Dear Supporters of our Police Reform Project, Happy spring, folks! And something we are happy about before we get into this month’s discussion – the SAFTE (Safe and Fair Traffic Enforcement) bill has been introduced into the Assembly as Assembly Bill 6631. We will be sharing ways you can support this bill in upcoming newsletters. Our work to change the law relating to traffic enforcement of low-level, non-safety stops is driven by the desire to eliminate racial inequities in traffic enforcement, while improving safety to individuals and communities. Other traffic enforcement and infrastructure inequities also impact Black and brown pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, making communities of color less safe, with disproportionately greater incidents of traffic fatalities. The Vision Zero Network, a collaborative road safety campaign, is one group examining traffic safety and equity. In a 2024 report titled “Fair Warnings,” the authors noted the far higher frequency of traffic deaths and injuries in communities of color and people living in low-income neighborhoods. The report stated, “Black people are nearly 30% more likely to be killed in crashes than white people. Low-income neighborhoods have 35% higher rates of roadway traffic fatalities than the national average.” The report described the factors that have contributed to these disparities: These safety disparities and inequities have existed for decades in the U.S., the result of discriminatory policies and practices such as redlining, exclusionary zoning and the development of interstate highway systems, which divided and destroyed many neighborhoods where people of color lived (and often still reside). Today, these communities are disproportionately burdened with roads designed for high volumes of traffic traveling at high speeds, leading to more – and more severe – crashes. These same neighborhoods have less safety infrastructure, especially for people walking and biking. Some communities turn to traffic cameras as a solution. Speed safety camera programs — when well designed, operated and monitored — are effective at deterring people from speeding, thereby reducing crashes overall and lessening the severity of injuries when crashes occur. They are widely used internationally and in more than 240 communities in the United States. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) recommends speed safety cameras as one of its Proven Safety Countermeasures and cites studies showing a 20% to 37% reduction in roadway fatalities and injuries when used. (Read more in the USDOT’s Speed Safety Camera Program Planning and Operations Guide.) The traffic safety benefits of speed safety cameras are well documented in specific contexts. At the same time, in the U.S., the placement and use of speed safety cameras (and other automated enforcement) build on a transportation system with longtime structural inequities. This deserves our attention. Many of us may think cameras are “race neutral” – that is, they would pick up violations of drivers of different races and ethnicities proportionate to their segment of the population. Perhaps surprisingly, this is not so. What we are coming to learn is that, for a variety of reasons, infrastructure (as discussed above) and deployment of cameras also contribute to a system in which there are racial inequities in traffic enforcement and safety within communities. The Vision Zero report notes, Traffic cameras are sometimes touted as “race neutral” because they lessen individual officer discretion and the racial inequities associated with traffic stops. But poorly managed camera enforcement programs may exacerbate racial and income disparities. In particular, policies that determine the locations and distribution of cameras have important equity implications. The report goes on to discuss the benefits and equity concerns about speed safety cameras. They include prioritizing “upstream, preventive safety measures along with- or in place of – speed safety cameras wherever possible; using a systemic safety analysis that is equity-centered and transparent in determining where to place cameras; addressing fines and fees; and using income generated from fines and fees to enhance road safety projects, to name a few. As technology advances, so do methods of traffic enforcement. For now, automated traffic cameras focus on speeding and failing to stop for red lights. Those types of traffic violations for safety purposes are not the kinds of violations addressed in Senate Bill 3662A/Assembly Bill 6631, the pretext/secondary stop bill. But when we think about solutions to inequitable traffic enforcement, we often wonder whether cameras may be the solution. Of course, one thing we want to avoid is moving from one type of inequitable enforcement to another. As we continue to explore how to reduce racial disparities in traffic enforcement, we must also consider whether solutions will fairly address the problem. We must be aware of potential causes of inequity and try to prevent inequitable solutions from being implemented. Thank you for your continued interest and support. Jill Paperno, Esq. Katie Blum, Esq. | 
