CPDRetired.com

Traffic citations in Cleveland fell from more than 15,000 in 2015 to slightly more than 4,000 in 2025—a reported decline of 73 percent—while residents and City Council members increasingly express concern about speeding, reckless driving and disregard for traffic signals.

Cleveland also recorded 75 traffic fatalities in 2024, up from 59 in 2023 and 43 in 2022—a 74 percent increase in two years—while more than 600 pedestrians and bicyclists were reportedly struck. News 5 Cleveland | Axios Cleveland

These figures do not prove that declining enforcement caused the increase in traffic deaths, nor do they establish that traffic-enforcement cameras are the best solution. They do, however, raise a legitimate question about whether Cleveland has sufficient police resources to provide sustained traffic enforcement in its neighborhoods—and whether technology should be among the options considered.

Cleveland voters spoke decisively in 2014. More than 77 percent of voters who went to the polls approved a charter amendment requiring an officer to be present and personally issue any citation resulting from a traffic camera, effectively ending automated speed and red-light enforcement throughout the city—including speed enforcement in school zones. Cleveland Charter §203

Although the reasons for the overwhelming voter rejection were not formally documented, contemporary media reports identified concerns about fairness, due process, camera accuracy and whether the program was driven primarily by revenue.

One important fact about the program received comparatively little public attention before the vote: Of the 77,655 camera citations issued in 2013, only 23,374—or 30.1 percent—went to Cleveland residents, while 54,281—or 69.9 percent—were issued to motorists living outside the city.

Nearly seven of every ten violations recorded by traffic cameras were attributed not to Cleveland residents, but to non-city motorists, including suburban and other out-of-town drivers using Cleveland streets. Cleveland motorists were not blameless, but they accounted for a clear minority of the violations; the majority involved nonresidents whose driving affected the safety of Cleveland neighborhoods.

The traffic-camera enforcement program did generate revenue for the City of Cleveland. It produced approximately $5.79 million in 2013—a substantial sum, but only about one percent of Cleveland’s annual operating budget. Although revenue may have been a legitimate public concern, the program was a relatively minor source of city funding.

Traffic-enforcement cameras have limitations and cannot replace police officers who are authorized and capable of stopping impaired drivers, intervening in reckless driving or addressing the full range of traffic violations encountered on our streets.

I am not recommending that Cleveland restore the cameras. But the 73-percent decline in traditional enforcement, combined with continuing neighborhood safety concerns, justifies an informed public discussion about whether a carefully crafted program could supplement—not replace—police officers.

If cameras are reconsidered, residents should be asked separately about school-zone enforcement, documented high-crash corridors and red-light cameras rather than being presented with another all-or-nothing proposition like the one on the 2014 ballot.

The question is not whether Cleveland should simply revive the system voters rejected in 2014. It is whether changing conditions justify allowing residents to consider a fundamentally different, transparent and safety-focused option.

It’s worth considering.

Martin L. (Marty) Flask
Retired Cleveland Police Chief | Former Public Safety Director & Executive Assistant to the Mayor
Volunteer Advisor for Public Safety & Community Engagement, Partnership for a Safer Cleveland