I used to think of him as one of the Jalopnik writers that that took the effort to really investigate (when allowed to) and produce some thoughtful pieces. He severely damaged his credibility with me in this article about the case for ending traffic stops. I bring it up here because I think it deserves real discussion, and I grow increasingly despondent about the futility of finding that in the FP comments.
Here are Raphe’s main arguments, paraphrased:
- Traffic stops don’t don’t slow people down or make anybody safer on the road.
- Traffic stops are simply a racist tool to harass blacks and other minorities and facilitate what would otherwise be illegal searches.
- Traffic stops are a tool used to increase revenue, again, preferably at the expense of minorities.
To support his opinion, he makes a bunch of references to official docs and studies, but his logic is slim, and his references are a master class in cherry-picking published sources to support a preconceived conclusion:
- The main argument is that Orlove doesn’t see anybody slowing down, that there are still lots of speeders, reckless drivers, and non-compliant junk heaps on the road. That’s anecdotal evidence, and as any rational person with a bare minimum of critical thinking ability should realize, anecdotes from one or even several people are useless to prove a generalized point. The only study he really references is about Nashville, where apparently they have well above the national average of traffic stops but not below the average of traffic fatalities or accidents. The problem is that when you recognize the wide variations in regional driver behavior across the country, the lack of a control wing on which to base solid conclusions is glaringly obvious. Anecdotally, I can say that when I know that a certain region has more state troopers lying in wait on it, I keep my cruise control set lower, and the cars around me do too. Everyone definitely slows down for a while after they pass a cop or traffic stop. That would be my anecdote vs. Orlove’s anecdote. Both equally worthless for nationwide generalizations. To be clear: he may be right, but he didn’t show the evidence to support it.
- Do minorities get harassed at traffic stops? Certainly, we all know this. Are traffic stops used by some police forces as a way to specifically target minorities, especially immigrant ones? Almost certainly, according to what I’ve see in the mass media. Are traffic stops therefore inherently racist? That’s an absurd leap. Show of hands, how many white males here have been stopped for speeding or other moving violations? Now how many of you think you can claim those stops were racist? Point being: you cannot generalize from one or even a number of data points without looking at an unbiased and sufficiently large sample population.
- Traffic stops are unequivocally a primary method of revenue generation, especially for small jurisdictions. This is where Orlove is on solid ground. Now, how do we take out that conflict of interest? What’s a way to enforce without incarceration or impoundment of the offender’s car? Maybe make all fines be sent to the state budget instead of local and earmarked for road improvement or education or something that everyone can agree is a good use for the money? Just one idea I had as I typed this.
Now, not to be seen as a whiner without solutions, Raphe ends with some ideas for alternatives to traffic stops, but he clearly hasn’t given much thought to them:
- Traffic cameras. Yeah, this is a good one. I don’t know about your specific state, but here in Texas, traffic cameras were so controversial that the legislature abolished them. The big complaint was that it was unfair to be convicted by a machine (I think that’s a flimsy rationale, but no one asked me) and that they were primarily used for easy revenue (so that doesn’t solve one of Raphe’s main gripes either). Calling for a measure that the public has already rejected is worthless.
- Public transportation. Yes, that’s right, he proposed public transportation as a way to eliminate the need for traffic stops. The good old “if you get rid of the cars, you get rid of car deaths and accidents” argument. This is a Jalopnik writer making this argument.
- And finally, have government people go around and proactively find and fix car problems like tail lights for free, so that everyone who can’t afford to will have a working car. Even if you agree with that kind of socialism, and you can make an argument for it if you support expanded government, how will that have anything to do with moving violations?
Let me be clear: I think many traffic stops are bullshit, especially the way I’ve seen them usually run. There is lots of abuse of police power, and so much money grubbing conflict of interest in the practice that it makes me nauseated and contemptuous of the forces that do it, even as I have to admit that every single time I’ve been stopped for speeding, I was guilty. But if you want to change a practice, you need to bring unbiased, logical arguments to the fight. Otherwise, you just hurt the cause for which you are fighting.