San Francisco is making headlines once again, this time for launching a unique traffic enforcement program.
The city has activated 33 fixed speed cameras, but what sets this initiative apart isn’t just the cameras—it’s how fines are calculated.
Instead of a one-size-fits-all penalty, the cost of a speeding ticket will depend on the driver’s income.
Sliding Scale Fines: A Controversial Move
This means-tested system offers low-income drivers a 50% discount on their fines.
While supporters see it as a fair way to ensure penalties don’t disproportionately impact those struggling financially, critics argue it creates an unfair double standard.
Detractors are already labeling it a “woke penalty loophole,” claiming it prioritizes social justice over consistent law enforcement.
How the System Works
Under the new rules, drivers caught exceeding the speed limit by at least 11 mph will face fines ranging from $50 to $500, depending on how fast they were going.
However, for those earning below $30,120 per year (for a single-person household), fines will automatically be cut in half.
The income threshold increases for larger households, reaching up to $83,920 for a family of six.
Speed Cameras Go Live, Tickets Start in May
The speed cameras, which went live last Thursday, are placed at intersections with high accident rates, including school zones.
For now, drivers will receive warnings during a two-month grace period.
Starting in May, though, real citations will begin arriving in mailboxes.
A Revenue Boom for the City?
City officials estimate these cameras could generate up to 42,000 tickets per day, translating to a massive revenue stream.
But transportation officials insist the goal isn’t just about money—it’s about making streets safer.
“There’s big signage at all locations. We’re trying to educate people and prevent speeding,” said Julie Kirschbaum, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) transportation director, in an interview with ABC7.
A Model for Other California Cities?
San Francisco is the first city in California to implement this approach, but it may not be the last.
Officials are gathering data to assess its effectiveness, with hopes of guiding other cities across the state in adopting similar measures.
“Collecting data, documenting our experience—our goal is to help cities throughout California implement this important safety tool,” Kirschbaum explained.
The Debate Over Fairness
Advocates argue that traditional fixed fines often hit low-income drivers hardest, leading to cascading consequences like license suspensions and job loss.
By tying fines to income, proponents hope to encourage safer driving habits without placing undue financial strain on those who can least afford it.
Marta Lindsey, communications director for the safety group Walk SF, pointed to New York City’s success with speed cameras as an example. “Speed cameras change behavior, reducing crashes.
New York City has seen dramatic improvements, with very few people getting second tickets,” she noted.
Safety vs. Equality: The Bigger Picture
Despite the potential safety benefits, critics warn of a slippery slope.
They argue that penalizing the same offense differently based on income creates a dangerous precedent—one where punishment depends not on the infraction itself, but on who commits it.
Additionally, questions remain about enforcement transparency, potential fraud, and how income verification will be handled, given that California’s DMV does not track income levels.
With other California cities watching closely, the success—or failure—of San Francisco’s program could determine whether similar policies spread statewide.
For now, the city is once again at the forefront of a bold and controversial experiment in urban governance.