The city's speed camera program has produced some genuinely impressive numbers. Drivers clocking 10 mph or more over the limit dropped by nearly 80% at camera locations compared to pre-program levels. Of those who did get a citation, 65% never got a second one, and 82% received two or fewer notices total.

Translation: people are actually slowing down, and those who get caught mostly learn their lesson the first time.

Now, let's be clear — this editorial page is generally allergic to the expansion of government surveillance infrastructure. Speed cameras are, at their core, automated ticketing machines that generate revenue while removing human judgment from enforcement. There's a version of this program that's just a cash grab dressed up in pedestrian-safety language.

But the data here tells a different story. The whole point of a deterrent is to deter, and an 80% reduction in dangerous speeding is hard to argue with. If the goal were purely revenue extraction, you'd want repeat offenders — not behavior change. The fact that most drivers shape up after one citation suggests the program is functioning as a safety tool, not a money printer.

The libertarian in us still wants to see more transparency: Where exactly is this revenue going? What's the total cost of the program versus citations collected? Are cameras being placed at genuinely dangerous intersections or at speed-trap-friendly spots where limits feel artificially low?

Those questions matter. Government programs that start with good intentions have a nasty habit of mission-creeping into something less noble. But credit where it's due — if these numbers hold up under scrutiny, San Francisco may have found one of the rare cases where automated enforcement actually makes streets safer rather than just making city coffers fatter.

Keep the data coming, and we'll keep watching.