So the anti-car people have just been relentless in my mentions over the last 24 hours.

The odd thing is, I actually *agree* that we are a far too car-dependent country. I think Robert Moses is one of the great under-recognized villains of the 20th Century.

But …
… it’s precisely *because* we’re so car dependent that I’m wary of mass automated enforcement that would catch every violation every time. We have …

— cities that now rely on revenue from violations, meaning they need people to *keep* committing infractions to balance budgets
— roads often designed for speeds far higher than posted speed limits, essentially tempting drivers to break the law
— laws that impose DL suspensions and issue arrest warrants for people unable to pay fines
— numerous cities caught manipulating stoplights and shortening …
… yellow lights to generate more revenue, a direct threat to road safety
— evidence cities have put cameras near sudden speed limit changes, which is also more about racking up fines than road safety
— all of this when, save for a few large cities, it’s extremely …
…difficult to live your life without a car.

Again, I’m not happy about the latter point (or any of them), but this is our reality. In the past, I (and many others) have written at length about how these factors can be devastating for low-income people.

washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch…
You make it nearly impossible to live without a car. You design roads in a way that accepts drivers will drive above posted speed limits, you have city budgets dependent on revenue from fines, and you then remove driving privileges or arrest people to poor to pay those fines.
It’s all incredibly unfair. I fear that moving to mass automated enforcement, while still preferable to police enforcement, doesn’t address these underlying problems, and will likely only exacerbate them.

Instead of baiting drivers to commit violations and then soaking them …
… for doing so, we should be looking at less punitive ways to make roads safer. Narrower and fewer lanes in dense, pedestrian-heavy areas. Speed bumps. Roundabouts. Other engineering fixes. Some or all of these aren’t always possible in every context, of course. But …
… if we’re going to move away from police enforcement, as we should, we can’t just say it should all be automated and leave it at that. We also need to also talk about perverse incentives and predatory enforcement. Otherwise, we’re going to keep disproportionately harming …
… the same people, just in a different way.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Radley Balko

Radley Balko Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @radleybalko

1 Nov
So I guess I need to do some record-correcting.

In this Manhattan Institute piece, @RAVerBruggen says I tweeted, “murders are surging because an
entire profession would rather let people die than hold their colleagues accountable . . .

media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/…
. . . when they needlessly hurt and kill people."

This is true! However, I was summarizing this article, which claimed cops have been quitting and de-policing because of the Chauvin fallout. That article was published by . . . the Manhattan Institute!

city-journal.org/why-cops-are-q…
I actually *don't* think de-policing caused the murder surge.

(To be fair, I mistakenly failed to thread the quoted tweet to my previous tweet, which linked to the article. So it's entirely understandable why VerBruggen would mistakenly assume I was expressing my own opinion.)
Read 5 tweets
18 Oct
This @saletan piece indirectly hits on a big misunderstanding in how we interpret polling data about black attitudes toward police. It's true that when asked generically, black people express . . .

slate.com/news-and-polit…
. . . more concern about crime, and say they want more police, and more funding to fight it.

However. The tradeoff in the "more cops, less crime" argument is that the approach to policing proponents claim reduces crime is the same type of policing that brings more ...
... encounters and low-level arrests -- and that black people specifically tell pollsters they *don't* want.

You can say, "But this time we'll hold them accountable!" You can say, "But they'll practice community-oriented policing, not stop & frisk!"
Read 5 tweets
8 Oct
New from me: Michael West has now helped send at least five innocent people to prison, including three to death row.

Incredibly, West didn’t actually testify at Sherwood Brown’s trial. Another “expert” did, but used West’s notes and examination.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Why didn’t West testify? Turns out he was in another part of the state, giving the testimony that sent Kennedy Brewer to death row.

Brewer was also innocent.

When they later caught the real killer for that crime, the killer confessed to a similar murder in the same area . . .
. . . a couple years earlier.

Levon Brooks was wrongly convicted for that murder.

At this point, you can probably guess who gave the clincher expert testimony that also convicted Brooks.

But yes. It was Michael West.
Read 4 tweets
29 Sep
This story reminds me of a bizarre ritual at my rural, all-white Indiana junior/high school.

Each year, our 8th grade history classes held "slave trials." Some students argued the "pro" side of slavery, some argued the "anti," and the rest ...

kansascity.com/news/local/edu…
... served as jurors or witnesses. Our teacher was well-intentioned, not at all a Confederate sympathizer, and one of the better teachers at the school. His aim was to facilitate critical thinking. It worked. It got us all interested. We couldn't wait for our ...
... own turn to hold a slave trial, and we talked about it for years afterward.

But the trials typically involved a lot of Lost Cause-ism, and could degenerate into some ugly stuff. A common tactic on the pro side, for example, was to call "Charles Darwin" as an expert witness.
Read 8 tweets
23 Sep
I'm on vacation, but I'll answer the @popehat challenge, here. I've been on the @FedSoc speaking list for about 10 years. In the mid-2000s, I'd estimate I spoke to about 4-5 law schools per semester, on topics from police militarization, to ...

... forensics, to prosecutor misconduct, to asset forfeiture, to wrongful convictions. I've always thought this was a credit to the group, since most (though certainly not all) of its members probably disagreed with me on those topics. Sometimes these were debates, but often ...
... it was just me speaking. And often, those talks were co-sponsored by the ACLU, black law student groups, the American Constitution Society, or other left-leaning groups. Which, again, I've always thought was a credit to both FedSoc and those groups.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(