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.
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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY