The City of San Francisco recently brought 33 speed cameras online, monitoring and ticketing drivers who flaunt posted speed limits in identified problem areas around town. The problem is, as the rollout of the enforcement was announced, the speeding fines are predicated on income level, creating separate classes of accountability.

The practice of offering low-income discounts on speeding ticket fines is a blatant violation of justice, undermining the very principles that should govern our legal system. It creates a two-tiered framework where the punishment for breaking the law—specifically, speeding—depends not on the offense itself, but on the offender’s bank account. This is fundamentally unfair, discriminatory, and erodes the rule of law, punishing those who earn more while letting the less affluent off with a slap on the wrist. Never mind higher income earners do not necessarily have greater disposable income to pay such fines that are double those in the “low income” category.

Consider the scenario: Two drivers, both clocked at 51 mph in a 25 mph zone, are issued tickets. One, a struggling single parent, gets a $200 fine slashed to $100 because of their income. The other, a middle-class worker who’s scrimped to afford their car, pays the full $200. Same speed, same road, same danger—yet wildly different consequences. How is this equal protection under the law? The Fourteenth Amendment promises uniformity, not a sliding scale of justice tailored to personal finances. By tying fines to income, we’re not punishing the act of speeding; we’re punishing people’s success or lack thereof. That’s not equity—it’s reverse discrimination, plain and simple.

The argument that discounts prevent hardship for the poor doesn’t hold water. Speeding around town isn’t a necessity—it’s a choice, often a reckless one. If you can’t afford the fine, don’t break the law. Roads aren’t safer because a low-income driver pays less; the incentive to obey speed limits weakens when the penalty shrinks. Meanwhile, higher earners face a disproportionate burden, effectively subsidizing a system that coddles those who plead poverty. Why should someone who’s worked hard to climb the economic ladder be penalized more for the same infraction? It’s a perverse twist of logic that rewards one group while shafting another, all under the guise of fairness.

This income-based approach also insults the concept of due process. Fines should reflect the severity of the violation—end of story. A speeding ticket isn’t a tax bill; it’s a consequence for endangering lives. When two drivers commit the identical offense, the punishment should be identical, period. Adjusting it based on wealth introduces arbitrariness into what should be a clear-cut system. If a 26+ mph violation warrants a $200 fine, that’s the price of accountability—not $100 for some and $200 for others. Anything less mocks the idea that laws apply evenly.

Worse, these discounts breed resentment and cynicism. Imagine the middle-class driver who skips a vacation to pay their fine, only to learn their low-income neighbor got a discount for the same offense. It’s not just unfair—it’s infuriating. Public trust in the legal system crumbles when people see justice doled out like a welfare check. And what about enforcement? Cops and courts now have to play financial auditors, verifying income to decide penalties. That’s a waste of time and resources, bogging down a system already strained to enforce traffic laws effectively.

Proponents might cite cases like Bearden v. Georgia to argue that flat fines hurt the poor disproportionately. But that ruling addressed jail time for unpaid fines—not the lawbreaking leading to the fines themselves. Speeding tickets don’t automatically land you in prison; they’re civil penalties, and payment plans exist for those who need them. Discounts aren’t the answer—uniformity is. If the goal is road safety, tie fines to the offense’s risk—say, higher penalties for speeding near schools—rather than the driver’s paycheck.

An unlucky individual caught speeding and receiving a ticket based on earnings might sue in District Court of California, alleging the system invades privacy (income disclosure) or violates the state constitution’s uniformity clause (Article IV, Section 16). The case could climb to the California Supreme Court, known for balancing equity and individual rights. Forcing one to reveal their income for a speeding ticket is a due process violation. This isn’t about safety—it’s a revenue grab targeting successful people.

In the end, low-income discounts on speeding fines are a misguided experiment in social engineering, not justice. They divide rather than unite, penalizing some to coddle others. Laws should be blind to income, not calibrated by it. Anything less is a betrayal of fairness, turning a speeding ticket into a wealth test—and that’s a road we shouldn’t be speeding down.

Richie Greenberg is a 23-year resident of San Francisco, a political commentator and former candidate for mayor. For more information, go to Richiegreenberg.org. X/Twitter: @greenbergnation.