Right-Sizing Enforcement for Safe Streets

Takeaways from the Vision Zero Cities Conference

Many U.S. communities are increasingly eager to prevent traffic violence without unintentionally perpetuating biased traffic enforcement, which is particularly harmful to people of color and people in low-income communities. We explored strategies to re-assess and right-size the role of enforcement in a recent panel at the 2024 Vision Zero Cities conference in NYC.

The discussion was moderated by Tiffany Smith from the Vision Zero Network, and included Scarlet Neath from Center for Policing Equity (CPE), Juan Martinez, formerly NYC Department of Transportation, and LaTanya Bird of Philadelphia’s Families for Safe Streets. The group explored alternatives to officer-initiated traffic enforcement, including investing in longer-lasting and more equitable strategies, such as designing self-enforcing roads and technology solutions. 

Following is a summary of our key takeaways from the discussion.

Recognizing the History & Harms of Police Traffic Stops

For the past century, many communities in the U.S. have leaned heavily on traffic enforcement as a tool to reduce traffic crashes, injuries and deaths. Some research suggests that focused enforcement has played a role – along with other factors – in establishing some safe driving norms, such as increasing compliance with seatbelt laws and reducing drunk driving. Despite some achievements, though, there is ample historical and current evidence showing the harms and inequities of some types of enforcement, particularly traffic stops. Dating back generations, policing in the name of “traffic safety” has been used to surveil and control the movement of marginalized people, particularly Black Americans, leading to discriminatory and inequitable outcomes.

Since the 1980s War on Drugs, police in the U.S. have been encouraged to make a high volume of traffic stops not necessarily related to road safety priorities but rather as pretexts to search for evidence of weapons, drugs or other criminal activity. These “pretext stops” are used to achieve ticket quotas or to search for evidence of criminal activity rather than deter dangerous driving. And contrary to popular belief, analysis shows that traffic stops for low-level, non-safety infractions, such as a broken taillight or an item hanging from the rear view mirror, do not have a clear correlation to improved road safety. 

Still, an estimated 20 million traffic stops occur each year. Many of these stops are non-safety-related stops and  are strongly associated with racial bias. As Scarlet Neath of CPE noted during the panel discussion, research shows that Black people are not only more likely to be stopped by police while driving, but are more likely to be searched once stopped, to have force used against them, and to be killed by police when unarmed. And while most of the above reference analysis focus on the injustices specifically for Black drivers, there is evidence of bias in police stops for non-motorists, such as tickets issued disproportionately for “jaywalking while Black” and “biking while Black.” 

The inequities associated with this type of enforcement are compounded by the fact that low-income neighborhoods and communities of color are often situated around poorly designed, high-traffic, and high-speed roads lacking sidewalks and bikeways. This creates a cycle of over-enforcement in areas that would benefit more from non-punitive, upstream solutions, such as redesigning roads to be more self-enforcing, including narrower lanes, adding bike lanes and crosswalks, and improving lighting.

Speed Safety Cameras: An Improved, Though Imperfect, Solution

Unsafe speeds are a determining factor in nearly one-third of traffic deaths. In light of this problem, speed safety cameras, when used appropriately, can deter dangerous speeds and offer some benefits over police-led traffic stops for speeding. Plus, they can offer a more consistent deterrent against dangerous speeding with fewer resources used than constant police presence.

LaTanya Bird, the co-founder of Philadelphia chapter of Families for Safe Streets and whose niece Samara Banks and her three children were killed by drag racers on Philly’s notoriously dangerous Roosevelt Boulevard, highlighted the benefits of speed safety cameras there. Roosevelt Blvd., where more than 150 fatalities and injuries have occurred over the last 10 years, has seen a 50% decrease in crashes involving people walking over a three year period. 

However, as our panelists discussed, speed safety cameras come with their own set of challenges. For one, speeding tickets, whether issued by police officers or via an automated camera system, can result in disparate and unjust financial burdens. The standard system of flat fines issued for traffic infractions, including speeding, are inherently regressive and can reinforce harmful poverty traps and income disparities. A $100 ticket impacts a person who lives on a minimum wage salary differently than a person earning $100K annually. 

For these reasons, speed safety camera programs should have safeguards to avoid disproportionately burdening low-income people, and should be developed, managed and evaluated carefully. Some safeguards that could help a speed safety camera program be more equitable, particularly related to financial burdens include:  

• Prioritizing upstream, preventative safety measures along with, or in place of, speed safety cameras wherever possible
• Implementing income-based fine structures or alternative penalties for low-income drivers
• Monitoring and evaluating equity impacts and reporting those disproportionate impacts to your community
• Setting specific guidelines to keep a jurisdiction from becoming overly reliant on camera revenue to fund basic governmental operations or street safety improvements.
• Eliminating debt based driver’s license suspensions

Vision Zero Network is developing equity centered recommendations for communities using speed safety camera programs. Stay tuned! 

Prioritize Upstream Strategies

Taking an upstream Safe System approach to safety—one that doesn’t rely on punitive measures—is both more effective and equitable. By focusing on the strategies that address the root causes of safety risks, such as those below, communities can foster safe streets while reducing reliance on punitive measures. 

• Traffic Calming tools that cultivate self-enforcing roadways, such as road diets, narrower lanes, speed humps, curb extensions, and other physical design changes that naturally slow traffic.
• Complete Streets that create dedicated space for all road users such as separated bike lanes, sidewalks, and crosswalks, streets become more accessible for all road users and also act as traffic calming. 
• Lowered speed limits and dynamic speed feedback signs especially where drivers are mixing with nonmotorized road users, and increasing speed limit signage density to increase drivers’ awareness 
• Adding speed limiting features in vehicles, such as Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA), which discourages dangerous speeds
• Reducing private vehicle dependence by boosting transportation modes that benefit public safety, such as public transit, walking and biking

To help address these disparities, Vision Zero Network has been working on recommendations to help communities right-size the role that enforcement plays in traffic safety efforts, as well as, specifically prioritizing equity in speed safety camera programs. Stay tuned!