Posts about Enforcement

Now, an example, namely Porter Street/Klingle Road between Cleveland Park and Mount Pleasant. This looks like a bit of interstate highway plunked down in the middle of the city, evidence of a long-forgotten plan to make Piney Branch Parkway into an inner-city crosstown highway. It's a four-lane divided roadway, limited access, no residences, no businesses, no crosswalks, no cross traffic, and it's no wonder that drivers speed up at this point, not because they're crazy speedsters, but because the road is clearly built for higher speeds.

The 85th-percentile speed for this road is 41 mph, as indicated by the 2006 Speed Study Map. Hence, the speed limit should be 40 mph, or maybe, if we're being conservative, 35 mph. But in actual fact, the posted limit is 30 mph, which is more than "slightly lower" than the 85th percentile. It comes as no surprise that the speed camera placed at this location has been a bountiful source of speeding tickets.

The MPD belatedly argues that "there is a lot of pedestrian and bicycle traffic accessing the park" here. But there's no bike lane, no sidewalk on the north side ("Pedestrians Prohibited" is posted), and the sidewalk on the south side is virtually by vegetation. These are indications that pedestrian access is, to say the least, discouraged. As for bicyclists, as one of that tribe, I can say that this is one of the most bicycle-hostile locations in the city, and not because of traffic speed, but because of road design.

So, is the 30 mph speed limit appropriate? There's no apparent justification for such a large deviation from the 85th percentile speed. In fact, just to the west of this location there are apartment houses and parked cars and driveways, and traffic speed there might be expected to be a greater concern than down where this "highway" opens up. But that's not where the speed camera is pointed, suggesting that the MPD is not really interested in the safety of residents, but in issuing lots of $125 speeding tickets.

The speed camera wouldn't matter if the speed limit were reasonable. Nobody can complain about a ticket for going much over the 85th percentile speed. The problem is not the speed camera, but the unreasonable speed limit, such that that 85th-percentile driver would, in this case, be exceeding the posted limit by a solid 11 mph.

So one has to wonder about other speed-camera locations in the District. The question is not the speed camera, but the appropriateness of the speed limit where the camera is located. Anyone defending a speed camera at a certain location should begin by confirming that the speed limit at that location is reasonable.

Any revenue bump will not last long as drivers adjust to actually following laws. Plus, it's a red herring to cast doubt on the program just because it's coming up in a budget cycle. DC needs to spend money to get cameras. Therefore, the program has to be part of the budget. MPD has been trying to buy the cameras for over a year, and budget and procurement have long been the obstacle.

Below are the candidates' answers:

Sekou Biddle: Putting aside the fact that these cameras will certainly change Tom [Sherwood]'s driving habits, I'm not a fan of this idea because, frankly, it looks like we're taking what was initially designed to be a public safety tool and turning it into a revenue generator. We see in the budget the claim that we're not having tax and fee increases, but we're looking to generate more revenue through speed cameras, and then using those cameras to do both speed and red lights. This really is disconcerting, and we need to really think about what we're using them for.

Vincent Orange: I do not support the idea. We've already raised in excess of $100 million through the speeding cameras and parking tickets and things of that like. I think that now it's become a revenue generator, and to say that we're going to cover the entire city with this apparatus is not a good idea in my view.

E. Gail Anderson Holness: I don't think it's a good idea. I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to use the funds to put those cameras in place ... I think there are other options to raise funds for the District of Columbia. I'm out there waving in the mornings and I see Maryland and Virginia tags coming into the District. There ought to be some kind of commuter tax.

You don't let the good suffer with the bad in this instance ... of course Tom, some of us go over the speed limit a little bit every now and again, and we're going to be subjected. But it's going through that green light piece is a major issue, so I'm not in favor of it all.

Peter Shapiro: I think there's a little bit of election-year pandering going on with this, because it's an important issue, and we've got some serious concerns with public safety in the city. Now the key is around balance, and so the red light cameras and even speed on green can be a very healthy thing. Now the idea of blanketing the whole city doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Kojo Nnamdi: Why not?

Shapiro: Because there are many many intersections where if we put this in place, then it's only about generating revenue. There are any number of anecdotes, you will hear people, I have my own experience with this, where it it feels like it's essentially a trap for folks. It's not making the community safer, so what you really have to do is make sure that we have a comprehensive plan, but that they're located in places where they actually will reduce speed in ways that keeps the community safe.

Shapiro is right that there's a lot of pandering here. During the debate, Vincent Orange repeated the phrase "livable, walkable," as he did at the Urban Neighborhood Alliance forum. It rings hollow from Orange, but it's nice that he has decided to play up the "livable, walkable" angle.

But "walkable" is part of "livable, walkable," and part of making a place walkable is making it safe to walk around. If Orange really believed in that, he might have mentioned in his answer that it's important to curb speeding and red light running.

Shapiro is right that we should only place cameras where they will improve safety, and it might be just fine to reduce the level of fines as DC increases the number of cameras. However, when Gray said he would "blanket" DC with cameras, he likely didn't mean one on every corner, but rather far more than we have today. Good for him.

All 4 candidates focused their answers around their complaints of the program. Perhaps they were all assuming that most people who listen to WAMU are driving. One day, hopefully soon, people running for office citywide will feel that if they pander, it's better to pander to residents who want safer neighborhoods than drivers who want to speed with impunity.

Meanwhile, if you are a Democratic voter in DC, vote for Peter Shapiro, whom we endorsed, in tomorrow's primary. It's not enough to just get a more ethical candidate if that candidate still won't take a stand on the important issues that actually affect policy. Ultimately, the reason to have a candidate who's not bought and sold by moneyed special interests is so they vote for better policies. Shapiro has demonstrated far more commitment to good policy than any other candidate in the race.

Pedestrians will welcome any measures to slow down cars, make drivers stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, and clear the box so that parents crossing the street to take their small children to their preschool don't have thread their way through the cars blocking the intersection and the crosswalks.

Lisa Sutter, head of photo enforcement for DC's Metropolitan Police Department, first presented her photo enforcement program to the DC Pedestrian Advisory Council in December or 2010. I thought Santa had delivered the absolute best Christmas presents. The new cameras will catch violators not stopping for pedestrians in crosswalks, speeding through red and green lights, and blocking the box.

Ms. Sutter has the proof. She collects data on how her cameras affect driver behavior.

Cameras work. Drivers slow down and stop going through red lights. Plus, revenues drop over time.

Many of the complaints against cameras, such as those from AAA, say that the measure is just a play for revenue. But it is not really a good revenue source once drivers learn and begin to follow the law. Maybe new cameras would help plug a budget gap this year, but DC will not be able to count on a lot of revenue over time. What they can count in is safer streets.

Look at Connecticut Avenue north of Chevy Chase Circle. The cars go the speed limit. As a pedestrian who has had many near misses, I am all for it. And I drive a car, as well.

Besides, we all want safer streets, and we need to invest the resources to get there. If an effective method pays for itself and provides funding for more expansion, should we not support it?

Each pedestrian killed costs $3.84 million (in 2005 dollars) from losing wages and productivity, medical expenses, motor vehicle damage and employers' insurance costs. A pedestrian injury costs $52,900 (also in 2005 dollars, according to the National Safety Bureau.)

Aren't these fines a small price to pay to reduce crashes?

ANCs 3C and 3F passed a resolution in favor of photo enforcement, and other ANC's across the city are considering similar actions. It is time to view the risk of bodily harm from the traffic violations on our streets as we do the risk from crime. In fact, the risk is greater.

In their report of Traffic Safety in the New Millennium, the International Association of Chiefs of Police wrote, "More people are killed and injured and the economic losses to society are greater from traffic crashes than that from crime."

It's long past time to install more traffic cameras and make our streets safer. Mayor Gray took the right step, and the DC Council should approve the program as part of this year's budget.

A police department statement pointedly noted that Toles's "violations [were] observed by a uniformed patrol officer operating a marked police cruiser on the Capital Beltway..."

Apparently, it took more than the usual amount of effort from police to stop the speeding councilmember. The Examiner reports that Toles's vehicle was "surrounded by officers"—indicating that multiple vehicles and officers were involved in the chase prior to the vehicle being stopped on Branch Avenue. WJLA states that "some officers approached Toles's car with their guns drawn."

Multiple officer accounts state that Toles repeatedly identified and referred to herself as the District 7 county councilmember and acted in a belligerent manner toward the officers throughout the traffic stop.

After police realized that they had stopped a member of the county council and not some ordinary scofflaw, they decided to issue her a citation only for an unsafe lane change, which carries a $90 fine and one point against her driver's license. The officer gave Toles a written warning for speeding.

Police defend their actions, claim no preferential treatment

Police were quick to defend their initial handling of this matter. However, they also left open the possibility that additional charges may be forthcoming after further review of the situation by police brass.

In response to growing concerns from the media and the public about apparent preferential treatment of a county official, the police stated:

The issuance of a warning citation for the speed is consistent with the typical discretion applied by police officers to speeding motorists. The traffic violations were captured on the police officer's in-car camera, and the incident will be subject to command review. At the moment, the video is evidence in a pending District Court traffic case, and will not be released.

Clearly, most drivers who are observed by a uniformed police officer going 50 miles over the speed limit would be immediately ticketed, and possibly arrested for reckless driving. This is especially so if, like Toles, they are crossing multiple lanes on the Capital Beltway, not immediately stopping in response to multiple police lights and sirens, and acting belligerently toward police, who felt the need to draw their weapons in response to the traffic stop.

For the county police to suggest that the issuance of a warning under such circumstances is "consistent with the typical discretion applied by police officers to speeding motorists" defies logic.

Toles released a statement shortly after the incident, stating that she "consider[s] moving violations serious matters," that she regrets the incident, and that she intends to pay the $90 ticket for the unsafe lane change. She later said she would temporarily give up her county vehicle and also take a driver safety course.

Toles is no stranger to serious traffic violations

Based on her driving record over the past couple of years, the public has ample reason to question whether Toles genuinely regards moving violations as "serious matters."

On August 5, 2010, Toles pled guilty in Upper Marlboro District Court to making an unsafe lane change on March 31, 2010, at Martin Luther King Jr. Hwy and Greenleaf Road. She paid a $90 fine. This is the exact same charge for which she received a ticket in the February 22, 2012 incident.

On April 1, 2011, Toles pled guilty in Hyattsville District Court to driving off the roadway while passing a vehicle on September 7, 2010, at the Capital Beltway and Pennsylvania Avenue. She also pled guilty to failing to display her registration card upon demand by the police during that same incident. She paid a total of $150 in fines.

In both of those 2010 instances, court records reflect that Toles' driver's license was temporarily suspended for several weeks, prior to her guilty pleas, after the councilmember failed to appear in court to answer the charges.

Justice and fair play require that Toles face charges

After the Jack and Leslie Johnson scandals, the last thing Prince George's County needs is for another of its public officials to get away with gaming the system by trading on their political office.

Two days before Toles was stopped by police, another driver killed herself and injured 4 others in a horrendous crash. She was driving similar 100+ mph speeds on Martin Luther King Jr. Highway. Like Toles, the driver in that fatal incident was a repeat traffic offender. Indeed, she actually had received a ticket on January 22 for traveling 91 mph in a 55 mph zone—which is 14 mph less than Toles' alleged speed on February 22.

Toles knew exactly what she was doing when she belligerently and repeatedly identified herself as a county councilmember after leading police on a high-speed chase. She wanted to intimidate the police into not charging her with serious traffic violations. And in that effort, she has been successful—at least up to this point.

Based on the police officer accounts that have been reported thus far, there appears to be ample probable cause to support charging Toles with multiple serious traffic violations arising out of the February 22 incident, including but not limited to reckless driving, fleeing or eluding police, and obstruction of justice.

Police claim that one of the reasons the ticketing officer did not cite Toles for exceeding the speed limit initially was that the officer had no radar, had not properly calibrated his speedometer, and did not have time to pace her actual speed while giving chase. However, the determination of Toles's precise speed is not an essential element to either of the above charges.

Under Maryland's point system, a conviction on these traffic charges could result in mandatory suspension or revocation of Toles's license, in addition to any other applicable fines or jail time.

The Prince George's County Police have said they will review the situation and may charge Toles with additional violations. Hopefully, Chief Mark Magaw, Assistant Chief Kevin Davis (301-772-4740), and the rest of the executive review panel will take this opportunity to do the right thing and charge the council member in the same manner as any other driver would have been charged under similar circumstances.

If the police don't do their job, then it is up to the State's Attorney's Office to protect the interests of Maryland's citizens in Prince George's County. The office's District Court Division, headed by Chief Mary Brennan (304-952-3967) and Assistant Chief Michael Glynn (301-952-2875), is ultimately responsible for prosecuting misdemeanor crimes in Prince George's. That office should not hesitate to pursue these charges directly if the county police department lacks the political will.

Once properly charged, Councilmember Toles should be afforded all the constitutional protections and presumptions that any other criminal defendant would have under our justice system—including the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury trial, and the requirement that the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Repeated reckless driving on Maryland's roads is, to use Karen Toles's own description, a very "serious matter." Nearly 600 people die each year in Maryland as a result of automobile crashes. If the police saw the councilmember engaging in such conduct on February 22, as multiple media reports suggest, they should not turn a blind eye toward that conduct, and neither should the State's Attorney's Office.

In America—including in Prince George's County—no one, regardless of their position in government, should be above the law.

The stories, like many press accounts about traffic cameras, are fairly one-sided, assuming that all readers drives, not walk or bike, and all of the drivers care more about having to pay a ticket than about being safe on the roads. Fox reporter Brian Ackland starts out with the leading question, "Is it about safety or is it really about making money?" Then, he talks only about the money and not at all about the safety.

Like too many reporters, he also quotes AAA and nobody else. There's one paraphrase of something Mayor Gray said in "a recent interview" on the opposing side. There are actually many groups in DC, like the Pedestrian Advisory Council, which have advocated and testified around cameras, and could provide a meaningful perspective from those who like the safety effect of cameras.

Still, the original petition has a point. A $40 fine in Maryland seems to get people to drive slower. Does DC need higher fines?

It would make sense to lower fines, if DC adds more cameras to catch more unsafe behavior. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) issued an RFP in June to buy more cameras, including ones that can detect drivers blocking crosswalks, not stopping before turning right on red, and not stopping when another vehicle stops to let a pedestrian cross. Some of the cameras will be mobile, so MPD can periodically move them to hot spots where residents have complained about dangerous driving.

Unfortunately, the RFP is still stuck in procurement, and it's been well over a year since MPD publicly talked about getting these cameras. Whichever agency or official currently needs to sign off, for whatever step it's at, should move it forward swiftly, and start the process to get even more cameras. Then, it may make sense to lower the fines.

How does the level of fines relate to the number of cameras? To achieve the goal of deterring unsafe driving, we can either hit drivers with huge charges when they're caught, or just catch them more often.

Criminologist Mark Kleiman has done substantial research on the tradeoff between the severity of punishment and the certainty of getting caught. A long prison term might deter someone from a crime more than a short prison term, but a far better deterrent is simply arresting people more quickly and more frequently when they commit a crime.

Kleiman studied fairly complex policing strategies to achieve this in criminal law, such as focusing intense police attention on a certain area for a period of time. For traffic, it's simple. With cameras, it's possible to enforce more of the laws against unsafe driving behavior, more of the time.

At a recent policy forum, I met Kleiman and asked him what he thought of cameras. He said the ideal enforcement system would be one where running a red light, or speeding, triggered a fine every time, but the fine was fairly low.

We'd need to make sure it's high enough that wealthier people don't just decide to constantly run red lights (which is dangerous) and then pay the extra cost, but it doesn't need to be very high. Experimentation could determine the lowest level of fine that actually deters the dangerous behavior.

And what of the argument that this is all about money? Lower fines but more cameras would prove it's not really about money. So would a policy of keeping the camera revenue out of general spending. Camera revenue used to go into a special fund to pay for traffic safety programs. Mayor Gray ended almost all such funds when he took office, but keeping the fund would ensure that nobody is trying to soak speeders just to pay for other priorities.

Regardless, DC needs to break the infuriating logjam in procurement. These cameras pay for themselves through tickets. In a for-profit company, a division that brought in revenue that covered costs would get to keep growing. Government budgeting doesn't work that way, and MPD can't simply take the money from camera tickets and buy more cameras. They need the Mayor and Council to allocate budget to buy and maintain the cameras, even when the effect is to return all the money to the budget for the next year.

Mayor Gray and the DC Council: Please put more cameras on the streets. Then, let's seriously look at whether we can still deter unsafe driving with lower fines.

Jim Graham also argued against enforcing this law, even though, as Mike DeBonis noted, he represents the (residentially) densest ward in DC. He introduced an amendment that would have restricted fines to only apply on streets which have already been plowed. One of the bill's supporters called the amendment a "poison pill." That sends the ironic message that if drivers can't get through a street, it's not important that pedestrians be able to either.

Kwame Brown, who did support the bill but also supported Graham's amendment, made the amusing comment that Mayor Gray has done a good job with snow clearance this year. We've had only 1.7" of snow this year, compared to an annual average average through January of 8.4" and the lowest in 124 years.

Graham insisted that he wants to do something about shoveling; he just wants to use incentives rather than fines. But he's never given a practical incentive-based proposal.

Many councilmembers opining on this issue would have more credibility if they actually walked to transit to get to work in a snow, or for that matter any other time.

During the years he chaired the council's transportation committee and sat on the WMATA Board, Graham came under periodic criticism for very rarely riding transit. He stuck up for low bus fares, but never addressed the problem of unsafe sidewalks after storm. Graham even bragged during today's debate about not moving bills like this one during his tenure as chairman.

Large numbers of DC residents have to get to work or school on foot and on transit after snowstorms, and unshoveled areas create serious safety hazards. Sidewalks are often completely impassable for people with disabilities or even just temporary injuries.

DC already has a law that residents and businesses have to clear their sidewalks, but it's not enforceable. The government has clear the sidewalk and then sue individual violators to collect up to $25. This bill simply makes the penalty for violating this law a straightforward ticket and fine, just like in most cities including Arlington, Alexandria and Montgomery County.

Cheh made many changes to the bill during the last few months to cut the fines even further from the original proposal, put in exemptions for poor and elderly residents, and more. Property owners get a warning before having to pay any fine until the end of 2013.

It's not clear if this law does enough to push the egregious violators, like the large parking lot in Mount Vernon Triangle, to actually take any action, but a majority of councilmembers have made clear that they don't really care to do anything about those problems.

The bill wouldn't have even taken effect until next winter. Now, we're likely to have to wait until yet another winter. If we get a real snow this year, will the councilmembers who voted to table this bill today try walking their neighborhoods and getting to work on foot or by transit? If they did, they'd very likely look at this issue very differently.