For the first time in Italy there is a public and national dataset on speed cameras. The register published on 28 November 2025 was born from the application of the provisions of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport which imposed on local authorities theobligation to communicate and register detection devices of speed on a centralized platform. Until that moment the information was fragmented, often not accessible and difficult to verify: last year the controversy over the number of speed cameras in Italy – there was even talk of 11,000 detection devices. Today, however, the speed control infrastructure is visible. And furthermore, again by ministerial decree, municipalities are obliged to turn off speed cameras not included in the list.
A “dirty” database that does not yet have a definitive register
Although a step forward has been made in terms of transparency the dataset is continuously updated: municipalities progressively insert information, correct errors, add devices. There is no final version of the register, but only a photograph updated to a certain date. The latest one from which we extracted data was taken on 12/15/2025 and reports 3807 devices registered.
In addition to being unstable, the dataset is very dirty. Speed camera brands appear in dozens of different variations, often with errors, abbreviations or non-uniform legal forms. In many cases models, technical descriptions and operating methods are inserted in the same field. Some rumors report descriptive texts instead of standard categories. Before any analysis, therefore, a cleaning work to distinguish brands, models and entities that have installed speed cameras.
What the dataset measures
The dataset photographs where the devices are located, who manages them and how they are distributed across the territory. The map that emerges is not uniform and shows a clear geographical asymmetrywith a higher concentration of speed cameras in Central-North and a smaller presence at South.
The census data records data by entity and by municipality cadastral code, but some are managed by provincial police while others from local. We therefore decided to divide them by institution. Some concentrate a large number of devices, while many others have few or none. In the head is the Rome Capital Policewith 43 speed cameras registered, followed by Metropolitan Police of the Metropolitan City of Milan (29) and by the Corps of Local Police of the Municipality of Genoa (27).
Immediately afterwards, large urban areas and supra-municipal structures appear again: the Local Police of the Metropolitan City of Rome (26)the Province of Alexandria and the Municipal Police of Venice (both 24)the Municipal Police of Florence (23), the Provincial Police of Brescia and the Local Police of the Municipality of Milan (22 each).
Some areas, however, are poorly represented: in Sardiniafor example, only a few registered entities appear, the local police of Sassari with 8 devices and the municipalities of Nuoro and Iglesias with only one device each, while Naples appears to have only one device in the database on the date of the last extraction.
Who controls the speed camera market
The dataset also allows us to observe the structure of the speed camera supplier market, showing significant concentration. After work to standardize the names – necessary to bring brands indicated in an inconsistent or incorrect way under a single heading – a rather clear picture emerges: Eltraff dominates the marketwith approximately the 39% of the devices surveyed. They follow Sodi Scientificawith the 17%and Enginewith the 12%.
Taken together, the top three operators exceed the 65% of the totalwhile the remaining part of the market is fragmented between numerous smaller suppliers, often present with just a few devices each. It is not a monopoly in the formal sense, but a sector strongly concentratedwhere a small number of companies supply most of the technologies used by public bodies.
The recurrence of the same brands in very different administrative and geographical contexts indicates a strong standardization of the solutions adopted, which helps to explain why the speed camera market appears not very fragmented, despite the absence of a single dominant player.
The problem of approval
The national census marks a turning point in terms of transparency, but does not close all open questions. From 28 November 2025 only registered devices can operate legitimately: those not listed must be deactivated and the fines issued are contestable. This step already has a direct impact on litigation.
However, a deeper issue remains open, that ofapproval. In 2024, with ordinance no. 10505, and then with n. 26521 of 1 October 2025, the Court of Cassation canceled several sanctions detected by “approved” but not expressly “approved” devices, rekindling the debate on a distinction that has created uncertainty for years.
The Ministry of Transport intervened on the point with an official letter dated 21 November 2025, clarifying his position: according to the MIT, in light of article 192 of the Regulation of Traffic Lawshomologation and approval are alternative procedures, both suitable for legitimizing the use of the instruments, as has occurred in administrative practice in recent decades.
This divergence between ministerial reading and jurisprudential guidelines has not yet been completely reconciled and risks fueling new appeals. In this context, the census does not eliminate litigationbut makes it more visible and documentable, while introducing new responsibilities for the local authoritiescalled upon to update the data and ensure that only regularly registered devices remain in operation.
