Sounds right. Here in SF, instead of police pulling over people who speed and run stop signs, we're getting rid of parking spots within 20ft of intersections so people speeding and running stop signs can see if they're about to kill a pedestrian.

Could raise a fortune for public transit if we enforced traffic laws and used that money.

Because police can't physically be in every intersection at once, and there's research that shows that removing parking around intersections reduces pedestrian fatalities. They could add cameras, but I bet you that people would fight tooth and nail against that as well... not being able to park within 20ft of an intersection doesn't cause any privacy issues, or funnel money into the city councilman's cousin's company that just so happens to be in the business of installing red light and stop sign photo enforcement cameras, or need ongoing maintenance to keep working

> Because police can't physically be in every intersection at once

Can we compromise at some number greater than 0? I've lived here for more than a decade and don't remember seeing anyone getting pulled over by SFPD.

> Because police can't physically be in every intersection at once

They don't have to be everywhere. They have to be at least _somewhere_ and start visible enforcing. People need to know that they might get away with running a red light a couple of times, but they WILL be caught eventually, and there WILL be consequences.

> and there's research that shows that removing parking around intersections reduces pedestrian fatalities.

I read a lot of the urbanist propaganda research, and most of it is pure crap. Bad statistical methods, poor significance, P-hacking, biased tests, you name it.

SF put in 33 speed cameras in known locations, and are aiming to install 900 more by the end of this year. As a bonus to speeders, speeds in excess of 100 mph will incur a $500 speeding ticket, though that may have unintended consequences.

what unintended consequences?

The real unintended consequence is that cities ultimately don’t like to run them. They’re effective, and thus the revenue the city is expecting disappears. In they end they become costs rather than revenue sources.

The root problem is voters tolerating a government that sees law enforcement as a profit center.

that hasn't been true in any city i've lived in that had speed cameras (shockingly few actually). dc makes money on their cameras

$500 is just dinner for some people in SF.

Or maybe people will drive at 99 mph to get the best value.

is this different than the existing law? like they're not lowering the penalty

Speeding also carries point penalties. Get caught a few times and your license is suspended. You can’t just pay to speed indefinitely (unless you also buy something like a get out of jail free card from the police union).

A normal person sees that $500 fine as a incentive to not go that fast. But there's a certain kind of person for whom $500 is nothing compared to being able to tell the story of that time the city sold them a picture of them, complete with certificate that says they broke 100mph somewhere in the city limits, a trophy to frame and display openly in the garage next to said vehicle.

Really gotta wonder if the people that downvoted disagree that people would do such a thing, don't want to give people ideas and thus buried it, or are people who would do such a thing. Or some other thing.

Nothing special. Slight increases in minor accidents and near misses, some minority of which will involve pedestrians or road rage violence Basically the same downsides as anything else that changes the speed via rule or enforcement rather than changing the conditions of the road (e.g. "traffic calming").

i fail to see how adding cameras and an additional penalty will lead to any of those things

Because it only affects some drivers leading to higher variance in speed leading to more friction among traffic. Same reason everyone with a brain suggests traffic calming over changing the numbers on the signs.

This is transit 101 level stuff.

There’s a cost of policing, and a significant amount of ticket revenue goes to court fees. Not everyone pays their ticket.

Likely it’d not raise a fortune and the ticketing revenue would mostly offset the cost of enforcement.

That's.. fine? It'd drive behavior modification if there was even a small risk of getting a citation. Today, there really isn't.

> we're getting rid of parking spots within 20ft of intersections

This is called daylighting, and it’s a very good idea. The rest of your comment was just snark, and I assume you know that road improvements don’t have anything to do with law enforcement, but I just want to emphasize that daylighting is going to be a huge positive for the city.

You must not be a pedestrian if you don’t like the red zones at intersections. You can’t see the oncoming traffic without stepping into the intersection.

> Could raise a fortune for public transit if we enforced traffic laws and used that money.

If you consistently enforce the law then the fine revenue falls below even its current level because consistent enforcement reduces violations, meanwhile costs go up because the additional enforcement has to be paid for.

The existing system is the one cultivated to maximize revenue by setting speed limits below the median traffic speed so that cops can "efficiently" issue citations one after another as long as there isn't enough enforcement to induce widespread compliance. This is, of course, dumb, but the alternatives generate less net profit for the government.

First off, false equivalence - there is no "instead of", what the police do or do not is unrelated to the reduction of parking spaces.

Second, implementing safety by modifying the physical environment is vastly superior to anything else because it scales. There's no longer a need to educate every single person who will use every intersection in the city every day on how to do it safely, nor a need to ensure x police officers are present. The physical design creates an environment that is safe by default.