San Francisco Introduces Income-Based Traffic Fines; The More You Earn, The More You Pay
For those exceeding 100 miles per hour, the fines rise significantly: $500 for standard-income drivers, $250 for low-income individuals, and $100 for public assistance recipients.
As part of a pilot program for a speed safety system, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority has installed 33 traffic cameras throughout the city and surrounding areas. The cameras were activated last month. During the program’s first two months, drivers who exceed the speed limit will receive warnings. After that period, citations will be issued.
There’s nothing particularly unusual about that. Many of us have received tickets by mail over the past couple of decades. What makes this initiative extraordinary, however, is that under California Assembly Bill No. 645, the fines will vary according to the driver’s income level.
According to the schedule published on the SFMTA’s website, drivers exceeding the speed limit by 11 to 15 miles per hour will face a base fine of $50. Those classified as low-income but not enrolled in public assistance programs will be fined $25. Meanwhile, drivers participating in public assistance programs such as SNAP, CalWORKs, Medi-Cal, CAPI, or IHSS will pay just $10.
For drivers traveling 16 to 25 miles per hour over the speed limit, the standard fine is $100. Low-income drivers will be fined $50, while those enrolled in public assistance programs will pay $20.
For those exceeding 100 miles per hour, the fines rise significantly: $500 for standard-income drivers, $250 for low-income individuals, and $100 for public assistance recipients.
A driver qualifies for low-income status if their gross annual income (before taxes) is at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
The SFMTA’s new fee structure was the focus of a panel discussion on the Fox News program Outnumbered last week.
While acknowledging the safety concerns, co-host Emily Compagno criticized the income-based penalty system, questioning the fairness of charging significantly different fines for the same offense.
She argued that the fee structure—fully supported by California Governor Gavin Newsom—was implemented “all in the name of equity.”
Compagno noted that the speed cameras had been installed in areas where pedestrians had previously been struck and killed. She asked her colleague, Fox Business News anchor Gerri Willis, “So if all lives are equal, why are we giving discounts on speeding tickets when everyone should understand how serious it is to drive safely where people have died?”
Willis concluded that we are not all equal in the eyes of the law. Derisive of the state government for allowing such a farce, she speculated sarcastically, “Might this get extended eventually? So maybe if I commit a burglary, and I don’t have a lot of money, maybe that’s okay, or maybe I get a reduced sentence. I just don’t understand the logic operating here. I think we should all be equal in the eyes of the law and everybody should pay the same fine, serve the same sentence.”
Just one more reason why Californians are leaving the state in droves.
San Fancisco is launching a new "equity" speed-cam program, backed by Gov. Newsom. pic.twitter.com/Vtw324kDM0
— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) April 1, 2025
Last week, I reported that the British Sentencing Council had issued new guidelines introducing harsher penalties for white males over the age of 25 compared to individuals from ethnic, religious, or other minority groups, including women—particularly pregnant women. Even British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, both liberals, thought the Council had gone too far and were searching for ways to “scrap” it. As it turned out, following a serious backlash, the Council withdrew the guidelines on their own.
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
That’s standard in Sweden, I think. There’s an occasional news item about a $500,000 speeding fine on some rich guy. The principle is equal hurt.
“From each according to his speed…”
You win the interwebs tonight!
It is but Sweden doesn’t have a Constitution protecting it’s citizens from the depravations of government. I can’t see how this law stands even basic scrutiny.
I would agree to this but only if a special top tier is created for government officials both elected and otherwise. Penalties should be 10x that of the tier immediately below. After all, they’re from the government and they should both know better and lead by example.
I disagree. Income based fines are totally unfair. Fines should be based on race:
For oriental and white drivers, the standard fine is $100. Hispanic drivers will be fined $50, while black drivers will pay $20.
Race is insufficient. It has to be by your oppression index as defined by the latest intersectional treatise. Thus a white or white affiliated heterosexual male is defined 50% of their net worth while a illegal alien black hispanic disabled queer or transexual is paid 100k for each traffic offense they commit.
What about people who identify as black?
Drive carefully, Sundar.
The flaw with this system (which is already used in Norway) is that it becomes just one more incentive to leave a city already in decline. Were living in San Francisco still as desirable as in the golden days, people might be willing to accept it. However, in the city’s current state it’s easy to imagine a week where you drive to your favorite restaurant, park, and then navigate on foot through the junkies and filth on the sidewalk only to the the place out of business. When you get back to your car, you find your window broken. A week later you get a speeding ticket for $50 in the mail because you sped up to get away from the bum who was shouting crazy things at you and your date (through your broken window) while you were stopped at a traffic light.
Colorado and remote work will suddenly start to look pretty tempting.
As someone who has been known to have a heavy foot at times I want to put out a contrarian point of view.
This implementation sucks but I would argue that it’s to cheap on the upside. The point of speeding laws is safety; particularly outside of highways. Fines is how they are enforced and should impose at least a moderate disincentive to speeding . The 50 or 100 dollar fine is not a strong disincentive to many people. (I have very fond memories of my new Mustang Coupe on The Merritt even with the very well deserved ticket I got). Lots of people drop 50 on a casual night out and multiples of that frequently. It would make sense to have such fines scale to make the incentive similar irrespective of financial well being.
Of course this law is lowering the disincentive, not raising it so my contrarian point is hypothetical.
No, the purpose of the fines is not safety, but revenue generation.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The point of speeding laws is revenue. The excuse for speeding laws is safety. 65 MPH speed limit on interstates in NY, designed for 90 MPH speeds with 1950 and 1960s technology. Crossover into PA and the same exact highway suddenly becomes “safe” at 70 MPH. The speed limit on I-95 changes as you go from state to state. Do you really think that’s for safety?
I’m old enough to remember that when I was child the backroad speed limit in NY was 65 MPH. I find it impossible to find records of this. I do know that today out west there are secondary 2 lane roads with a posted 65 MPH speed limit. Not as many deer as in CNY- but more danger of hitting wandering cattle.
I hit 90 MPH on the backroads today going to work- slowing down for curves I couldn’t see around in case there was an Amish buggy meandering along. Hitting one of then in daylight is pure carelessness. The only person I was endangering was myself- and there wasn’t any real danger there.
“Driving too fast for conditions” is an easy ticket. If you veer off the road you were driving too fast.
until the good people get feed up with this……
correction:
fed up
Murder one gets you a life sentence if white.
20 years if Hispanic.
90 days if black.
that has been the way its been working for the usa the past few decades
welcome to the lefty takeover
90 days (suspended), the cover of Time magazine, and an interview by Oprah or on the spew if black.
Equity in sentencing. Or get out of jail free card for blacks.
Explain to me like I’m a paste-eating five year old that does unholy things with crayons how this is not a violation of my 14th amendment rights?
No one is arguing that traffic law enforcement isn’t important but I’m just as dangerous to the general public when I’m a millionaire speeding as I am when I’m broke.
So, please spare me any further argument that the Democrats give any thought whatsoever to whether their stupid schemes pass constitutional muster before they try enacting laws/regulations wholly to the contrary.
this is how the dems keep the angry violent leftist street armies on their side
if it fails the scotus then they can trot out the us vs them
if it stays the law
they can brag on how they are for the little guys
That was my thought as well.
In addition, how does the state plan on forcing people to disclose their income and wealth?
Oh, they already have that information.
You give it to them every April..
I would agree with you except for the fact that tax filings at both the state and federal level are confidential and cannot be accessed by other agencies.
In other words, you not only have a violation of the 14th Amendment, but a violation of state / federal laws.
It’s just an income tax, see?
Oh no, you dropped your cups on the sidewalk. That’s a $10 fine for you and the death penalty for that one.
If you are concerned about safety rather than generating revenue, the way to prevent people from speeding is to suspend their license after a given number of speeding tickets rather than imposing a draconian fine.
Want to see vigilante justice?
This is a good start.
So much for the concept of “Equal justice under the law.” May as well scrape that off the Supreme Court building.
Probably hasn’t been visible in 50 years due to the pigeon droppings. At least I think they’re pigeon droppings.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”….now, where have I heard this before?
This is just another way for California sh*tlibs to steal more money from the public under the guise of social justice. As if its income tax rates aren’t ridiculous enough, the sales tax rate in some parts of California is 11%. The taxing authority in California is know as the Board of Equalization. Meanwhile, economic inequality for Californians continues to spiral out of control. Why? Because sh*tlibs are unmatched in their ability to take other people’s money to enrich themselves.
Just another reason why all personal income taxes should be abolished. They’re (in part) a way for the government to learn things about us (i.e., our financial status) that it has no business knowing.
If driver doesn’t have insurance, will the state wind up getting money? Inquiring minds want to know.
Driving while knowingly suspended and driving without insurance should be classified as mid level misdemeanors if this is really an issue about safety…. and since wealthier drivers have too much to lose driving without insurance we will be taking lots of poor ( in multiple senses of the word) drivers off the road…thus enhancing public safety and filling the jails.
“I just don’t understand the logic operating here” It’s Democrats operating here, they don’t use it because it is hard or something.
Someone tell me how someone on public assistance can even afford to drive in SF. How can they afford a car, insurance, gas or do hand out all that to people on public assistance now. For that matter how can someone low income afford to drive (unless to SF low income is someone only making 100k/year),
So if a rich man hires a poor driver they can grossly exceed the speed limit because the fines will be peanuts?
14th Amendment was just a suggestion.
As for the policy implication: I expect this will accelerate the flight of productive middle class citizens out of the city. Permanently.
New business opportunity:
It’s a traffic camera. It can’t ticket drivers, it must ticket registered owners. Poor people can charge rich people to list their names on the vehicle’s registration.
Its being tested in LA also?
So what happens with 3 million illegal aliens living in CA who don’t pay income tax?
Leave a Comment