A mechanical eye on speeders? Good.

Opinion editor’s note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

Here’s a question: Will knowing that they might be caught on camera persuade Minneapolis speeders to slow down?

We’d like to think so, but we’re wary of trying to understand the minds of the most egregious speeders. Consider a few of the warnings, either literal or figurative, that they already ignore: the law, as expressed in posted speed limits. The risk to personal safety, vividly quantified by accident data. Risks to the safety of others, covered in the same data. The disapproval of their fellow drivers who stay relatively close to the speed limit. The potential impact on their insurance rates. If none of that can get through to these scofflaws, is there reason to believe that camera-aided enforcement can do better?

We may soon find out. A measure passed in an omnibus bill late in the legislative session gave authority to Minneapolis, Mendota Heights and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to use cameras as a traffic-enforcement tool in a pilot program. Nearly 20 years after a similar program was shut down by a ruling of the Minnesota Supreme Court, drivers in those two municipalities and highway work zones will once again be confronted with the prospect of a citation and a fine if they drive 10 or more miles per hour over the speed limit. (The earlier program was found to be in conflict with state law; this one explicitly grants authority from the state. The new law also provides vehicle owners a means of declaring that they weren’t driving at the time.)

Like timid swimmers easing their way into a cold lake, Minnesotans will have time to adjust gradually. First there will be a public campaign to get drivers used to the idea. Then, first-time offenders will receive a warning letter. On their second offense, drivers will be subject to a fine — but at $40, it likely won’t hurt too badly, unless they exceed the posted limit by 20 mph. In that case, the fine jumps to $80.

That still doesn’t seem like much, considering that the fine for jaywalking in Minnesota can go as high as $100. The jaywalking statute is rarely enforced, however. And enforcement seems to be key.

“The goal is to be effective at changing unsafe behavior,” said Ethan Fawley, coordinator of the Vision Zero Program in Minneapolis, which works to reduce traffic accidents. “What we’ve seen from other cities is that with automated enforcement, where you have that certainty that you are going to get a citation if you are exceeding the limit by quite a bit, then you don’t need to have [the fine] at the same level” as a citation handed out in a traffic stop. “There are other cities in the $40-$50 range, and I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that those cities are any less effective in improving safety than the ones that charge significantly more.”

Fawley explained to an editorial writer that “we don’t want to be overly punitive” while pursuing the goal of changing drivers’ behavior.

If anything, the effort seems a bit underpunitive. Under the terms of the legislation that authorizes the pilot program, citations generated by the automated enforcement system will not become part of a driver’s record and will not affect insurance premiums. Drivers can choose to attend a safety class instead of paying the fine. A formula based on population size will limit the cameras in Minneapolis to a maximum of 42, and they will all be within blocks of schools.

And before the first camera is placed, Fawley and his colleagues in city government will conduct a program of public engagement to explain the system and determine the most appropriate locations for cameras. The earliest the program could begin operations is Aug. 1, 2025.

In our view, the sooner the better. Speeding was cited as a factor in two-thirds of fatal crashes in Minneapolis in 2021. We’d like to see stepped-up enforcement in more areas of the city, including the interstates, and penalties with real teeth. But as a first step, we agree with Fawley: The most important task is to change the behavior.

Editorial Board members are David Banks, Jill Burcum, Denise Johnson and John Rash. Star Tribune Opinion staff members Maggie Kelly, Kavita Kumar and Elena Neuzil also contribute, and Star Tribune CEO and Publisher Steve Grove serves as an adviser to the board.