Are Kent speed cameras about the money or the safety?

Two new school zone speed cameras are in place in Kent, after concerns that drivers are speeding around a pair of elementary schools in the district. I think most people support the idea of making these school zones safer for kids, however, a couple moves associated with these cameras seem problematic, playing into the oft-cited idea that these cameras are really just a money grab.

These cameras will be placed outside Meridian Elementary and Millennium Elementary, with KIRO TV saying you’ll be popped with a $124 ticket if you’re driving even one mile over the speed limit. That seems remarkable. Are they even calibrated to detect that with certainty? You’re hardly anymore a danger if you go one mile over the speed limit than if you go one mile under. Ten miles per hour over? That’s a different story, which is why that ticket would level a $248 fine against the driver. But one mile over seems absurd.

The cameras won’t start issuing the tickets for at least a month; right now they’re in a warning period. Instead of a ticket, drivers will get a notice reminding them that there are cameras in place and that they need to slow down or next time they’ll get the ticket.

Related: Man warns drivers about police traffic trap, gets ticketed

But if child safety is at issue, why would you have a waiting period? If the chances are high that a kid will be hit by a speeding car while walking to school, it makes little sense to wait a month before cracking down on speeding. If people are speeding now, you punish now. Certainly the city isn’t willing to let children get hit by speeding cars just so they can offer fair warning to drivers that a month from now they’ll be ticketed.

Both of these issues seem to play into the narrative that this is all about making money. You grab $124 in penalties for driving one mile over the speed limit? You give everyone a month-long warning so when someone is outraged they got hit with a ticket for going one mile too fast, “Well, we warned you about the cameras!”

KIRO reports that during a preview warning period, nearly 2,000 warning notices were mailed out; it could have equated to $225,000 to the city of Kent. I imagine if you can get that for punishing behavior that doesn’t put anyone’s life significantly more in danger than if you were one mile slower than the speed limit, you have a city salivating for the funds.

Do you think this is more about safety or more about funding the city’s coffers?