Putting cameras with artificial intelligence to monitor traffic sounds, on paper, like an almost inevitable solution: less paperwork, more speed and an administration capable of detecting violations without depending on an agent being in the right place. The problem appears when that promise comes down to the asphalt and what we have seen in Greece forces us to ask a much more difficult question for any automated system: what happens when the machine flags a possible infraction, but then someone has to check if it really existed.
The problem. Ta Nea published a figure that forces us to look at the system from the inside, not only in terms of the fines that reach the driver. According to the Greek media, during the pilot phase the percentage of failures or incorrect registrations would have reached between 90% and 95%. The scale helps to understand the problem: of 5,500 records generated by the system, only 400 were validated as correct after review by the Greek Police. The remaining cases included 1,300 cases attributed to cell phone use and 3,800 due to speeding that were eventually discarded.
The key. The Greek system provides for a long chain: cameras record a possible infringement, this information goes through validation by the competent authority and only then can it be broadcast and digitally notified to the citizen. That is why Ta Nea’s data is so relevant. It does not simply point to drivers who resort after receiving a sanction, but to a previous bottleneck: a huge amount of records that the system generates and that the Police have to review before considering them good.
New violation management model. Greece has had the Digital Traffic Violations Certification System in a pilot phase since the end of March, designed to gradually replace handwritten fines with a digital registration and processing process. In this first stage, two main sources intervene: the cameras of the public transport company OSY in the bus lanes, aimed at traffic and parking violations, and the network of “smart” cameras linked to the Ministry of Digital Governance.
Then comes another plane. Until May 30, 2026, according to Euronews, the new mechanism had generated 2,453 digital fines, for which 420 allegations were presented, 17.12% of the total. Of those claims, 52 were accepted, equivalent to 2.11% of all fines issued. Most of the accepted cases were related to technical or procedural issues, such as time differences, difficult-to-read data or exceptions linked to seat belt use.
The distinction. One thing is the records that the camera generates and that must then go through police review before becoming a valid sanction. Another thing is the fines that have already passed that filter, have been issued, have been notified to the citizen and can then be the subject of allegations. In other words: the system has a human review before the fine arrives, but that does not prevent some drivers from continuing to appeal sanctions that had already gone through that circuit.
Conflict point. As explained by a transportation expert cited by Ta Nea, the failure would not be so much in external violations as in those that occur inside the vehicle. Running a red light or driving over the speed limit can be recorded more faithfully, while detecting whether someone is wearing a seatbelt or using a cell phone depends on much more variable factors. Shadows, colors, camera angles or objects such as a cigarette can alter the reading and turn a questionable image into an alleged infringement.
Images | Greek Ministry of Digital Governance
In | A German driver set out to discover how much he could stretch the tank of his old diesel car. And he has done 2,400 kilometers
