Speed cameras, tolerance and approval

This is not a camera map. It is the page that explains how the charged speed is arrived at, and what is actually argued about in court.

What we do not do

This is not a speed-camera map

If you are looking for where the devices are, this is not the page — and no authority publishes a register of locations to draw on. What is here is how the charged speed is arrived at and what is actually argued before a judge.

[ IMG ]int-speedcam4:3

Art. 345 reduction

Speed-camera tolerance: how the charged speed is arrived at

Art. 345 reduction

«al valore rilevato sia applicata una riduzione pari al 5%, con un minimo di 5 km/h. Nella riduzione è compresa anche la tolleranza strumentale.»

D.P.R. 16 December 1992, no. 495, art. 345 co. 2

Art. 142 co. 6 CdS does not set the tolerance: it defers to «il regolamento di esecuzione». That regulation is D.P.R. 495/1992, and the rule is in its art. 345 co. 2. The reduction applies to the recorded value BEFORE the band is chosen.

The reduction is the greater of 5% of the recorded value and 5 km/h. The two branches agree exactly at 100 km/h: below it the flat floor binds, at or above it the percentage does. You can check this arithmetic yourself.

The device's own margin of error is already inside this reduction. A second one is never added.

Art. 345 reduction

What this calculation does not cover

Art. 345 co. 3 sets a different regime for average speed computed between two motorway toll gates, with separate percentages by deduced speed band. That rule exists, and our model does not represent it: it concerns an enforcement method distinct from fixed and hand-held cameras. We are stating the scope of our model, not a silence in the law.

What this page does not claim

We do not say that a given notice applied the reduction, that a given device is type-approved, or that a tolerance argument wins an appeal. The reduction is prescribed «in sede di approvazione» of the apparatus and applies to the recorded value: that is what the provision says.

In force as of: 1 January 2021
Statutory chain: CdS art. 142 co. 6 → D.P.R. 495/1992 art. 345 co. 2
Source: CdS art. 142 co. 6 · D.P.R. 16 dicembre 1992, n. 495, art. 345 co. 2

In detail

Autovelox, tutor and t-red: three ways of measuring

Italian speed enforcement runs on several device families a foreign driver will meet by name on the paperwork: fixed roadside columns and the mobile devices generally called «autovelox», the average-speed system between two gantries called «tutor», and the red-light cameras called «t-red», which also detect speed at some junctions. Whatever recorded you, one rule governs how the number on the notice becomes the number your band is read from.

D.P.R. 495/1992 art. 345 co. 2 requires a reduction of 5% of the recorded value, with a minimum of 5 km/h, and states that the instrumental tolerance is included in it. The two branches of that formula agree at 100 km/h: below it the flat floor governs, at or above it the percentage does. The reduction happens before the band is selected — which is why a notice can record a speed inside one band and charge the one below it.

CdS art. 142 co. 6 itself sets no figure. It defers the whole subject of measuring devices to the implementing regulation, and the regulation is where the number lives. That deferral is worth stating plainly, because a reader who searches the Codice della Strada for a tolerance figure will not find one there and may conclude none exists.

Background

Approval, type-approval, and what this page will not tell you

The most-argued point in Italian speed-camera appeals is not the tolerance. It is whether a given device was properly approved for use — the distinction Italian lawyers argue as «omologazione» against «approvazione», two different administrative acts that Italian courts have treated as having different legal weight.

That argument is the reason a large share of Italian speed-camera appeals are brought at all. It is also outside the material this site was built from: our corpus is the consolidated statute and its implementing regulation, not the case law. We are not going to summarise judgments we have not read, name a decision, or tell you that a device that lacks one of those acts produces an unenforceable notice. If that is the question you have, it is a question for a lawyer who can read the file, and the honest thing we can do is say so rather than paraphrase something we have not sourced.

What the regulation does say, and what we will repeat, is that the reduction is prescribed «in sede di approvazione» of the apparatus and applies to the recorded value. That is a statement about how the figure is computed. It is not a statement about whether any particular device or any particular notice is valid.

The toll-gate regime is a different rule, and we do not model it

Art. 345 co. 3 provides a separate tolerance for the enforcement method that computes an average speed from the timestamps on motorway toll tickets, with percentages keyed to the deduced speed rather than a flat-versus-percentage crossover. It exists, it is codified, and our arithmetic does not represent it. We say so here rather than let a reader assume the figure above covers every method of measurement in Italy.

D.P.R. 495/1992 art. 345 co. 3

This is not a camera map

We do not publish device locations and we keep no list — and no authority publishes a register of locations to consult. What is here is the arithmetic that turns a recorded speed into a charged one, and the structure of what follows from it.

CdS art. 142 · D.P.R. 495/1992 art. 345

How it works

Camera-detected offences reach you differently

A speeding offence detected by an automatic device is one of the cases where the officer is not required to stop you and hand over the notice at the roadside. Art. 201 co. 1-bis lists those cases — excess speed, red-light violations, prohibited overtaking, an absent driver or owner, automatic detection devices, restricted-zone camera systems, uninsured-vehicle camera matching — and for each of them service by post follows instead.

That is why an Italian notice can arrive months after the drive, and why the date the deadline runs from is the date of service rather than the date of the offence. Art. 201 also sets the deadlines for that service, and it attaches a real consequence to missing them: under art. 201 co. 5 the obligation to pay is extinguished as against a person on whom the notice was not served within the prescribed period. Not deferred — extinguished.

Our data set carries the art. 202 payment windows and not the art. 201 service periods, and we do not print day counts we have not sourced. What we can tell you accurately is what the deadline is measured from, what happens when it is missed, and where in the statute the periods are stated so that a lawyer or the enforcement body can be held to them.

For a hire car, the notice reaches the rental company first

Under art. 196 the vehicle's owner is jointly liable with the driver for the sum due, unless the owner proves the vehicle was used against their will — and whoever pays has a full right of recourse against the actual offender. In practice that is why rental companies pass an administrative charge on to the driver and identify them to the authority. The identification duty and its own penalty sit in art. 126-bis co. 2.

CdS art. 196 co. 1 and 4 · art. 126-bis co. 2

Draft in progress: the long-form text of this page is still being written.

Next step

Start from the number on your notice

The calculator shows the art. 345 reduction step by step, then the band, then the payable figure and the deadlines.

Open the calculator