Why does the DC Council (Charles Allen) not want the MPD doing any traffic enforcement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Washington D.C. has the largest police force, on a per capita basis, in the United States

But we don't want them to enforce any traffic laws because of tortured woke reasons.

They also don't solve or prevent any crimes, as evidenced by our skyrocketing violent crimes rates.

So we pay roughly 4,000 officers, many more than $100,000 with over-the-top generous benefits, for what exactly?

The police don't help anyway. They victim blame, down play the crimes (it's not a robbery, just lost property), and otherwise don't give a crap about our well being. I wish we'd use that money in other ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Washington D.C. has the largest police force, on a per capita basis, in the United States

But we don't want them to enforce any traffic laws because of tortured woke reasons.

They also don't solve or prevent any crimes, as evidenced by our skyrocketing violent crimes rates.

So we pay roughly 4,000 officers, many more than $100,000 with over-the-top generous benefits, for what exactly?

It's hazard pay for working in a place like DC. Would you take a job dealing with some of the residents of DC for less than $100k+benefits? Not many would in this market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington D.C. has the largest police force, on a per capita basis, in the United States

But we don't want them to enforce any traffic laws because of tortured woke reasons.

They also don't solve or prevent any crimes, as evidenced by our skyrocketing violent crimes rates.

So we pay roughly 4,000 officers, many more than $100,000 with over-the-top generous benefits, for what exactly?

It's hazard pay for working in a place like DC. Would you take a job dealing with some of the residents of DC for less than $100k+benefits? Not many would in this market.

The vast, vast majority of DC police officers are not engaged in street policing in dangerous neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Allen's district right off one of the most dangerous roads in NE for pedestrians (Florida Ave between the Starburst and Dave Thomas Circle). I feel frustrated because I actually agree with the PP that the best way to get safer roads is to build better roads that are less conducive to speeding and also that protect pedestrians. Florida has four lanes, people regularly go as much as 20 mph over the limit, narrow and mostly unprotected sidewalks, and too few traffic lights (a number of pedestrian crossings not at lights that are disregarded by drivers about 99.9999999% of the time -- it takes a brave soul to try one of these crosswalks when there is any traffic at all).

And yet the Florida Avenue streetscape that has been talked about for a decade is nowhere to be seen. Despite multiple fatalities on the road in the last 10 years.

And ALSO Allen and others are aginst traffic enforcement.

My question, as with crime, is: okay, no what? If you won't do the liberal/progressive thing of investing in improved infrastructure that slows drivers down and protects pedestrians, but you also won't do the traditional/conservative thing of enforcing existing traffic laws as a deterrent for speeders and dangerous drivers, then are we just supposed to live with dangerous driving all the time?

It's the same with crime. You can talk all you want about "violence interruptors" and providing young people with more resources to keep them away from criminal activity, but if you won't actually do any of this and you also don't want to enforce criminal laws against violators, then what is the plan?

I get that policy is hard but that doesn't mean "no policy, zero enforcement" is an acceptable solution then. You have to do *something*. Do something.

Thank you. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Allen's district right off one of the most dangerous roads in NE for pedestrians (Florida Ave between the Starburst and Dave Thomas Circle). I feel frustrated because I actually agree with the PP that the best way to get safer roads is to build better roads that are less conducive to speeding and also that protect pedestrians. Florida has four lanes, people regularly go as much as 20 mph over the limit, narrow and mostly unprotected sidewalks, and too few traffic lights (a number of pedestrian crossings not at lights that are disregarded by drivers about 99.9999999% of the time -- it takes a brave soul to try one of these crosswalks when there is any traffic at all).

And yet the Florida Avenue streetscape that has been talked about for a decade is nowhere to be seen. Despite multiple fatalities on the road in the last 10 years.

And ALSO Allen and others are aginst traffic enforcement.

My question, as with crime, is: okay, no what? If you won't do the liberal/progressive thing of investing in improved infrastructure that slows drivers down and protects pedestrians, but you also won't do the traditional/conservative thing of enforcing existing traffic laws as a deterrent for speeders and dangerous drivers, then are we just supposed to live with dangerous driving all the time?

It's the same with crime. You can talk all you want about "violence interruptors" and providing young people with more resources to keep them away from criminal activity, but if you won't actually do any of this and you also don't want to enforce criminal laws against violators, then what is the plan?

I get that policy is hard but that doesn't mean "no policy, zero enforcement" is an acceptable solution then. You have to do *something*. Do something.

*Doing something* is the Mayor's job. Want to know why the police won't enforce anything? Ask the Mayor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic stops are a leading cause of police getting shot and shooting people. They create unnecessary friction. There are other ways to get the same safety impact without the negative side effects, such as automated enforcement.

Automated enforcement is very limited in what it can enforce. It doesn't deal with DUI, for example. It is a force multiplier. But inadequate on its own.

So no one is policing drunk driving. Great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enforcement is a pretty inefficient way to make things safer and also can be racist.

Building the roads so that people drive at safer speeds is far more effective. That can mean things like narrower lanes.

If you've ever driven on a wide straight lane with few stop lights, you naturally go faster. I just drove on a country back road that had a 60 mph limit, but I was at my limit around 40 mph for most of it because it was narrow and didn't have a safe shoulder to provide margin.

Translation: We're going to take away car lanes, turn them in bike lanes and that will make traffic for drivers so terrible that no one will be able to move, let alone speed. Talk about inefficient.

FWIW - the vast majority of people advocating for bike lanes also want increased enforcement. it comes up a lot. more in the context of red light cameras and speed cameras, and booting cars with tickets. I’m not sure what police officers can do about truly reckless drivers on city streets in the moment- a high speed chase would not be safe either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enforcement is a pretty inefficient way to make things safer and also can be racist.

Building the roads so that people drive at safer speeds is far more effective. That can mean things like narrower lanes.

If you've ever driven on a wide straight lane with few stop lights, you naturally go faster. I just drove on a country back road that had a 60 mph limit, but I was at my limit around 40 mph for most of it because it was narrow and didn't have a safe shoulder to provide margin.

Translation: We're going to take away car lanes, turn them in bike lanes and that will make traffic for drivers so terrible that no one will be able to move, let alone speed. Talk about inefficient.

FWIW - the vast majority of people advocating for bike lanes also want increased enforcement. it comes up a lot. more in the context of red light cameras and speed cameras, and booting cars with tickets. I’m not sure what police officers can do about truly reckless drivers on city streets in the moment- a high speed chase would not be safe either.

you don't know what police officers can do about reckless driving? is this for real? the debate in this city over policing is every ridiculous stereotype of woke mob madness come true.

you know what happens when the police see a drunk driver? they pull them over and arrest them. there's no high speed car chase. the cop isn't beating anyone down. it's all predictable and boring and normal: the person gets arrested and everyone is safer for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Allen is singularly focused on helping criminals. If MPD was doing traffic enforcement, that might end up hurting criminals.

And no, I’m not kidding.

But why is Allen so pro criminal? Most of his ward is actually pretty well off.

I think solely because he has gotten away with it. If someone had the balls to run an anti-crime campaign, I think they would win. But folks are afraid of getting branded a racist, precisely because Allen and a small group of very loud folks on the Hill have made any anti-crime or school improvement discussions into a race issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Allen's district right off one of the most dangerous roads in NE for pedestrians (Florida Ave between the Starburst and Dave Thomas Circle). I feel frustrated because I actually agree with the PP that the best way to get safer roads is to build better roads that are less conducive to speeding and also that protect pedestrians. Florida has four lanes, people regularly go as much as 20 mph over the limit, narrow and mostly unprotected sidewalks, and too few traffic lights (a number of pedestrian crossings not at lights that are disregarded by drivers about 99.9999999% of the time -- it takes a brave soul to try one of these crosswalks when there is any traffic at all).

And yet the Florida Avenue streetscape that has been talked about for a decade is nowhere to be seen. Despite multiple fatalities on the road in the last 10 years.

And ALSO Allen and others are aginst traffic enforcement.

My question, as with crime, is: okay, no what? If you won't do the liberal/progressive thing of investing in improved infrastructure that slows drivers down and protects pedestrians, but you also won't do the traditional/conservative thing of enforcing existing traffic laws as a deterrent for speeders and dangerous drivers, then are we just supposed to live with dangerous driving all the time?

It's the same with crime. You can talk all you want about "violence interruptors" and providing young people with more resources to keep them away from criminal activity, but if you won't actually do any of this and you also don't want to enforce criminal laws against violators, then what is the plan?

I get that policy is hard but that doesn't mean "no policy, zero enforcement" is an acceptable solution then. You have to do *something*. Do something.

*Doing something* is the Mayor's job. Want to know why the police won't enforce anything? Ask the Mayor.

Allen is currently in charge of rewriting DC's criminal code. It's literally pro-criminal all around: Redefining down violent crimes like carjacking, greatly cutting back prison terms, more parole for everyone, clogging up the courts with additional "process" so it's harder to prosecute anyone. His crime bill would even redefine various sex crimes to make it easier for sex offenders to get off free. You just can't make this up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Traffic cameras disproportionately hit black drivers

How is this possible? Are they designed to only take a picture if the driver is black?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Allen is singularly focused on helping criminals. If MPD was doing traffic enforcement, that might end up hurting criminals.

And no, I’m not kidding.

But why is Allen so pro criminal? Most of his ward is actually pretty well off.

Because most people in his ward move to ward 3 if they care about crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic cameras disproportionately hit black drivers

How is this possible? Are they designed to only take a picture if the driver is black?

There's been a million studies all showing black drivers are far more likely to be ticketed by cameras. Some cities have dropped cameras because of it.

https://www.propublica.org/article/chicagos-race-neutral-traffic-cameras-ticket-black-and-latino-drivers-the-most

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic cameras disproportionately hit black drivers

How is this possible? Are they designed to only take a picture if the driver is black?

this has been a long standing issue with traffic cameras. there's lots of reasons. blacks are less likely to have jobs that allow for working remotely so they're more likely to drive. they're less likely to live near their jobs so they're in their cars longer. they're less likely to live in neighborhoods with groceries stores and things like that nearby so that also has them in their cars more. they're more likely to have lower incomes so traffic tickets and other penalties hurt a lot more.

im frankly surprised dc even has cameras because the evidence that they affect african americans more is overwhelming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Allen's district right off one of the most dangerous roads in NE for pedestrians (Florida Ave between the Starburst and Dave Thomas Circle). I feel frustrated because I actually agree with the PP that the best way to get safer roads is to build better roads that are less conducive to speeding and also that protect pedestrians. Florida has four lanes, people regularly go as much as 20 mph over the limit, narrow and mostly unprotected sidewalks, and too few traffic lights (a number of pedestrian crossings not at lights that are disregarded by drivers about 99.9999999% of the time -- it takes a brave soul to try one of these crosswalks when there is any traffic at all).

And yet the Florida Avenue streetscape that has been talked about for a decade is nowhere to be seen. Despite multiple fatalities on the road in the last 10 years.

And ALSO Allen and others are aginst traffic enforcement.

My question, as with crime, is: okay, no what? If you won't do the liberal/progressive thing of investing in improved infrastructure that slows drivers down and protects pedestrians, but you also won't do the traditional/conservative thing of enforcing existing traffic laws as a deterrent for speeders and dangerous drivers, then are we just supposed to live with dangerous driving all the time?

It's the same with crime. You can talk all you want about "violence interruptors" and providing young people with more resources to keep them away from criminal activity, but if you won't actually do any of this and you also don't want to enforce criminal laws against violators, then what is the plan?

I get that policy is hard but that doesn't mean "no policy, zero enforcement" is an acceptable solution then. You have to do *something*. Do something.

*Doing something* is the Mayor's job. Want to know why the police won't enforce anything? Ask the Mayor.

But the council can force the mayor's hand by actually passing legislation to move things along. And council members have a large voice in the city and can use it to advocate for policies that will actually help their constituents. But very often they instead just make mealy-mouthed noncommital noises about equity while doing NOTHING to actually help citizens.

If you want to criticize the mayor, pull up a chair, I've got thoughts. But the idea that the mayor is the only person with any power in this city is false. Councilmembers are paid with tax dollars to represent constituent interests and in many ways are better positioned to respond to constituent needs because of their ward focus. Charles Allen could do a lot and he isn't.