[West Saint Paul.]
[Frogtown, Saint Paul.]
[Summit Avenue, Saint Paul.]
[University Avenue, Saint Paul.]
[Midway, Saint Paul.]
[University Avenue, Saint Paul.]
[Grand Avenue, Saint Paul.]
[West End, Saint Paul.]
Question from Doug Gordon: Particularly since VZ initiatives start popping up, advocates for VZ have often talked about enforcement to make streets safer. And there's been a lot of pushback on that, saying "hey calling for more enforcement to make streets safer does not necessarily make streets safer for black and brown people. and the bike advocacy movement does tend to be a white and male movement. There's been some writing saying you can't actually have a movement for safe streets until you deal with racism.
Shabazz Stuart: There's a lot to unpack in this conversation. I think it's a conversation that's long overdue in our community. Look, we cannot be afraid of the term enforcement, and I'm afraid we're heading in this direction where all enforcement is bad.
Enforcement is a necessary mechanism in an ecosystem of a society that functions with law. If you have laws, your laws need to be supported by enforcement at some point, otherwise why bother having laws? We risk being naive if we think we can have a fully functional legal system without some form of enforcement. So when we talk again about abolishing police departments, we are talking about completely rebuilding what our enforcement mechanisms look like. And the question is not to abolish the notion of enforcement, the question is to fix the notion of enforcement.
... Right now, I don't know if we can narrow down [the larger conversation about police] to traffic enforcement. In the short term, we can be mindful as advocates that enforcement as it is today is inherently problematic. We have to be mindful that simply saying "we need more enforcement" is not going to be a silver bullet or panacea that solves our problems. We have to account for the problematic nature of enforcement on our streets in our policies. We have to say, if we enforce bike lanes, why are black and brown people more likely to get stopped for running a red light?
It doesn't mean that we say "no more enforcement." So we include black and brown voices in our conversation, in a manner that is humanizing and acknowledging of their diverse experiences, than we can expect to resolve some of these challenges by virtue of having these people, this constituency, at the table with us as we discuss these issues.
|[The one time I got a ticket for running a red light.]|
While this has been a very painful time, I'm thankful for the push to take some time to reflect on my notions about traffic safety and what role enforcement should play. I've long believed that fear of ticket is a motivator for drivers to comply with speed limits or other roadway laws. And while that still may be true for some drivers, if we look to the literature, there is little or, at best, mixed evidence that speeding citations result in significant long-term reductions in speeding or additional citations. This is doesn't support the case for big investments in in-person enforcement of speeding.
I have been studying automated speed enforcement (ASE) for many years and I still believe it is an effective alternative to in-person enforcement. We have found a number of barriers regarding its implementation in Minnesota, but historically a majority of the public supports its use in limited forms. It is commonly stated that ASE or red light cameras are unconstitutional in Minnesota, but Frank Douma, a legal expert from the Humphrey School, will tell you that simply isn't true. It is not unconstitutional but was struck down because the city of Minneapolis did not have the legal authority to implement it. The state legislature does need to allow it and has declined to do so to-date. I am curious about how public perception holds today, if support has grown or diminished. There are still risks to automated enforcement regarding decision making on where to place cameras and how to implement a fee structure. Each decision could result in disproportional impacts or harm on minority populations if not done thoughtfully. Additional benefits of ASE are for reducing the likelihood of "speed discounting" so that white drivers aren't more likely to get away with a warning compared to BIPOC and most importantly, there is little risk of escalation or violence. It also doesn't function as a pretext for other crime enforcement which is doesn't do anything to make our roads safer but I believe simply delegitimizes our traffic laws.
Ultimately, enforcement in any form treats the symptoms and not the causes of risky driving. There are multiple contributors, but one that we should first look at and treat is the design of our roads. We have overbuilt our roadways to allow drivers to feel too comfortable and drive fast. Near the end of our pedestrian study in St. Paul, compliance was quite high at our study sites, but those drivers who were still not yielding for us were almost always driving too fast. Speed is an undeniable component of the crisis we have with pedestrian safety. High speeds met with wide roadways make it less likely that drivers see a pedestrian waiting to cross and stop for them. We should not be expecting pedestrians to walk halfway into the roadway to be seen. We should add more bump-outs to put them safely closer into the driver's line on sight. The resulting narrowing will also slow drivers down. This type of work is already underway by cities, counties, and the state, but it will take serious reprioritization of funding to expedite to the level that our communities need.
Two other culprits I see fueling the causes of risky driving are phone and vehicle manufacturers. There is little doubt in my mind that Google and Apple could make it far more difficult for drivers to use their phones while driving (pressing a button to say you aren't driving just isn't cutting it), they just have little desire to do it. We can't enforce our way out of phone-related distracted driving. It's too pervasive and too hard to detect. We need forcing functions and our government needs to start demanding it of these companies. There is also little doubt in my mind that vehicle manufacturers could make it harder to speed. Systems like GMs Supercruise can only operate where they have mapped the roadways, meaning they KNOW the speed limit, yet they allow drivers to exceed that limit with hands-off, feet-off comfort. It's insane that we allow the manufacturers to be accessories to drivers behaving recklessly on our highways. They don't have any desire to sell a vehicle that prevents you from speeding because who would buy it when other alternatives that let you speed to your heart's desire sit next to it on the car lot. Again, our government needs to demand it as the EU has been pursuing. This isn't some advanced form of level 5 automation that is years (or decades) down the road. It exists today.
Lastly, in addressing high visibility enforcement for the crosswalk law, I don’t have enough information yet speak to its efficacy within the STOP for Me program. We had great results for increasing driver compliance in our last study, but we observed smaller improvements with earlier treatment phases that included enforcement and education/outreach, and a bigger increase in stopping compliance was seen after we introduced low-cost engineering treatments (along with continued enforcement and education/outreach). However, we do not yet know whether the improved compliance was mostly from engineering, or if it was additive with the multi-pronged approach, or if time/duration of enforcement was a factor. We hope to have a clearer answer to that with future research. But, I'm not sure judging purely based on stopping compliance is good enough. I think we need to question and examine Stop for Me as holistically as possible to ensure that we aren't simply trading off one risk for another. It may be time to consider how the Stop for Me program can transition to something that meets the needs of the entire community and increases public safety.
|[List of names, disproportionately POCI, from the cover of the Vision Zero plan.]|