Queensland has stepped up its use of artificial intelligence in traffic monitoring, and the numbers show how widespread the system has become. The program, focused on detecting mobile phone use and seatbelt non-compliance, has scanned millions of vehicles and issued hundreds of thousands of fines. While supporters highlight its role in improving safety, a new audit report has raised fresh concerns about privacy, oversight, and transparency. The balance between safer roads and protecting individual rights is now at the centre of public debate.
How AI Traffic Cameras Work
The system forms part of Queensland’s Mobile Phone and Seatbelt Technology Program. Using AI-enabled cameras, authorities track and record traffic activity across high-risk locations.
Key figures from 2024 show just how significant the system has become:
- 9 fixed cameras operating across key areas in Queensland.
- More than 208 million vehicles monitored in 12 months.
- 137,000 suspected breaches flagged by AI.
- 114,000 fines issued after human review.
- Over $137 million in revenue generated from the fines.
The process begins with AI detection, where cameras automatically identify possible offences such as mobile phone use while driving or seatbelt misuse. These potential breaches are flagged and sent to external contractors for a first round of checks. If confirmed, the Queensland Revenue Office performs a final review before penalties are issued.
Where Oversight Falls Short
While the above system looks efficient on paper, the Queensland Audit Office review has pointed out shortcomings in privacy protection and verification. The key issues include:
- Cameras capture images of not only drivers but also passengers and even international visitors in rental cars.
- Current data handling and storage practices are insufficiently detailed to guarantee privacy.
- Heavy reliance on AI increases the risk of false positives, especially in complex traffic environments.
- A lack of clarity around data security and public communication fuels distrust among drivers.
The audit recommended stronger checks to ensure that privacy rights are not sacrificed in the pursuit of higher enforcement numbers.
Privacy and Ethical Risks
When cameras capture millions of images daily, questions naturally arise about what happens to that data. Experts are concerned about potential overreach, including:
- Unnecessary surveillance: Images from compliant drivers and passengers are collected, even if no offence has occurred.
- Data storage uncertainties: How long data is kept, and who has access to it, remains under‑explained.
- AI misidentification risks: Machine learning systems are efficient but not flawless, and errors could unfairly penalize motorists.
- Erosion of public trust: Without strong transparency, drivers may see AI not as a safety tool but as a revenue‑raising tactic.
These risks emphasise the need for a better balance between efficiency and accountability.
Government Response and Roadmap
In reaction to the audit, the Queensland government has acknowledged the concerns and promised reform. According to the Transport Minister, the roadmap includes:
- New AI use guidelines introduced by 2028, focusing on ethical practices.
- Guaranteed human oversight for all final penalty decisions, ensuring a person confirms every charge before issue.
- Enhanced transparency requirements, with annual reporting and independent oversight reviews.
- Clearer communication to the public so drivers understand how fines are generated and why cameras are necessary.
The government position is that road safety remains the priority, but fairness and privacy must also be respected.
Public Opinion Divided
Public acceptance of AI traffic enforcement depends heavily on whether the system is viewed as fair. Right now, drivers seem split.
Supporters argue:
- The cameras have caught thousands of risky drivers, and enforcement prevents accidents.
- Fines help discourage mobile phone use behind the wheel, one of the fastest‑growing causes of crashes.
- Automated enforcement levels the playing field; no driver can claim to be singled out.
Critics argue:
- The fines generate substantial revenue, making the system feel like a money‑raising scheme.
- Lack of transparency around how AI works creates suspicion.
- A single technical error could unfairly punish drivers, with limited recourse to appeal.
This debate reflects the tension between public safety goals and public trust in automated systems.
Suggested Improvements
To ensure AI monitoring strengthens rather than undermines road safety, experts and auditors suggest practical policy updates:
- Stricter privacy protections to ensure only offence‑related images are retained.
- Clear, time‑bound rules for data storage and deletion.
- Greater human involvement at multiple points in the review process.
- Transparent public reporting on how many fines are overturned due to errors.
- Independent oversight by third‑party regulators to increase accountability.
These measures, if adopted, could reassure the public that the cameras exist first to save lives, not to raise state funds.
Broader Legal and Ethical Considerations
The Queensland case highlights a global reality: as governments adopt AI for safety enforcement, the corresponding laws must adapt. Legislation needs to define data handling standards, establish compensation pathways for false fines, and create limits on how widely AI systems can be used. Without these, communities risk a loss of trust that undermines even genuine safety benefits.
For drivers, the stakes are high. Being fined because of an AI error not only costs money but also adds demerit points that can threaten licences and insurance costs. The appeal system must adapt alongside AI to ensure errors can be corrected fairly.
Final Thoughts
AI traffic monitoring in Queensland is reshaping how road safety laws are enforced. The technology has already caught thousands of offenders and delivered millions in fines. But the privacy and oversight problems exposed by the Audit Office show the risks of relying too heavily on automated systems without strong safeguards.
As the government moves towards introducing new AI use rules and stronger human oversight, the state faces a challenge: maintain the safety benefits of this technology while restoring public trust that enforcement is fair, transparent, and respectful of individual rights.
For now, drivers in Queensland should assume the cameras are watching, but the wider community must keep watch too — ensuring innovation in traffic safety never comes at the expense of privacy and accountability.