San Francisco’s low-income discount on speeding fines is not justice

Do you like speeding but are in a low-income bracket? San Francisco has got your back. California residents who earn $30,120 or less annually for a single-person household can cut their fines in half, according to Carscoops.

The delinquent discount is part of the city’s new fixed-speed camera initiative which launched last week. Fixed speed cameras are a form of automated speed enforcement (photo radar) and are used to monitor vehicle speeds and issue tickets to those who exceed the limit. San Francisco has installed 33 of them in school zones and high-injury corridors. For the first 60 days offenders will get a warning. After that, according to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, a rising scale will apply, with fines starting at US$50 for going more than 10 miles an hour over the limit to $500 for driver at more than 100 miles an hour. City officials believe they can issue up to 42,000 tickets a day.

Low-income offenders can reduce the cost of their speeding ticket by 50 per cent. So, a California resident who earns $30,110 annually can drive 100 miles an hour (160 kilometres an hour) on a city street and pay $250. While San Francisco has had “ability-to-pay” deductions for parking tickets since 2018, some argue this kind of income-based fine reduction is a “woke penalty loophole.” After all, illegal parking does not put lives in danger.

Speeding, in contrast, can kill.

But let’s look at this from a rights perspective.

Why should California residents who earn $30,120 or less and enjoy recklessly speeding and endangering others pay a disproportionate fine? Shouldn’t the right to speed be open to all residents regardless of income? Why should a rich San Franciscan get to speed around the City by the Bay and barely feel the pain, while a San Franciscan on a fixed income must carefully mete out his speeding sprees lest he go bankrupt?

Maybe it’s all scientific stuff? Perhaps San Francisco city officials have done research that shows when you get run over by a car driven by a California resident who earns less than $30,120 annually for a single-person household it hurts 50 per cent less than if you get run over by a California resident who earns more than $30,120 annually.

It may be that the city wishes to discourage speeding equally. If so, then the correct course of action is not to reduce fines but to increase them and tie them to income. It’s a practice common in some Scandinavian countries. Finland, for instance, has “sliding-scale penalties” for traffic offences and tickets are linked to salary. In 2023, Finnish multimillionaire businessman Anders Wiklof received a €121,000 fine ($173,600) for going 82 kilometres an hour in a 50 zone. Wiklof had been driving along a road in the Aland islands, an autonomous archipelago in the Baltic Sea owned by Finland, when “suddenly” the speed limit changed to 50 from 70. It wasn’t Wiklof’s first offence. Since 2013 he had racked up more than $400,000 in speeding tickets.

Fines are nice but you know what’s another good way to stop people from speeding?

Jail.

If you drive 161 kilometres an hour on a city street near a school, park or senior centre, you should not get a fine; you should go to jail. Your car should be impounded and your picture put in the newspaper.

Why is speeding in a residential neighbourhood any less criminal than waving around a knife or a pistol? Last week in Calgary an 11-year-old child was almost run over by a white Honda Civic speeding in a residential neighbourhood. Would this child have been more dead if she were struck by a bullet than she would if she were killed by a car?

Meanwhile in San Francisco, I see a new addition to the “gig economy.” Pretty soon California residents who earn more than $30,120 annually for a single-person household (and enjoy speeding) will hire California residents who earn less (and enjoy speeding) to do their driving for them. Think of them as designated low-income speeders. In the driver’s seat, you’ll have “Mister $30,120 or Less” with a lead foot and in the passenger seat “Mister More than $30,120” getting his thrill on.

Think of the savings.