Story in the Santa Fe New Mexican.
 |
| With acknowledgements to Patrick O'Grady/maddogmedia.com |
I think this ordinance is a good idea, as long as it is written carefully. The fines for many traffic offenses are currently paltry compared to the hazards that dangerous and uncaring drivers impose on the public. Plus, the paltry fines and low probability of getting caught both tell society that we don't really care if you drive dangerously.
Monica Ault, New Mexico director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, is quoted as being concerned whether some can afford increased fines. If you can't pay the fine, don't drive like an idiot.It really is simple. If we let people off the hook by letting them cry poverty, we are just aiding and abetting dangerous behavior. Being killed or maimed, or losing a year of productive life (that happened to me), because of someone else's dangerous driving done by someone who is poor hurts just as much as it does if done by someone well off. As it happened, my own worst traffic fine, which I got in graduate school, was one I could least afford, but it taught me a valuable lesson about not taking my anger out on the road. And that Suffolk County Sheriff talked me through an important behavioral change in my motorcycling habits.
I would prefer the fines go into the general fund to avoid any appearance of bad motive, but I think "policing for profit", while a real thing, would occur if it were tolerated or abetted by city leaders regardless of which pocket the fines were deposited. Frankly, I'd like the money to go into Vision Zero policies and projects, as these are probably the best way to reduce crash lethality. But holding drivers accountable is important.
As far as the whole issue of policing for profit, Radley Balco and others have written extensively on this form of corruption that occurs in some cash-strapped cities. Policing for profit, whether by fines or pyramiding court fees or all of the above, occurs where city government leaders encourage police to cite people in order to collect fines to fund municipal operations in lieu of more traditional sources of funds (e.g., property and sales taxes, etc) in cities lacking those traditional tax bases. The main thing is if the city leaders do not encourage that form of corruption the police will not do it. Policing for profit often leads to people being repeatedly pulled over for minor offenses and pyramiding fines on the unfortunate, leading to widespread mistrust of the police by the public and some bad outcomes. Philando Castile, for example, was shot and killed by police during a traffic stop in a municipality that had a high reliance on traffic fines to fund the local government. I think he had a broken taillight and had piled up a litany of minor offenses. But I don't see that policy happening in Santa Fe.
As far as the police taking a more aggressive stance on traffic enforcement? I'm all for it. There is not a day that goes by without me seeing people flagrantly running red lights, speeding well over the limit, and behaving badly. And the outcomes are predictable: carnage on the roads, which is costly both to the victim and the city.
This is old stuff. I was working with Charlie Komanoff and the National Center for Bicycling and Walking on traffic justice issues almost a quarter century ago, before "Vision Zero" caught on in the U.S. Not enough has changed. If we want to increase fines, put the money into traffic safety design improvements. That way there is not a concern of "policing for profit" and perhaps more emphasis on Vision Zero design.
