad news for bikes: Bike Rider Magazine
• Speed cameras' range confirmed as NZTA takes over: 1News
• How many drivers have been snapped since NZTA took over?: 1News
• Speeding fines of $50,000 to be paid back after camera error: 1News

---

This content has been fact-checked against official sources but may contain inaccuracies. This is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Data updated weekly from Waka Kotahi NZTA.