In a significant shift in California’s approach to road safety, drivers in the state will no longer find themselves facing speed cameras with smiles on their faces. Instead, they will encounter a pioneering traffic safety innovation, as Governor Gavin Newsom has recently sanctioned a groundbreaking speed-camera program. The cameras are poised for deployment in six major cities within the Golden State, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Long Beach, Glendale, and San Jose. This endeavor represents a historic departure from the past, marking the very first time speed cameras have been permitted in the state.
Combatting Pedestrian Fatalities
These cutting-edge cameras are strategically positioned at busy intersections with one primary objective: to combat the distressing increase in pedestrian fatalities that California has witnessed. The deployment of these cameras is a testament to the state’s firm commitment to enhancing road safety, underlining the gravity of the issue at hand.
Damian Kevitt, who serves as the Executive Director of Streets are for Everyone, points out the pivotal role speed plays in the concerning surge of traffic-related fatalities in Los Angeles. He asserts that “speed is by far the largest reason why people are being hit and killed on our streets.” The situation is undeniably urgent, as daily news reports continually spotlight the dire consequences of our roads becoming perilous grounds.
To ensure that these speed cameras serve as a genuine deterrent rather than mere revenue generators, stringent conditions are imposed. Each installation site must gain community consent, particularly in areas close to schools and locations notorious for illegal racing and frequent traffic accidents. This community-driven approach distinguishes the new program from approximately a dozen prior bills that aimed to introduce speed cameras but faltered in their attempts.
Equitable Enforcement
These state-of-the-art cameras are programmed to automatically issue citations to drivers exceeding the posted speed limit by 11 miles per hour, offering a warning for the first violation and a $50 fine for a subsequent offense. Notably, low-income drivers will face a reduced penalty of $25, ensuring that the law treats all individuals equitably.
Lessons from the past
In the past, Los Angeles embarked on a similar venture in 2004, focusing on penalizing drivers who ran red lights in busy traffic zones. Unfortunately, logistical challenges and unforeseen consequences led to the abandonment of the program in 2011. Drivers frequently engaged in abrupt braking when confronted with a yellow traffic signal, inadvertently causing rear-end collisions. Moreover, the city grappled with the arduous task of identifying and penalizing the correct offenders, often sending citations to vehicle owners rather than the actual drivers.
Legislators faced repeated setbacks in their efforts to pass this legislation, with concerns about privacy infringement triggering significant resistance. Nevertheless, the urgent need to curb the rising tide of pedestrian fatalities has finally spurred decisive action.
In recent years, a series of high-profile pedestrian fatalities, including the tragic case of 12-year-old Lily in 2022, have sent shockwaves through the community. Lily’s untimely demise, resulting from a speeding driver in Los Angeles, sparked widespread outrage and ignited demands for improved traffic safety measures.
The speed-camera program enjoys robust support from various safety advocacy groups, such as the National Coalition for Safer Roads and the Governors Highway Safety Association. Their endorsement underscores the significance of this initiative as a pivotal step toward enhanced road safety.
Anticipating substantial revenue generation, the program is poised to channel millions of dollars annually into traffic safety initiatives and infrastructure enhancements. Furthermore, some cities are contemplating using the generated revenue to establish guaranteed basic income programs for low-income residents, thereby mitigating the potential disproportionate impact on disadvantaged drivers.
