The Biden administration has recently taken important but little-noticed steps to improve public safety. It eliminated a deeply flawed policing program that encouraged law enforcement agencies across the country to use traffic stops as an excuse to fight crime.
We have to make sure that what happens next moves forward.
The program, Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Road Safety (DDACTS), aims to pull more drivers over in “high-crime” areas, even for minor violations such as broken taillights. It is based on the idea that police can reduce both traffic accidents and the number of people on the road. crime at the same time.
Sounds like a smart way to fight crime and promote road safety. The only problem is, it's neither.
Study after study has not found a clear link between aggressive traffic enforcement and reduced crime rates. This is not surprising since the people stopped were not suspected of any criminal activity.
In Nashville, a city that once supported this approach, researchers found no relationship between the number of police stops and crime levels. And when Fayetteville, North Carolina, reduced the size of suspensions for minor violations, traffic accidents actually decreased. This is likely because police have more time to focus on genuine safety-related stops.
What these programs have done is undermine trust, violate civil liberties, and make roads more dangerous for Black drivers. In Nashville, black drivers were 68% more likely to be stopped for a failure to move ticket. As Tire Nichols' murder tragically highlighted, these crackdowns can escalate into violence and even death at the hands of police.
The harm and risks posed by programs like DDACTS are why more than 70 traffic safety and civil rights organizations have joined my colleagues at the Policing Project in calling for an end to the program. That's why the NAACP Legal Defense Foundation wrote that such efforts “should not be tolerated or encouraged.”
Ending federal support for DDACTS was a necessary corrective, but it is only the beginning of the broader review needed for U.S. traffic enforcement. In fact, there are many programs like DDACTS that should be reevaluated. Massive traffic enforcement provides a backdoor to discriminatory over-policing, and the evidence shows it does nothing to fight crime or make our roads safer.
The way to fight crime is not to stop it based on hunch or pretext, but to actively invest in communities and target police efforts against people suspected of serious criminal activity.
On the other hand, there are real road safety issues in this country. More than 350,000 people have died in crashes on U.S. roads over the past decade, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. In 2023 alone, more than 44,000 people died in car accidents. The problem needs to be resolved immediately.
It's time to return to proven methods of combating the road safety epidemic. We know that redesigning our roads and improving vehicle safety standards can save lives and prevent road accidents and injuries. This is where transportation authorities should focus their efforts. We need to significantly increase investment in evidence-based strategies that are proven to save lives. For example, designing safer roads with better lighting. Provide protected bike lanes and crosswalks. Require automakers to incorporate advanced safety features. Expand access to reliable and affordable public transportation.
We also need to invest more in rigorous research. For too long, traffic enforcement policy has been based on assumptions rather than evidence. We need high-quality research that examines not just accident and crime rates, but also whether and to what extent enforcement is working to reduce traffic accidents.
We also need to explore the value of automated traffic enforcement, such as speed cameras with income-based fines. These studies should also take into account the social costs they impose on those who are suspended, including whether fines are prohibitive for those living paycheck to paycheck. And above all, we should listen to our communities on how to improve road safety.
The role of traffic enforcement should focus on the most dangerous driving behaviors, based on data and visible safety risks, not on gut feelings or pretexts. It must be based on empirical evidence about the value of enforcement. It is also worth asking whether armed police are necessary for routine traffic enforcement.
Changing the approach to traffic enforcement is no easy task. But it is necessary if we want a future where our roads are safe, fair and equitable for everyone. The end of DDACTS should be a turning point. This is the moment to untangle the conflicting imperatives of crime reduction and traffic safety and begin to envision a new vision for public safety on America's streets. We should pursue policies that are proven to work, rather than seeking easy answers through discriminatory over-enforcement.
Farhan Heidari is an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University School of Law and a senior advisor to the Policing Project.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
