That would be the headline if the purpose was public safety. The purpose is making money.
The outcomes of a program display sensitive dependence on rhetoric purpose of a program.
Consider SF parking enforcement. Operated by the transit authority and revenue goes to funding that authority. Enforcement is rigid, rapid and focuses on high revenue returns. Trading citizen quality of life for revenue. No contrast with parking enforcement in NYC. Performed by police with an eye towards public safety and order. The results are far more pleasant and reasonable and lo less orderly.
When you do it for the money you corrupt the purpose.
You could put the money in a shredder immediately after collection, if it would make you feel better. It would have an identical effect on road safety as if you had taken the money and spent it on something useful or used it to reduce taxes.
I drove down to SF a couple years back and people there drive like lunatics.
> About half of the drivers who got tickets were going between 16 and 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, a Chronicle analysis found, which incurs a $100 fine, though the amount is lower for people who qualify as low-income or receive public benefits.
Get caught here doing 30km/h over the speed limit and they suspend your license.
> That’s good for more than $1.2 million in fines, if they are all paid in full.
> The speed camera citations come at a critical time for street safety. Speeding is the leading cause of deadly collisions, and last year, 42 people were killed in car crashes in the city — the highest number in almost two decades.
It seems to me, that will total $365M in fines. How about instead of that money going to the government, it can just go to the families of people that die each year.
Headline should be, "SF speed cameras successfully ticketing criminals putting others at risk"
That would be the headline if the purpose was public safety. The purpose is making money. The outcomes of a program display sensitive dependence on rhetoric purpose of a program.
Consider SF parking enforcement. Operated by the transit authority and revenue goes to funding that authority. Enforcement is rigid, rapid and focuses on high revenue returns. Trading citizen quality of life for revenue. No contrast with parking enforcement in NYC. Performed by police with an eye towards public safety and order. The results are far more pleasant and reasonable and lo less orderly.
When you do it for the money you corrupt the purpose.
You could put the money in a shredder immediately after collection, if it would make you feel better. It would have an identical effect on road safety as if you had taken the money and spent it on something useful or used it to reduce taxes.
I drove down to SF a couple years back and people there drive like lunatics.
> About half of the drivers who got tickets were going between 16 and 20 miles an hour over the speed limit, a Chronicle analysis found, which incurs a $100 fine, though the amount is lower for people who qualify as low-income or receive public benefits.
Get caught here doing 30km/h over the speed limit and they suspend your license.
Always fascinating to see SF making leaps into the 20th century. First electrified train lines, now speed cameras. Soon we'll be reaching the 1980s!
Well, at least they’re only 20 years behind the UK! This editorial from 20 years ago could have been written today about SF: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/dec/20/politics.publicse...
> That’s good for more than $1.2 million in fines, if they are all paid in full.
> The speed camera citations come at a critical time for street safety. Speeding is the leading cause of deadly collisions, and last year, 42 people were killed in car crashes in the city — the highest number in almost two decades.
It seems to me, that will total $365M in fines. How about instead of that money going to the government, it can just go to the families of people that die each year.