Efforts to influence drivers' behavior should not rely on covert surveillance or the fear of fines. Rather than penalizing drivers for minor mistakes, authorities should focus more on those who drive with willful disregard for safety and repeat offenders, Imre Kaas writes.
I followed with interest the debates in the Riigikogu over speed cameras. Two opposing worldviews emerged. One side supported speed enforcement without any warning, arguing that "if you don't break the law, you have nothing to fear." The other emphasized that people should have the opportunity to refrain from committing a violation and that warning motorists about automated enforcement is therefore appropriate.
I support complete transparency in enforcement because automated monitoring does not take into account the reasons for a violation or the surrounding circumstances; it is simply a blunt technical means of recording it. Moreover, in healthy democracies, it is quite difficult to justify allowing authorities to monitor people covertly while merely waiting for the moment they make a mistake that can then become the subject of enforcement proceedings. Transparent governance does not treat all road users as potential offenders by default. Instead, it seeks to encourage appropriate behavior through clear rules, public information and prevention.
Riigikogu member Andre Hanimägi (SDE), who opposed the amendment, told ERR by way of comparison that "few would argue that giving violent criminals advance notice of the specific streets or neighborhoods being patrolled would be a fair approach to justice." That comparison illustrates the core conflict in values, placing violent criminals on one side of the scale and potential speeders — including those who commit minor, accidental violations — on the other.
In reality, these are not offenses of the same order of magnitude. Fifty percent of speeding violations recorded by automated speed cameras are minor, involving speeds just 2-3 kilometers per hour over the limit. A driver who exceeds the speed limit by such a small margin is not a criminal. But when we are talking about the genuinely violent criminals Hanimägi referred to, it would be inappropriate to say that one beat a victim a little less severely than another. Violence is violence. By contrast, a driver who exceeds the speed limit by a small margin, right around the enforcement threshold, typically has no victims.
Prevention instead of punishment
That is why the police's recent practice of informing the public in advance when they plan to carry out large-scale enforcement operations in a particular part of Estonia feels like a breath of fresh air. It sends the message that they are not simply out to collect fines but genuinely want to reduce the number of violations. Taavi Kirss, head of traffic enforcement at the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA), has clearly put considerable effort into implementing a strategy that focuses more on friendly reminders about why speed limits exist than on aggressive ticketing.
Another recent positive example is the police's decision to change the operating threshold for mobile speed cameras, which now record violations starting at 6 kilometers per hour over the speed limit instead of the previous 3 kilometers per hour. Although the change currently applies only to mobile speed cameras, it is a major step forward. It is likely the clearest sign of a shift in mindset within the police in recent years.
The change makes sense because greater attention should be directed toward addressing the root causes of traffic safety problems. For example, more should be invested in making roads and streets safer and ensuring that speed limits are reasonable. I am convinced that, instead of "punishing" drivers who commit minor, accidental violations with warning fines, positive changes in traffic culture can be achieved through consistent preventive work and broader traffic education where following the rules is simply the norm. I am not saying that every minor speeding violation is harmless. However, not all traffic violations are equal from a road safety perspective and enforcement should do a better job of reflecting that.
Understandably, there are also critics who argue that the change will lead to higher speeds overall, with drivers traveling as much as 10 kilometers per hour over the limit (a 6 km/h enforcement threshold plus a 4 km/h margin of measurement error). It should be emphasized, however, that this assumption is based on the idea that every driver will choose to drive 10 kilometers per hour over the speed limit. In reality, not all drivers have grown up in a world where violating the speed limit "within the allowable margin" is considered the rule rather than the exception. That is not the social norm. It is also worth noting that, for now, the change applies only to mobile speed cameras rather than to speed enforcement in general.
At the same time, the critics are correct on one point: a vehicle traveling at 100 kilometers per hour in a 90 km/h zone has a braking distance that is more than 20 percent longer. That is simple physics and neither better cars nor better roads change the calculation. The laws of physics cannot be ignored. And if you look at the statistics on traffic accidents involving injuries or fatalities, speed is one of the primary risk factors. Still, it cannot be said that it is always excessive speed that kills. Rather, the real question is why a person and a vehicle ended up coming together in the first place in such a hostile environment.
This is further supported by the fact that if a pedestrian walking along a highway is struck by a vehicle traveling at 90 kilometers per hour, the driver's compliance with the speed limit will not save the pedestrian's life. Even someone hit by a vehicle traveling at 70 km/h has little chance of survival. In such cases, making infrastructure safer would do far more to protect pedestrians' lives.
Lower speeds save lives
So when discussing speeding, the real question is whether the greater problem was that the previous system penalized large numbers of drivers for minor, accidental violations or whether we should have anticipated that solving that problem might lead to higher driving speeds and create a new problem that affects everyone on the road.
Based on the examples above, it is clear that higher speeds are primarily a concern in built-up areas where pedestrians and people using micromobility vehicles are most common. Where different types of road users share the same traffic corridors, speeds need to be kept lower. To a driver, a 50 km/h speed limit may feel unnecessarily restrictive. But if you are standing on a pedestrian refuge island with a baby stroller while cars rush past just a yard away on both sides, you instinctively hold your breath. Those are the places where speeds need to come down and an additional 10 km/h would make the situation even worse.
When the speed limit in central Tallinn was reduced from 50 to 40 kilometers per hour, and to 30 km/h in some areas, the atmosphere changed immediately. Traffic noise decreased and, according to data published by Eesti Ekspress, the number of people injured in traffic accidents in the area also fell. It cannot be claimed that the decline was caused solely by the lower speed limits, but they certainly contributed. Tallinn provides a compelling example because we can see tangible results, even though, in practice, the flow of traffic on Liivalaia tänav still moves at around 50 km/h rather than the 40 km/h required by the posted speed limit.
I am convinced that the police are moving in the right direction with their enforcement strategy, but they should become even better at distinguishing between different situations and locations because one-size-fits-all principles are not the most effective approach to modern traffic enforcement. Driving 10 kilometers per hour over the speed limit on an empty highway is not comparable to the same violation in an urban environment. And even within cities, it is not sensible to rigidly enforce restrictions in situations where they appear unreasonable to an objective observer.
What do drivers think?
Kantar Emor has studied drivers' behavior on the road and its latest survey found that speed limits are most commonly exceeded on main highways (72 percent of respondents), while the figure is lower in cities and other built-up areas (44 percent). The most frequently cited reasons for speeding are keeping pace with the flow of traffic, overtaking and favorable driving conditions. However, 21 percent of respondents said they break the rules when they consider them unreasonable because the speed limit does not reflect the actual traffic conditions.
I have also surveyed drivers through an online questionnaire and respondents there likewise repeatedly pointed out that violations can result from situations where existing speed limits are perceived as illogical or unjustified. One example is a weekday public holiday when the variable-speed section of Tammsaare tee beneath the Pärnu maantee overpass in Tallinn is limited to 50 km/h, even though traffic is light and the speed limit could easily be 70 km/h.
The examples provided by drivers illustrate that complying with the law is generally not a problem when the rules are clearly reasonable and understandable. Most people who have driven on Estonian highways in the summer have probably experienced a situation where the speed limit is 90 km/h, but the road is straight and empty, the pavement is dry and visibility is excellent. Under those conditions, the speed limit could just as easily be 100 km/h.
On the other hand, when conditions are different — at night, in fog or in heavier traffic — the actual driving speed may well be below the posted limit because most people still possess a basic instinct for self-preservation. The contrast becomes especially clear when you compare that with a winding gravel road where the speed limit is also 90 km/h. It simply is not logical.
When I asked drivers which measure they believed would be most effective in reducing speeding in Estonia, the most common response was improving roads and traffic management. That also includes taking actual traffic conditions into account by making greater use of variable speed limits.
For the drivers who responded to the online survey, building more 2+2 main highways or at least adding more overtaking lanes is considered a basic expectation as it would help reduce dangerous passing maneuvers around slower-moving vehicles. Other measures mentioned included tying fines to the offender's income, introducing a demerit-point system and requiring repeat offenders to attend additional driver training.
One particularly interesting proposal was to lower the annual motor vehicle tax for exemplary drivers while increasing it for those who commit traffic violations. That idea, however, immediately raises a problem: while it is possible to count a driver's violations, how do you determine whether someone is truly an exemplary driver? A person who never drives will have no violations, but that does not mean they will actually behave responsibly once they return to the road.
The opinions and assessments expressed by drivers do not, in themselves, demonstrate which measures are the most effective. They do, however, help explain why speed limits are so often ignored. That may be valuable information for traffic planners and I hope the findings of these various surveys are already being taken into account.
The real problem of repeat offenders
During police patrol enforcement, 37,500 speeding violations were recorded in 2025, one percent more than in 2024. At the same time, automated speed cameras detected just under 311,000 speeding violations, three percent fewer than the year before. Over the past five years, however, that figure has remained largely unchanged, showing neither significant increases nor declines.
I requested the latest data from the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) on this year's most extreme speeding cases and the figures are, of course, deeply discouraging. Automated speed cameras recorded one driver traveling at 220 km/h in a 90 km/h zone. On a stretch of road with a 70 km/h speed limit, another driver was clocked at 178 km/h. Particularly alarming was a driver caught traveling at 128 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. Added to that are three more drivers stopped by police patrols, all of whom were traveling at more than 200 km/h, including one in a 70 km/h zone. And these are merely examples of the three most serious violations.
At first glance, these figures suggest that disregarding speed limits is a major problem in Estonia, especially since not every violator is caught. But a closer look at the data tells a more nuanced story. Half of all speeding violations involve speeds of less than 20 km/h over the limit, while half of the warning notices issued through automated speed camera enforcement involve speeds just 2-3 km/h over the limit. According to Taavi Kirss, a representative of the police, this points more to driver error than to the kind of deviant behavior that warrants state intervention. The record-breaking cases cited above are the exception and those drivers should indeed be dealt with separately.
The Transport Administration has studied how traffic violations occur and the behavioral patterns of offenders. When the government was considering introducing a demerit-point system — which has since, regrettably, been shelved — it also analyzed repeat violations. "Repeat offenders are dangerous," the analysis concluded, noting that 92 percent of drivers responsible for traffic accidents involving injuries or fatalities had previously committed traffic violations.
Alo Kirsimäe, the Transport Administration's head of traffic safety strategy, says that if the state were to criminalize habitual negligent driving or place greater emphasis on repeat violations — for example, by introducing a demerit-point system — it would not be possible to include automated speed camera violations because they are linked to the vehicle rather than the driver. Repeat offenses could, however, be taken into account for violations detected by police patrols. According to PPA data, police identified a total of 45,583 individual offenders between January 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026, of whom 5,360, or 12 percent, were caught speeding two or more times.
It is repeat offenders, drivers who speed in urban areas and those who exceed the speed limit by more than 20 km/h on highways who deserve additional attention from the state. Their behavior is no longer accidental, nor is it something that can be overlooked from a traffic safety perspective. Current traffic law takes repeat offending into account for certain offenses — for example, repeat drunk driving — but speeding is not among them. That is probably a mistake.
Drivers both are and aren't held to account
There is another problem. At a time when the vast majority of speeding violations are detected through automated enforcement, the actual offender often goes unidentified. Although more serious speed camera violations — those involving speeds more than 50 km/h over the limit — must already be handled through proceedings against the individual driver, identifying that driver is far from straightforward. According to the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA), only about 30 serious speed camera cases have been referred for full administrative proceedings this year. Most offenders are ultimately identified. Still, police acknowledge that there are cases where it is simply not possible to determine who was behind the wheel.
The reasons are fairly straightforward. The responsibility placed on the vehicle owner carries few meaningful consequences. Under Estonia's Traffic Act, the owner must retain records for six months identifying who was using the vehicle and is required to provide that information when requested. But what happens if they do not? They can be fined €200 — and that is essentially the end of the matter. As a result, the role of speed cameras in improving traffic culture is ambiguous because driver accountability is minimal.
In other words, speed cameras generally have a calming effect on traffic, but they do not systematically influence drivers who repeatedly and seriously violate the rules. Remarkably, that is the situation. At the same time, I understand that it would not make sense to individualize every warning fine if the objective is simply to calm traffic overall. Influencing drivers' behavior is a subtle art and should happen as naturally as possible.
History offers a good example of successful behavioral change. Today, people automatically fasten their seat belts before setting off. But why do you buckle your seat belt? Because it is safer, because the car will emit an annoying warning chime if you do not or because you might be fined? Most of us would wear a seat belt even without the warning chime, let alone the fine. It is a matter of attitude, not fear.
The same should be true of speed limits. Drivers should obey them almost unconsciously because doing so is safer for everyone, not because they are trying to avoid some potential annoyance, such as the irritating warning tone newer cars emit when the speed limit is exceeded. Traffic culture should not be built on the fear of being punished for making a mistake.
I do believe, however, that if speed limits are understandable and well justified and enforcement is perceived as fair, people will also be more willing to follow the rules voluntarily. Ultimately, what should motivate drivers most is confidence that speed limits are proportionate, imposed for legitimate reasons and applied without treating anyone unfairly. That should be — and indeed is — a fundamental principle of the rule of law.
--
Editor: Marcus Turovski