WASHINGTON, DC – In an op-ed published by News One, a social justice focused news organization, the authors outlined the disproportionate impacts of fine–based traffic cameras on drivers of color.
News One stated that between October 2023 and March 2024, Washington D.C. amassed $54 million from automated traffic camera tickets. News One explained D.C.’s Mayor Browser had set aside $578 million dollars of expected revenue from automatic traffic camera fines in early 2023 to address a budget issue.
News One explained, “Establishing an annual reliance on money generated by such programs makes our government dependent on the very thing the cameras purport to reduce–speeding. And it does so by disproportionately ticketing drivers of color who have been failed by infrastructure investment for generations.”
The system installed in D.C. and many other cities across the U.S., (Automatic Traffic Enforcement, or ATE) disproportionately tickets drivers of color, News One writes.
The writers explain, “Fine-based ATE parallels and magnifies the same racial disparities seen in traffic policing, with low-income and Black and Latino communities being the primary targets of ATE citations.”
Additionally, News One charges communities that are disproportionately targeted by ATE enforcement already suffer fewer safe roads due to inequities in infrastructure, noting, “These programs also disproportionately punish people who live in neighborhoods that have been historically disinvested and that have less safe roads, leading to dangerous driving and crashes.”
News One explains that the main factor spurring the rise of ATE systems in the U.S. is the high profitability of ATE fines and fees.
News One writes jurisdictions implementing ATE systems with high fines for speeding claim these sanctions will improve road safety, however, the revenue from speeding tickets has remained high, showing that the amount of people speeding and receiving tickets is not in decline.
News One adds, “All you have to do is follow the money. If these programs were actually changing behavior, we would see revenue decline because people would be driving more safely and incurring fewer infractions. Yet, the reality is that jurisdictions across the country are banking on revenue staying the same.”
Traffic cameras alone cannot lead to safer roads, News One insists, adding, “If implemented correctly within ATE, the deployment of Automatic Speed Enforcement (ASE) may have the potential for positive impact on speed-related traffic safety. But, at best, it is just one component of a street safety plan.”
Additionally, News One points out data on traffic enforcements such as speeding tickets do not yield clear positive results, explaining, “Data on ticketing and traffic stops overall is…lacking, and what does exist routinely shows little or short term impact of enforcement efforts.”
News One concluded, “If your goal is to change behavior, you cannot literally bank on it staying the same. If policymakers are serious about traffic safety, we need to see investments in our communities, such as better signage, speed bumps, quick builds and roundabouts.”
“In an op-ed published by News One, a social justice focused news organization”
I stopped reading right there.
I’m sure no one cares. Fox “News” and OAN seem more your speed.
I would think people would want to learn other perspectives – even if they don’t agree.
So David, do you learn other perspectives? Do you watch Fox? Do you read Breitbart?
Can’t do this job if you only read stuff you agree with.
Breitbart? Let’s check in, shall we, with the truly substantive and not-at-all-hysterical-disinformation the fine folks at that right-wing rag have up this morning:
“The Harris Campaign Site Finally Adds Policy Page.” Gee. Where is the Trumpy policy page? Oh, yeah. Project 2025.
“Congressional Black Caucus Issues Corporate DEI Guidelines.” More red meat for the base, who don’t understand that corporate CEOs supported DEI programs b/c they produced a more robust, effective workforce (gee….funny how that works when you get a diverse group of people working together who come from varied backgrounds so you’re not just getting the same old whitewashed perspectives).
“Robert F. Kennedy , Jr: Republicans Have Become the Party of the Common Man.” Yeah, right. Most Republicans wouldn’t stop to help “the common man” if he was on fire and howling in the street in front of them. Just remember what ole Trumpy said: “Why do they look so classless/lowlife” (lamenting how the MAGA cultists appeared at the January 6 riots).
Yeah, tell us again how Breitbart is a legit “news source.” Decent, reasonable, intelligent people are howling with laughter when conservatives claim such.
Kendra – I used to like reading the conservative intellectuals when I was in college. If the alternative to the NY Times is Breitbart, we may be more screwed than I really thought. You don’t have a better alternative Keith?
“I used to like reading the conservative intellectuals when I was in college.”
Yes, I did too. And I taught university and college writing for over 20 years and I routinely used articles written by conservatives so my students would have different perspectives.
But that was before the new era in politics (post-Obama, when this country was apparently broken b/c we had the gall to vote in a Black man for President). So much conservative writing now just relies on right wing shibboleths, memes, outright lies, and red meat for their non-critically-inclined base).
You would think! XD I know I try to stay up on what conservative news sites are reporting.
Like I said, I can “Bring Em Out”.
It’s all sounds like background static.
I’m curious David, who are your trusted news sources? Who do you consider fair and balanced and always gives both sides of the story? This should be interesting…
I don’t generally have a trusted news source – if I want to see what’s happening nationally, I will check the NY Times, but most of my news consumption consists of:
1. Google Alerts by about 30 keywords
2. My Twitter Feed
3. Breaking News on my phone
4. Press releases I receive
As a result, I see a wide balance of viewpoints including from conservative news sources.
David, you and I have talked about this before. Even news that tends to be accurate can be totally biased by only reporting on stories or opinions that fit their agenda. So by doing so they are part of the problem too.
I think it’s important to get different perspectives. There is no such thing as a completely accurate or nonbiased account, because you only have so many words.
With respect to this story, I think the data is pretty clear that automated traffic enforcement systems disproportionately impact people of color. There have been a number of credible studies to that effect.
“because you only have so many words.”
That’s not the reason. That’s bullshit and you know it.
You and I may see things somewhat differently on this point
Objectivity in news coverage means the facts should be presented accurately. It does not mean that disagreements that are not fact-based need to be presented.
News coverage does not need to give “equal time” to “both sides” of an issue. “Both sides” are not equally valid.
If something is not provable or falsifiable, it’s just an opinion, an unevidenced assertion. It is not necessary or even appropriate, in many cases, for media to present unevidenced assertions as if they are of equal merit to evidence-based assertions.
If an individual lies repeatedly, printing their lies verbatim and without fact-checking simply perpetuates the dishonesty. It has nothing to do with fairness when a media outlet refuses to present falsehoods.
“A journalist’s obligation (is) to the truth. Equal time or balance are tools that can serve that obligation but don’t necessarily always do so. If certain actors in a debate are lying, that is newsworthy. But it doesn’t mean they should get equal space or necessarily any space in a given story, depending on the story and its purpose.” – Tom Rosensteil, author, journalist, and media critic.
“It has nothing to do with fairness when a media outlet refuses to present falsehoods.”
This reminds me of the times commenters tried to post a link to the NY Post story about the Biden laptop on the Vanguard and had their comments deleted. We were told that the NY Post was not a credible news source. But the story was true as we all know now. One person’s credible news source is another’s fake news depending on their politics.
Trump and Kamala could both give a speech. Almost 90% of the media will glom onto the one or two things Trump might have said that they feel will make him look bad while at the same time overlooking any Kamala gaffes. You guys know it.
I don’t think we agree on this point
“Unprecedented positive media for Harris, 89% negative for Trump”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/unprecedented-positive-media-for-harris-89-negative-for-trump/ar-AA1p44yn
I think Trump is incredibly difficult to objectively cover. Do you report what he says even if it’s objectively false or nonsensical? Do you attempt to correct or fact check him? If he says crazy stuff – do you report or ignore that? It’s been eight years and the media still struggles trying to cover the guy.
What you say is true, but by the same token Kamala needs some major fact checking too as she tries to lie to everyone about her past record.
You must be kidding Keith. The Washington Examiner is another right wing propaganda machine. Furthermore, that article is a biased opinion piece/editorial, not a news article.
Ad Fontes Media rates Washington Examiner in the Skews Right category of bias and as Generally Reliable/Analysis OR Other Issues in terms of reliability. Washington Examiner is a conservative news website and weekly magazine based in Washington, D.C.
https://adfontesmedia.com/washington-examiner-bias-and-reliability/
This is a load of bunk.
The mainstream media on the regular “sanewashes” his ramblings and summarizes or puts them in some kind of order so he comes off more intelligent/less unhinged than he actually is.
Please tell us what here (his recent response to a question at an economic forum) *doesn’t* make the man look bad? What you’re doing is gaslighting and “you know it.” You rarely offer anything of substance in this comment section.
He was asked: What specific legislation will you advance to make child care more affordable?
Yeah, he looks *real good* with his response here (verbatim):
“Well I would do that. And we’re sitting down. You know I was somebody. We had Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that because—look, child care is child care. It’s—couldn’t, you know, it’s something you have to have it—in this country you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to—but they’ll get used to it very quickly—and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care. We’re going to have—I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just told you about. We’re going to be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s, relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in. We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people, but we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about Make America Great Again, we have to do it because right now we’re a failing nation, so we’ll take care of it.”
Let’s tally up the gaffes, why don’t we, and see who is worse. People capable of critical reasoning are laughing at your claim. 😆🤣😂😆🤣😂😆🤣😂😆🤣😂😆🤣😂