A few days ago, the Boston Globe declared that a new study found that “Black drivers [are] pulled over in Boston at 2.4 times the rate of white drivers… in stark contrast to statewide research conducted by the Massachusetts public safety office that found ‘no support’ for racial disparity.”
I write about cars and anecdotally I've been hearing a lot of stories about reduced traffic enforcement over the past two years. Even in states like Ohio, which is notorious for speed enforcement, speeds are up. Here in Michigan you used to be able to do 79 in a 70 mph zone without worrying about a ticket, now it's closer to 83 or 84. I see a lot more drivers going ~90 than I did before the pandemic. It's not clear if that's because of the pandemic or also because police officers are less vigorous in the wake of the George Floyd case, but anecdote aside, the actual statistics show an alarming increase in the number of black men killed in traffic accidents over the past couple of years.
I prefer to believe that our astonishing stupidity will be a source of amazement to future generations. But how far down stupid road will we go before a new generation says whoa?
It seems like almost half of these traffic violations could not be the primary reason that a driver is stopped. Can you really tell if any of these are the case unless they are stopped for some other reason? I may be missing something.
Driving after a license is revoked for being a “habitual traffic offender”—for such things as repeated drunk driving, hit-and-run accidents, endangering people’s lives through reckless driving, etc.
Driving after a license is suspended (including for reasons similar to revocation above).
Driving a vehicle with a suspended registration (including for not having insurance covering injury to others).
Driving an uninsured vehicle.
Driving without having first obtained a drivers license.
Driving without a license in possession.
Knowingly permitting someone without a drivers license or with a suspended or revoked license to operate a vehicle.
I was thinking the same thing as I read the Vera policy paper. They call for ending police enforcement of these violations in order to reduce the number of black drivers stopped, without clarifying how these violations could be the cause of the police stops.
Hi Simeon, I think if you send an email to kriegman@substack.com it should reach me. If that doesn't work and you don't get a response, let me know how to reach you, or just ask your question here.
Thanks Zac....here is an excerpt from a discussion of your article with some friends - we were interested in your comments on the thoughts below:
I get the concern about lowering standards - in the zeal to even the playing field. For sure that can be a problem and can even based on racist assumptions of lower capacity. Guess that’s the main point. But the example he uses of the traffic stops is weird. The white population of the US is maybe 60%. Blacks are around 13%. I haven’t googled the poverty figures but you have to assume the number of poor white people vastly outnumbers the number of poor Blacks in Boston and Massachusetts. If socioeconomic status determines motor vehicle violations and therefore number of police stops, in what situation would Blacks be pulled over at 2.3 times the rate of whites? (Am I understanding his use of “rate” right? That Black people get pulled over 2.3x more than white people?) And I imagine that the increased number of whites pulled over by day vs night has potential explanations other than a bias by police in favour of Black people. This reminds me of the argument that Blacks get disproportionately shot by cops because they disproportionately live in scary crime-ridden neighbourhoods. But studies show that cop shootings in the US do not generally increase in high crime areas. There are lots of high crime areas where the cops shoot no one.
*** "I haven’t googled the poverty figures but you have to assume the number of poor white people vastly outnumbers the number of poor Blacks in Boston and Massachusetts. If socioeconomic status determines motor vehicle violations and therefore number of police stops, in what situation would Blacks be pulled over at 2.3 times the rate of whites?" ***
The question isn't whether the absolute number of poor whites is greater than the absolute number of poor blacks, because the 2.3 number is normalized for the population size of each group. Therefore, what matters is the average socioeconomic status for each group, and the average is quite a bit lower for blacks than whites. (It's also probable that differences in socioeconomic levels do not explain the entire difference, and blacks drivers are committing either more or less violations after controlling for socioeconomic factors, but I don't know of an analysis that controls for socioeconomic level in Massachusetts.)
*** "And I imagine that the increased number of whites pulled over by day vs night has potential explanations other than a bias by police in favour of Black people." ***
During the day, when police may be able to see the race of the driver, police pull over whites at a higher rate than at night when they cannot see the race of the driver. The opposite is true for blacks who are pulled over at a higher rate during the night when police cannot see their race, and a lower rate during the day, when police may be able to identify their race.
What else could explain those findings? I don't know of any explanation other than that police are strongly biased against pulling over black drivers.
*** "This reminds me of the argument that Blacks get disproportionately shot by cops because they disproportionately live in scary crime-ridden neighbourhoods. But studies show that cop shootings in the US do not generally increase in high crime areas." ***
Blacks are not shot by the police disproportionately according to any baseline relevant to police bias. In fact, when measured in relationship to baselines that are relevant to police bias, police shoot whites disproportionately, not blacks.
To assess bias, we are looking for a mismatch between the number of times police actually use lethal force and the number of times they needed to use lethal force to protect themselves or others. (That's what bias means, it means they're using lethal force more readily in relation to how often they need to, for one group than another.)
The best measure for how often police need to use lethal force, is how often they are actually murdered by criminals, because that's proof that they were in fact in severe danger, and is a completely objective measure. It turns out that whites are shot disproportionately to the number of police officers they murder.
Blacks account for 37% of murderers of police officers and only 24% of suspects shot by police.
Whereas whites account for 42% of murderers of police officers and 46% of suspects shot by police.
So black suspects are shot at a much lower rate than you'd predict given the number of police officers murdered by black criminals.
You say that police do not shoot Black people disproportionately. As proof, you say that, since Black people account for 37% of murderers of police and 24% of those shot by police, Black people are shot by police at a much lower rate than expected. Unless the 24% Black people shot by police are the same ones who murdered police and were killed in the course of doing so, and unless we know that police had the opportunity but refrained from shooting the remaining 13% (assuming these stats are accurate), that is a logical fallacy. The need to use force against Black people is in no way predicted by the number of other Black people who have murdered police unless you believe that the tendency to violence is a quality which attaches to skin tone. Which would be false and racist. Am I missing something here?
Yes you're missing something. What you're saying makes no sense at all. "Disproportionality" is inherently relative to something. Disproportionate to what? If it's a conversation about police bias, the benchmark must be relevant to how often police *need* to use lethal force to prevent someone from being gravely injured by a suspect. Disproportionality to population has nothing to do with disproportionality to how often police need to use lethal force, and therefore is completely irrelevant to a discussion of police bias.
The rate at which police are murdered by criminals is an objective benchmark measuring the rate at which police need to use lethal force.
Thus, disproportionality to murders of police officers is directly relevant to police bias (unlike disproportionality to population)
Disproportionality doesn't tell the whole story though. Which is why you need to look at econometric studies that control for circumstances of individual shootings. The only study to do so, confirms the inference that police are not biased towards shooting black suspects, and indeed are more likely biased against shooting them.
Zac - Tks for the reply and the insight - and the link to the other article...all much appreciated. Also - a sincere thank you for the forum and creating a great space to have open dialogue.
Digger deeper into the reasons behind those 15 traffic violations might reveal that poverty contributes (if not the root cause of the) the violations, like not being able to afford insurance or registration or having money to buy a car. Are the routine stops in poor neighborhoods? Not excusing violations but it’s time to examine the role economics and systematic poverty plays in our public policies.
The experience of poverty unquestionably plays a role in the choices people make. But, poverty doesn't force someone to repeatedly drive drunk until their license is revoked. And just letting drunk drivers continue to drive drunk with no penalty (until they kill someone) does nothing to alleviate the root causes of poverty. Quite the opposite.
The theme across so many areas the last few years has been to (1) identify disparity (2) attribute disparity to discrimination (3) create policy to reduce numerical disparity. Neither the cause of the problem nor the cost of the policy is truly considered.
Undeniably, Zac. No argument there. However, you can’t ignore that poverty breeds despair and despair leads to drug abuse and drug addiction. Count how many liquor stores compared to other stores there are in poor neighborhoods.
I think what you're highlighting is another potential "root cause" for why these traffic violations occur at a higher rate and the point here is that ignoring straightforward traffic law enforcement, which we all benefit from, neither addresses/solves those root causes but it does diminishes everyone's public safety. The only people better off are those that commit traffic violations at the expense of their surrounding community. It's nonsense.
I write about cars and anecdotally I've been hearing a lot of stories about reduced traffic enforcement over the past two years. Even in states like Ohio, which is notorious for speed enforcement, speeds are up. Here in Michigan you used to be able to do 79 in a 70 mph zone without worrying about a ticket, now it's closer to 83 or 84. I see a lot more drivers going ~90 than I did before the pandemic. It's not clear if that's because of the pandemic or also because police officers are less vigorous in the wake of the George Floyd case, but anecdote aside, the actual statistics show an alarming increase in the number of black men killed in traffic accidents over the past couple of years.
the evil offshoot of PC, which really needs to be addressed because its consequences are lethal. time to call a spade a spade.
This is just astonishing, even to one as jaded as myself. Brilliant work. Thank you.
This sickness in our culture will be the end of us.
I prefer to believe that our astonishing stupidity will be a source of amazement to future generations. But how far down stupid road will we go before a new generation says whoa?
Chris Rock said essentially the same thing in a much more entertaining way:
"How To Not Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police"
https://youtu.be/uj0mtxXEGE8
It seems like almost half of these traffic violations could not be the primary reason that a driver is stopped. Can you really tell if any of these are the case unless they are stopped for some other reason? I may be missing something.
Driving after a license is revoked for being a “habitual traffic offender”—for such things as repeated drunk driving, hit-and-run accidents, endangering people’s lives through reckless driving, etc.
Driving after a license is suspended (including for reasons similar to revocation above).
Driving a vehicle with a suspended registration (including for not having insurance covering injury to others).
Driving an uninsured vehicle.
Driving without having first obtained a drivers license.
Driving without a license in possession.
Knowingly permitting someone without a drivers license or with a suspended or revoked license to operate a vehicle.
I was thinking the same thing as I read the Vera policy paper. They call for ending police enforcement of these violations in order to reduce the number of black drivers stopped, without clarifying how these violations could be the cause of the police stops.
I feel so bad I missed this. Zac don't give up. Write some more contributions. We love your insight.
Hey Zac - Do not give up, but keep posting, dude.
Out of curiosity are you still unemployed or have you found another job?
Hi Zac -- any way to send you a question on the article for some clarification/thoughts. Much appreciated.
Hi Simeon, I think if you send an email to kriegman@substack.com it should reach me. If that doesn't work and you don't get a response, let me know how to reach you, or just ask your question here.
Thanks!
Thanks Zac....here is an excerpt from a discussion of your article with some friends - we were interested in your comments on the thoughts below:
I get the concern about lowering standards - in the zeal to even the playing field. For sure that can be a problem and can even based on racist assumptions of lower capacity. Guess that’s the main point. But the example he uses of the traffic stops is weird. The white population of the US is maybe 60%. Blacks are around 13%. I haven’t googled the poverty figures but you have to assume the number of poor white people vastly outnumbers the number of poor Blacks in Boston and Massachusetts. If socioeconomic status determines motor vehicle violations and therefore number of police stops, in what situation would Blacks be pulled over at 2.3 times the rate of whites? (Am I understanding his use of “rate” right? That Black people get pulled over 2.3x more than white people?) And I imagine that the increased number of whites pulled over by day vs night has potential explanations other than a bias by police in favour of Black people. This reminds me of the argument that Blacks get disproportionately shot by cops because they disproportionately live in scary crime-ridden neighbourhoods. But studies show that cop shootings in the US do not generally increase in high crime areas. There are lots of high crime areas where the cops shoot no one.
*** "I haven’t googled the poverty figures but you have to assume the number of poor white people vastly outnumbers the number of poor Blacks in Boston and Massachusetts. If socioeconomic status determines motor vehicle violations and therefore number of police stops, in what situation would Blacks be pulled over at 2.3 times the rate of whites?" ***
The question isn't whether the absolute number of poor whites is greater than the absolute number of poor blacks, because the 2.3 number is normalized for the population size of each group. Therefore, what matters is the average socioeconomic status for each group, and the average is quite a bit lower for blacks than whites. (It's also probable that differences in socioeconomic levels do not explain the entire difference, and blacks drivers are committing either more or less violations after controlling for socioeconomic factors, but I don't know of an analysis that controls for socioeconomic level in Massachusetts.)
*** "And I imagine that the increased number of whites pulled over by day vs night has potential explanations other than a bias by police in favour of Black people." ***
During the day, when police may be able to see the race of the driver, police pull over whites at a higher rate than at night when they cannot see the race of the driver. The opposite is true for blacks who are pulled over at a higher rate during the night when police cannot see their race, and a lower rate during the day, when police may be able to identify their race.
What else could explain those findings? I don't know of any explanation other than that police are strongly biased against pulling over black drivers.
*** "This reminds me of the argument that Blacks get disproportionately shot by cops because they disproportionately live in scary crime-ridden neighbourhoods. But studies show that cop shootings in the US do not generally increase in high crime areas." ***
Blacks are not shot by the police disproportionately according to any baseline relevant to police bias. In fact, when measured in relationship to baselines that are relevant to police bias, police shoot whites disproportionately, not blacks.
To assess bias, we are looking for a mismatch between the number of times police actually use lethal force and the number of times they needed to use lethal force to protect themselves or others. (That's what bias means, it means they're using lethal force more readily in relation to how often they need to, for one group than another.)
The best measure for how often police need to use lethal force, is how often they are actually murdered by criminals, because that's proof that they were in fact in severe danger, and is a completely objective measure. It turns out that whites are shot disproportionately to the number of police officers they murder.
Blacks account for 37% of murderers of police officers and only 24% of suspects shot by police.
Whereas whites account for 42% of murderers of police officers and 46% of suspects shot by police.
So black suspects are shot at a much lower rate than you'd predict given the number of police officers murdered by black criminals.
You can read more about this issue here: https://kriegman.substack.com/p/post-leading-to-termination-blm-falsehoods
You say that police do not shoot Black people disproportionately. As proof, you say that, since Black people account for 37% of murderers of police and 24% of those shot by police, Black people are shot by police at a much lower rate than expected. Unless the 24% Black people shot by police are the same ones who murdered police and were killed in the course of doing so, and unless we know that police had the opportunity but refrained from shooting the remaining 13% (assuming these stats are accurate), that is a logical fallacy. The need to use force against Black people is in no way predicted by the number of other Black people who have murdered police unless you believe that the tendency to violence is a quality which attaches to skin tone. Which would be false and racist. Am I missing something here?
Yes you're missing something. What you're saying makes no sense at all. "Disproportionality" is inherently relative to something. Disproportionate to what? If it's a conversation about police bias, the benchmark must be relevant to how often police *need* to use lethal force to prevent someone from being gravely injured by a suspect. Disproportionality to population has nothing to do with disproportionality to how often police need to use lethal force, and therefore is completely irrelevant to a discussion of police bias.
The rate at which police are murdered by criminals is an objective benchmark measuring the rate at which police need to use lethal force.
Thus, disproportionality to murders of police officers is directly relevant to police bias (unlike disproportionality to population)
Disproportionality doesn't tell the whole story though. Which is why you need to look at econometric studies that control for circumstances of individual shootings. The only study to do so, confirms the inference that police are not biased towards shooting black suspects, and indeed are more likely biased against shooting them.
Please read the full analysis here: https://kriegman.substack.com/p/post-leading-to-termination-blm-falsehoods
I'm happy to go over the stats and discuss in depth one on one. If you'd like to, please reach out to me directly.
Best,
Zac
Emailed your substack address
Zac - Tks for the reply and the insight - and the link to the other article...all much appreciated. Also - a sincere thank you for the forum and creating a great space to have open dialogue.
There are still far too many people who think The Bell Curve is fiction.
None of these people belong in a position of authority, education, or government.
Digger deeper into the reasons behind those 15 traffic violations might reveal that poverty contributes (if not the root cause of the) the violations, like not being able to afford insurance or registration or having money to buy a car. Are the routine stops in poor neighborhoods? Not excusing violations but it’s time to examine the role economics and systematic poverty plays in our public policies.
The experience of poverty unquestionably plays a role in the choices people make. But, poverty doesn't force someone to repeatedly drive drunk until their license is revoked. And just letting drunk drivers continue to drive drunk with no penalty (until they kill someone) does nothing to alleviate the root causes of poverty. Quite the opposite.
Correct.
The theme across so many areas the last few years has been to (1) identify disparity (2) attribute disparity to discrimination (3) create policy to reduce numerical disparity. Neither the cause of the problem nor the cost of the policy is truly considered.
Undeniably, Zac. No argument there. However, you can’t ignore that poverty breeds despair and despair leads to drug abuse and drug addiction. Count how many liquor stores compared to other stores there are in poor neighborhoods.
Absolutely! I'm working on a post about what I discovered when I started researching the literature about the root causes of poverty.
Looking forward to reading what you find.
I think what you're highlighting is another potential "root cause" for why these traffic violations occur at a higher rate and the point here is that ignoring straightforward traffic law enforcement, which we all benefit from, neither addresses/solves those root causes but it does diminishes everyone's public safety. The only people better off are those that commit traffic violations at the expense of their surrounding community. It's nonsense.