A recent investigation of ticketing in Chicago produced a dismal result:
A ProPublica analysis of millions of citations found that households in majority Black and Hispanic ZIP codes received tickets at around twice the rate of those in white areas between 2015 and 2019.
....The coronavirus pandemic widened the ticketing disparities....In 2020, ProPublica found, the ticketing rate for households in majority-Black ZIP codes jumped to more than three times that of households in majority-white areas.
Racist cops? Unconscious bias? No. These are tickets issued automatically by red-light cameras and speed cameras:
From California to Virginia, citizens groups, safety organizations, elected officials and others are pointing to cameras as a “race-neutral” alternative to potentially biased — and, for many Black men, fatal — police traffic stops. And more funding for cameras may be coming: The federal infrastructure bill passed last fall allows states to spend federal dollars on traffic cameras in work and school zones.
The obvious conclusion from this is that Black drivers speed more than white drivers and run red lights more than white drivers. But this possibility is literally not even mentioned in the entire 4,000-word article.
So what's the explanation? The authors believe it's because streets in majority Black neighborhoods tend to be wide and straight, like this:
Conversely, streets in white neighborhoods tend to be narrow and curvy, which automatically induces drivers to slow down.
Maybe so—though the authors present only the thinnest evidence for this. And of course it does nothing to explain why Black drivers run red lights at much higher rates than white drivers.
The authors also suggest the Black-white disparity has something to do with proximity to freeways, density of neighborhoods, and violent crime rates. But all of this stuff is correlated, so it's just another way of saying "low-income Black neighborhoods."
It sure is a lot of words, and a lot of tap dancing, just to avoid acknowledging the possibility that Black drivers speed more than white drivers. Especially since the authors acknowledge that speed cameras really do work to enhance safety, thus keeping actual existing Black neighborhoods safer.
But I will say this: why doesn't the city put up signs warning drivers that a speed camera is ahead? After all, they say the purpose of the cameras isn't to raise money, it's to get people to slow down. Wouldn't a warning sign be pretty effective at getting people to slow down?
On a separate note, the article also discusses the burden of "fees and fines" on the Black community. It's one thing to get a ticket if you're a middle class white person—you just grumble and pay it—but quite another if your income is low and you don't always have $100 or $200 lying around. So you put it off, and then the late fees pile up, and then you're even further in debt, etc.
My favorite technocratic approach to this is to scale fines to income. For example, a particular speeding ticket might cost you 0.2% of your income:
I wonder how hard something like this would be to implement? I wonder how many affluent folks would scream about it?
Come on now… this propensity to speed and run red lights is the result of centuries of oppression. We should pay them when they run red lights. And apologize.
All that tap dancing makes more sense than the idea that melanin causes speeding.
Nurture, not nature.
Finland is already doing it. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/in-finland-speeding-tickets-are-linked-to-your-income/
I was going to mention the same thing.
Placement and timing of cameras and cutoffs for issuing tickets are all done by human beings. If there is a great deal less shade in poorer neighborhoods, it is certainly plausible that there is something different about the way streets are laid out. When a ticket is issued for running a red light, it is often catching someone going through on the tail end of a yellow. That is an issue of the sensitivity of the decision and it seems plausible there might be more leniency in wealthier neighborhoods. Or it could be something cultural, such as more people who will get in trouble if they are slightly late for work, trying to get to their jobs, whereas people with more control over their working conditions don't have to worry about the clock. My day care used to charge $1 per minute if I picked my daughter up after 6 pm (something that was dependent on my job and traffic). Poorer people have different realities that may affect how they drive.
I think Kevin's remark that they were dodging attributing this to race was inappropriate. Obviously something is going on, so it seems right for the studies to try to figure out what it was, and it isn't ancestral heritage in Africa doing it.
Or it could be something cultural, such as more people who will get in trouble if they are slightly late for work...
I'm sure you're right about this. Shift work has to be common in less affluent neighborhoods than in white collar areas. Heck, simply having to go to work (as opposed to logging on from home) is more common in the former.
I wonder how it correlates to age (younger drivers make riskier driving decisions, and non-whites have a lower median age than whites in the US).
Another factor may be trust in law enforcement. If you do not trust law enforcement, that may lower your desire to abide by the law when you do not see a direct moral harm associated with ignoring it. Speeders always think they are good enough at driving to do it "safely." Trust in law enforcement is pretty highly correlated to race, and I wouldn't be surprised if it correlated to income levels as well.
As for road type, suburbs often have roads that seem specifically designed for speeding: long, straight, wide thoroughfares that do not have houses fronting them. Urban streets, with homes and businesses right up close to the road, along with many pedestrians, are exactly the kind of thing that results in traffic calming. They can become race tracks late at night, though. Pre-pandemic I would go to the gym at night and watch the major urban road below as the speeders got pulled over. You couldn't possibly go over 30mph during the day, but by 9 PM you had smooth sailing for many blocks at a time.
If African Americans are more likely to run red lights (and I am not saying they are) this does not mean it is tied to their genetics somehow, obviously. Culture is a factor in behavior. That is triggering for a lot of liberals but we have to accept that it is true. White people are more likely to vote for Donald Trump or refuse to wear masks. Does this have to do with European heritage?
When I was canvassing for Obama in '08 I was driving around at one point with a young black volunteer. He was amazed that I slowed down to avoid hitting a squirrel, something I did without even thinking about it. I'm not saying that no young black man would slow down to avoid a squirrel or that all white men would do so. But he had an assumption about how you should behave while driving that was learned from a lifetime of driving with his friends or family members and I had my own.
Most of the cameras are probably in urban areas where black/Hispanic are most likely to live, so they're exposed to them 100% of the time. Meanwhile they're probably aren't any cameras out in the suburbs where white people are most likely to live, so they're probably exposed to the urban cameras far less often.
Read the story. The authors claim the cameras are evenly distributed and that cameras in urban areas give out fewer tickets than cameras in sub-urban areas.
Kevin says: "It sure is a lot of words, and a lot of tap dancing, just to avoid acknowledging the possibility that Black drivers speed more than white drivers."
Black drivers speeding more than white drivers is an observation, not an explanation.
Careful, you might get Sullied.
Nah, he left mojo so he's fine.
Modern suburbs (actually, I think this dates back to Levittown) are laid out in curves and cul-de-sacs to slow traffic, to make streets safer and and to give each plot a distinct location. Architects avoid through streets. This is pleasant, but uses a lot more land.
If you put up warning signs, you don't need live cameras in 100% of locations.
You can scale fines to the blue book price of the vehicle - you already have make, model, and year.
"Modern suburbs (actually, I think this dates back to Levittown) are laid out in curves and cul-de-sacs to slow traffic"
Inside of neighborhoods, sure, but not on the huge feeder highways where all the red lights are.
I'm not sure your blue book idea is actually going to be fair. A lot of poor people are enticed to "buy" (and quickly have repossessed) fancy cars they cannot afford. Income is easily found from someone's previous year's IRS filing.
Those curves and cul-de-sacs aren't actually pleasant. They're a root cause of sprawl and traffic congestion, not to mention low tax receipts and fiscal insolvency.
I wonder how hard something like this would be to implement?
Probably easy in a country with a well-organized bureaucratic infrastructure, government systems and overall state capacity. In other words, in the US it would be difficult.
I wonder how many affluent folks would scream about it?
We all know this isn't a serious question, Kevin.
I, too, like the idea of income-scaled traffic tickets, like they do in Finland. One rich dude in a Maserati could fund the local government for a year or more!
Apropos of nothing, Albuquerque installed red light cameras several years back, and the take from speeding fines was all but incredible! But people slowed down and started paying more attention to the lights. Accidents went down!
Then some influential 'holes complained, and the cameras were removed. Actually, the only problem, as I saw it, was that the company supplying the cameras took an exhorbitant slice of the fines. A smarter contract would have fixed that problem. But without the cameras, people went back to running red lights and the accident rate again climbed.
You inadvertently are demonstrating a major problem when municipalities fund government activities via fines. This leads to all kinds of problems (see Furgeson, MO). Your Maserati example shows how a policy that bases fines on income could go wrong with speed traps for rich people and then rich people hiring lawyers to avoid paying fines, etc.
Here's an idea--refund 100% of traffic fines collected back to citizens by mailing out checks to everyone on the tax roles at the end of the year. Government services should be funded through taxes.
They used the zip code where the ticket was mailed as proxy for race, so they must have had to throw out a lot of data because the zip code was too diverse to make an assumption.
They do not account for the location where the ticket was earned. Speed cameras aren't placed on traffic-calmed streets because they're not necessary. Everyone, Black/White/Hispanic/Asian, whatever the streets look like in their home neighborhood, sped past a camera on a street that is designed to invite speeding per the author's assessment.
The guy who got 8 tickets in one year should be grateful that they were camera tickets, because he should have lost his license. Why do I have to share the road with this exceptionally poor driver?
We don't know they were a poor driver. If the street is built for a higher speed, does that make the speeder really a worse driver?
"But I will say this: why doesn't the city put up signs warning drivers that a speed camera is ahead? After all, they say the purpose of the cameras isn't to raise money, it's to get people to slow down. Wouldn't a warning sign be pretty effective at getting people to slow down?"
Presumably the cities were lying about the public-safety factor and put up the cameras to generate revenue--thus, the lack of warning signs.
Are these speed cameras distributed equally in every neighborhood?
no
Read the article. yes.
They absolutely are not.
The article makes some weird assumptions about this.
From my experience on Long Island which was inundated with traffic cams several years ago. Everyone - law enforcement, elected officials, etc., acknowledge it’s nothing but a money grab. A national contractor installed them gratis with an understanding that they got a cut of the take. After a year, those cameras which were not generating enough revenue were taken down. Cameras placed on main drags around here definitely not in high income enclaves. If you place them in low income areas or on main drags, and avoid putting them in high $ areas no surprise when minorities get the lions share of tickets.
1) Could placement and density of such equipment be an issue? I don't have good data, but I suspect that most of the traffic stop intersections I know in the south suburbs of Chicago are in majority black cities and villages. Historically white neighborhoods don't get as many placed there, and when they are active the locals complain and have the political clout to get parameters (such as mph over posted limits) changed or the equipment removed.
2) The systems aren't nearly as automatic as advertised. In our neighborhood, each suspected infraction is reviewed by a person, who can then verify the speed or the lack of a full and complete stop. Just that review of the video by a person introduces that reviewers bias. If the reviewer lets it pass, who is to know? And i he believes that he has a mission to cut down on speeding by "those people," who could ever tell?
> After all, they say the purpose of the cameras isn't to raise money, it's to get people to slow down.
"They" say a lot of things.
The bribes [1], and changes to timing [2] tell a different story, though. But hey, who are you going to believe, your eyes or Officer Friendly?
[1] https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/15/columbus-cancels-red-light-camera/23299791007/
[2] https://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/ ,
https://reason.com/2020/03/02/oregon-tried-to-silence-this-engineers-red-light-camera-research-now-experts-say-he-was-right-all-along/
I was looking for an article about Chicago shortening the yellow light timing to get more revenue that happened years ago--and then found this more recent report of where green light timing was shortened:
https://abc7chicago.com/red-light-cameras-ticket-camera-chicago-tickets/5699984/
The Swiss, showing how it's done: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/switzerland-threatens-835k-speeding-fine/
I like the sliding scale for violations, but at the low end almost any amount eats into food/rent budget.
I live in Chicago,
I live in Chicago, and know a thing or two.
The camera locations are posted by signs. I got a ticket recently, I checked.
The cameras were allegedly placed in a demographically neutral fashion.
Why would commenters suggest comparing Chicago citations to the suburbs?
Chicago and Cook County are largely run by Black and Latino elected officials and much of the bureaucracy is made up of national minorities (Chicago is about 30% each, White, Black, and Latino.)
The relevant distinction has been recognized by Perry; observation v. explanation.
I critical factor in stop light ticketing is the timing of the yellow light compared to the speed limit on the road. If the yellow light time is too short, many more people will inadvertently run a red light. Some of the companies that have installed thses systems have been caught shortening the yellow light times to increase the ticketing rate. I wonder if the averge speed limit is higher in the poorer neighbourhoods but the yellow light times are the same?
Generally what driving instructors will tell you is that you are supposed to stop as soon as you see a yellow.
But the timing problem stems with not giving people who can't safely stop, time to clear the intersection.
I assume I am going to get attacked for this .
But , from personal observation as a driver, yes, blacks seem more likely to speed and go through red lights etc. against the law. However I think more when it is an issue of just abiding by the law and not truly a driving danger . Such as going through a red light at a time when the roads are near empty and you can see for a long distance and absolutely nobody is coming in the other direction. So going through the red light in that case poses no danger and you only wait due to simple respect for the law and not because there is ant real reason to do so.
Both blacks and Hispanics have cultural reasons maybe to have less inherent respect for the law per se and might only abide by it when it makes sense .
When I have been stopped at a stop light red turn arrow ( when you legally cannot turn right until green unlike fla I know) and there really is no reason for it , I always wait both to respect the law and just in case I got caught. When someone goes around me to go through the red light with no danger , they are disproportionately black or Hispanic. And I almost wish I could do the same.
In contrast, in seeing people do actual dangerous things, like going through a red light with cross traffic and trying to beat it, or doing aggresive driving on the freeway cutting people off, I do not notice more blacks or Hispanics and maybe a little disproportionately more white.
And the driver who is aggressively complying with the law and being a real annoyance, like driving 55 deliberately on the left lane of the highway, almost always white .
Plus I think when a driver has gone out of their way to be courteous and maybe let me cut in when I got mixed up , I think black disproportionately.
OMG: this is a good one:
"But I will say this: why doesn't the city put up signs warning drivers that a speed camera is ahead? After all, they say the purpose of the cameras isn't to raise money, it's to get people to slow down."
I literally did an LOL. Of COURSE those red-light cameras are all (or mostly) about raising money. And they raise millions (!) of dollars. I didn't even know there was any remaining doubt on this topic.
Roughly ten years ago I got one of those red-light camera tickets: and the fine was - I kid you not - $600 (!). I shudder to think what that fine is now (I still live in the same area). And there was an itemized list on my ticket showing where that money went. I have forgotten most of those items, but they included things like city infrastructure, courthouses, and more fees than made any sense.
There simply was no rational explanation for the ticket to be so high for someone who (supposedly) missed a green/yellow light by a few tenths of a second. The penalty just does not make any sense on balance with the (supposed) infraction.
And there have been plenty of stories over the years making these same points; for example (regarding a different area from the one I live in):
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/04/05/red-light-cameras-political-furor-chicago-ohio-florida/70746154/
from that article:
"'It's been exposed for what it really is,' said Mark Wallace, a resident of Chicago's South Side who has been hit with more than $1,000 in red-light camera tickets and has led protests in the city over the use of the cameras. 'It's nothing more than a way for the city of Chicago to create a slush fund that brings in a lot of revenue.'
'Opponents ... point to studies that show that the cameras don't reduce accidents. They also argue the cameras tread on treacherous constitutional ground, because municipalities are effectively contracting out police work to private companies."
In my own case, I went before a judge and argued against my red-light camera ticket. I pointed out that my face could not be positively identified in the picture included with my ticket (the driver-side sun visor was down and blocked my face) and, supposedly, the city therefore had no way to prove that I was the driver who should be ticketed. The judge cut my fine in half and told me that I either accepted the deal or paid in full, so I accepted. I did not have a lawyer with me, but the local news sources I looked up at that time indicated that my ticket should have been thrown out if they could not identify me. The judge refused and threatened me with the full cost of the ticket if I tried to press my case any further. The whole thing felt corrupt.
Is there a better way to raise money then fines for people breaking the law? Sounds like a win-win. If a cop happened to be in the intersection they would (hopefully) issue a ticket.
And some red light cameras are put up in places where there is a real big danger going through red lights, true.
But many seem to be exactly in places where you might often safely be able to cross through and can see if any cross traffic.
So put in places that might catch those " driving safely but not strictly per law " people and that is for money .
Plus they do not work right have the time and take a picture when you did obey the law . Have one near me where it flashes about once a minute when people move on green and has done so for years.
And, here in CA, what about the traditional " California stop" where you slow down and look carefully at a stop sign but never come to a complete full stop. Almost everyone does it, including cops. But the few who insist on coming to a full stop , and then also wait five more seconds to make a point and hold up everyone, almost all white or Asian.
Yeah, well, the reason why us Whites and Asians stop for the full five seconds is because some cop and some judge decided to be dicks when we did a rolling stop. If you don't like the way we drive, Defund the Police.
If that was true , then why would it not also be true for blacks and Hispanics? Do cops not decide to be as tough with them as whites?
And the point on five seconds is that it is NOT required by law . All you have to do is come to a complete stop and then you can go . There is no requirement to wait five seconds and a cop is not giving you a ticket for that .
And five seconds is a loong time when traffic is waiting. When there is no cross traffic around and you insist on waiting five seconds after stopping, you are just being a jerk and passively aggressively trying to make a point that everyone is supposed to come to a complete stop .
And I do object to that . Doing just a full legal stop some might be doing it just to be a jerk because someone is behind them , but they are consistent with law so well OK. Note going the 55 speed limit in the left hand lane when most want to speed and you are obstructing them is NOT legal and you can get a ticket for that .
Sometimes coming to a full stop can even be dangerous when someone is close behind you and does not object.
But I do object some to laws that are not usually enforced where the true customary rule is somewhat more liberal . That just gives cops too much discretion to stop whoever they want using that as a pretext.
Worked as a township assistant when I was young once . And became aware that a very low speed limit on one road ( very wide open road going downhill with a 20 mph limit where it was real hard to go that slow, was put there for the exact purpose of giving the local police the ability to stop troublemakers who had not otherwise broken the law.
First time I ever was stopped by police was 18 and my dad let me drive his car alone for the very first time and I was scared to death and rode the brakes on that road staying under 20. Cop stopped me thinking some young guy driving an old guy car doing that must be a car theif. First thing he asked was why are you going so slow and he thought I was being a wise guy when I said because that is the speed limit.
"So put in places that might catch those " driving safely but not strictly per law " people and that is for money ."
Wait, what? Are you really saying it's acceptable for people to not obey traffic laws?
I remember years ago my economic geography professor saying that if you want to identify an affluent area in a city in the United States or Canada, just look at a place on the map with curvy streets.
"why doesn't the city put up signs warning drivers that a speed camera is ahead?"
because people would then slow down only where the cameras are and speed everywhere else. is it also money grab? sure, probably. but any value cameras might have to stop speeding would disappear if there was a warning sign before all of them.
In my city, there are speed cameras by schools. There are signs posted. Yes, it makes money. It is also supposed to reduce accidents. There are also red light cameras at many intersections, but no warning signs. Lower income people will have more trouble paying the tickets. If they can't afford the fines, they should not break the law. Wealthier people can afford the fines. Therefore, it seems wealthier people have less incentive to obey the law. Poor people are penalized more. I like the idea of linking fines to income for the sake of equity.
map here for speed cameras:
https://data.cityofchicago.org/Transportation/Map-Speed-Camera-Locations/7ajp-yjhe
And the analysis in the article is better than your summary. The top 10 speed cameras are on 4 lane road without anything around. And that happens to be in black areas. The bottom 10, are on 2 lane roads with things around, e.g. crosswalks, islands, etc., which are mainly in white areas (8 of 10).
There are no apples to apples comparison.
The article also pointed out that studies showed the cameras have helped lower accidents. And the call was to improve the infrastructure in the areas that have a lot of tickets--i.e. put in sidewalks and bike lanes and...
I'm from Chicago. Drive all over. The red light cameras have been put on hold again, people blow yellows into reds all the time.
The speed cameras are still there, 35 dollar ticket. By schools, parks, etc. 20 mph means don't break 30.
How would “income” be determined? Does it mean that the Donald Trumps of the world can speed all they want?
This is the big problem with an income based formula for tickets. Many (if not most) rich people figure out ways to make sure their "income" is low for taxation purposes.
Basing it on the value of the vehicle is also fraught, because then you have to account for ownership, condition, and mileage. (If I'm speeding in a $120,000 truck while delivering packages for FedEx or Amazon, how much should I pay? Does it matter whether I lease, own, or rent the vehicle, and what if it's owned by a delivery company and I just get paid by the hour?)
Once you get into creating some sort of more nuanced system, it quickly gets complicated to manage and easy to game.