San Francisco’s Woke Traffic Safety Initiative: Making Fines Fair?

San Francisco’s new Speed Safety System Pilot Program seeks to tackle speeding with an innovative approach, but not without igniting a heated debate over its equitable fine structure.

Quick Takes

San Francisco launches a network of 33 speed cameras.
Fines are based on income, sparking controversy.
Criticism arises over perceived favoritism and ‘woke penalty loophole.’
Aims to prevent traffic fatalities, which exceeded homicides last year.

Speed Cameras Rolled Out

San Francisco has initiated the Speed Safety System Pilot Program, installing 33 speed cameras, making it the first city in California to implement such a network. These cameras, located in high-risk areas like ‘high-injury corridors’ and school zones, aim to curb speeding by photographing violators at key intersections. Fines range from $50 to $500, depending on how fast an individual is caught driving over the limit. Discounts are provided for low-income individuals, with penalties reducing significantly for those earning less annually.

The fines are adjusted based on the offender’s earnings, offering a 50 percent discount for lower-income drivers. This approach, championed by Governor Gavin Newsom, aims to reduce the financial impact on economically vulnerable populations while maintaining a deterrent against traffic transgressions. However, the progressive nature of these fines has sparked controversy and prompted debate over fairness. Critics argue this system could set a precedent for unequal penalties based on income, rather than the infraction’s severity.

Controversy and Criticism

The income-based structure has been criticized as a ‘woke penalty loophole,’ with some viewing it as favoritism. Critics express concern that it undermines uniform law enforcement by prioritizing income-based justice. San Francisco resident and political commentator Richie Greenberg highlights, “The Fourteenth Amendment promises uniformity, not a sliding scale of justice tailored to personal finances.” The Speed Safety System Pilot Program sparked further debate about enforcement transparency and the possibility of abuse or selective application, raising public mistrust.

Complaints focus on the potential for the program to become a revenue grab by targeting successful individuals rather than promoting safety. The democratic legislation behind the initiative specifies that violations result in civil penalties without impacting driving privileges. Cameras are operated by Verra Mobility and do not employ facial recognition technology, an assurance that aims to address privacy concerns.

San Francisco’s New Speed Camera Fines Scaled by a Driver’s Income Are Fast Approaching https://t.co/vXtNx3j21s pic.twitter.com/WLrXleUBHg

— warrantyuplift (@warrantyuplift) March 26, 2025

Education and Broader Impacts

Initially, the program allows for a two-month warning period, wherein warning notices are issued instead of actual fines, emphasizing education over punishment. San Francisco’s transportation director, Julie Kirschbaum remarks, “We’re trying to educate people. We’re trying to prevent speeding.” The program’s implementation follows a noticeable year for traffic fatalities, exceeding homicide numbers in San Francisco.

San Francisco’s ambitions extend beyond local boundaries. By documenting and analyzing the program’s results, the city aims to serve as a model, potentially aiding other cities within California to adopt similar systems, ultimately enhancing statewide traffic safety. However, the success of this initiative and whether it achieves its primary goal of reducing accidents and saving lives remain to be assessed over time, as the legal and public debate unfolds.