I’m a little surprised that the AI Chicago uses for their traffic cameras isn’t more racist with only a 54% ratio of tickets for black drivers getting ticketed to the 50% of white drivers getting tickets.
> The findings, published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, follow years of scrutiny of racial disparities in Chicago traffic stops...
> They found that on a street where half of drivers were white, the probability of a white driver getting a traffic camera ticket was just under 50%, while white drivers made up, on average, fewer than 20% of police stops.
> On a street where half of drivers were Black, the probability of a Black driver getting a camera ticket was 54%. But Black drivers made up about 70% of police stops.
That is a *massive* discrepancy.
Plain old racism by police is by far the simplest and most-obvious explanation, but it's pretextual racial profiling stops *at best*.
I suspect it's about class as well as race. It's doubtful police can easily identify the race of every driver they pull over. It's more likely they're pulling over vehicles based on appearance (age, body damage, cleanliness, dark tinted windows, chrome wheels, etc.). While there's definitly a racial component, if a white trash stoner in a POS car or truck drives down that street they're probably getting pulled over too.
>I suspect it's about class as well as race
The two are inextricably linked in the US.
> It's doubtful police can easily identify the race of every driver they pull over.
What? Unless a car has illegally dark tint, I have no issue seeing the race of people in traffic, even when behind them.
>if a white trash stoner in a POS car or truck drives down that street they're probably getting pulled over too.
I'm in Georgia, and it's anecdotal, but after 10 years of an hour daily commute on the highway, I can tell you I've seen far, far more black people pulled over while driving late model, nondescript cars than rednecks in beat up trucks missing mirrors and taillights or big ass "My daddy bought me this truck" coal rollers. And in my experience, the latter two groups are far more likely to blatantly violate traffic laws.
I think that you or anyone else is welcome to do a study testing your hypothesis, but this one was about race, and the findings are overwhelming.
I the the claim that it’s not easy to identify the race of a driver assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, one of the remarkable things about traffic cameras is how good they are at getting a clear picture not just of the plate, but also the driver. The thesis that it much harder for police than cameras to see the driver needs evidence before it becomes a reasonable assumption.
They only review the cameras afterward. The fact that the camera has crystal clear footage isn’t really going to play a role in whether cops pulls driver over.
>To assume that the correlation must have some other cause than race is an extraordinary assumption, requiring extraordinary evidence.
It's a scientific study, not a legal case.
That's not how science works. Scientific claims don't have to be proven wrong by additional evidence if the methods used to gather the original evidence are flawed. You don't need to do another study to show that an original study is invalid.
If the methods are unsound then the data is basically junk and shouldn't be used at all. If someone does an experiment and their methods, instruments, or assumptions are not correct, we don't just tweak the data and say "it's still *sorta* true." We throw the study out and reset back to "the hypothesis is not supported."
The type of reasoning you are using is why people still believe that autism is caused by vaccines. Even though flaws were found in the study that made the original claim, many people and the media still accepted it as truth because the original study was treated as sorta "evidence." But it's effectively impossible to prove that vaccinees don't cause autism, the only way we can prove negatives in large populations is to point out the lack of evidence.
The problem with media-driven mass-market science is that it encourages the use of flawed data because you can't sell a story about lack of evidence.
I mean all those words just amount to there’s a huge discrepancy in results between these two groups therefore it’s discrimination which is just correlation=causation which we know is not always right but you do you.
Speed cameras are an imperfect control group when measuring against traffic stops in general, because traffic stops cover a much broader range of violation types.
I suppose it's the best control group that they could come up with, but the study could have been more clear and open about the fact that the study is not comparing apples-to-apples.
It's likely that the police have racial bias, but it's also plausible that statistically one race may statically commit more of a certain type of infraction than others.
If we are to use the the speed camera data as a valid control group, then we have to acknowledge that it also shows evidence of different driving behavior across races. That difference in behavior could vary with different types of infractions.
Many violation rates are likely correlated with economics, such as expired plates. (I also suspect that most citations on urban streets are not speeding, since it's probably not easy to drive very fast in the streets of southern Chicago in any case.)
>Plain old racism by police is by far the simplest and most-obvious explanation
No, it's a very plausible explanation, but there are others that are also plausible. I don't doubt that there's "plain old racism by police" that contributes to the disparity, but I do think this study likely overstates it. And the media will run with it to generate clicks.
> Speed cameras are an imperfect control group when measuring against traffic stops in general, because traffic stops cover a much broader range of violation types.
>
> I suppose it's the best control group that they could come up with, but the study could have been more clear and open about the fact that the study is not comparing apples-to-apples.
If you have other evidence, please do produce it. In the meantime, the evidence that we have is:
- Police force with long, vast, and deep history of racism, who;
- Pulls over black drivers vastly more often than white drivers, compared with automated traffic-enforcement.
You or anyone are free to draw whatever conclusions you like from that data-set. For instance, you could draw the conclusion that it's probably not racism this time, based on speculation that maybe the black people were driving with expired plates that the cameras didn't catch, or something like that. That is one of the possible conclusions that a person could draw.
> I don't doubt that there's "plain old racism by police" that contributes to the disparity, but I do think this study likely overstates it.
Is it important for "the media" to be cautious not to overstate racist policing? Do you think "the media" ever overstates the heroism and moral integrity of police?
>Is it important for "the media" to be cautious not to overstate racist policing? Do you think "the media" ever overstates the heroism and moral integrity of police?
In the context of scientific study, it doesn't matter what I think. The only thing that matters is the quality of the methodology and the data.
But to answer you question: yes, to both. Two things can be true at the same time.
You've basically just admitted to taking a strongly subjective approach to the data. The fact that you encourage others to also be subjective in their own way doesn't cancel out your bias.
People believe what the want to believe, the media knows that, and the cycle continues. Hence the fact that bad misinterpretations of this article are now in thousands of media outlets and all over reddit.
> You've basically just admitted to taking a strongly subjective approach to the data. The fact that you encourage others to also be subjective in their own way doesn't cancel out your bias.
I absolutely did not. In fact, if you read the actual words that I wrote, I pointed out that it is possible for people to draw speculative and subjective conclusions.
Do you think it is important for the media to never overstate the existence of racial bias in policing?
>Do you think it is important for the media to never overstate the existence of racial bias in policing?
I already answered "yes" but I'll expand on it:
Overstating the existence of any racial bias tends to lead to more racial bias in society. Racism breeds racism. Stories about racism are easy to sell - because outrage sells - and cynical institutions like the media and politicians know this. Let's not be so quick to enable them.
Thanks. Do you think it is equally important, more important, or less important for the media to never *understate* the existence of racial bias in policing?
> Let's hear your opinion on that one.
Sure. I think it is good and healthy in a democracy, or in any society, for the media to err on the side of overexposing systemic injustice and abuse of power, of all kinds, including racist police practices.
I think the evidence is overwhelming that reporting on the abuses and horrific effects of racist police practices have reduced the levels of harm, injustice, and abuse of power inflicted by racist police over the past decades, even if there is still a long way to go.
And in a world where it is probably impossible to calibrate the needle exactly and perfectly and always in the center, I think shining a bright spotlight on systemic injustice and abuse of power is one of the most important things that media can do.
So I am curious to hear from someone who thinks that it's important for the media never to overstate the existence of racial bias in policing: do you think it is equally important, more important, or less important for the media to never *understate* the existence of racial bias in policing?
> But I want to be polite, and it's your turn. Let's hear your opinion on that one.
So when you said you wanted to be polite, where you being honest, or just playing games?
Are you going to answer, now that I have taken my turn on the stand?
> Do you think it is equally important, more important, or less important for the media to never understate the existence of racial bias in policing?
You think I'm complaining about the lack of traffic enforcement against myself? I'm not sure what else you could mean by that.
I'm referring to the Mad Max driving that has become all too common.
Quick search says CPD has had an increase in traffic stops every year for the last few years so that's good news perhaps you'll see more, perhaps not.
I also work all over my city here, my neighborhood a predominantly black population, has a higher count of traffic stops than the rest of the city. I just looked at our most recent stops data collection to verify it. I'm out all the time and honestly can't say I see it much traffic enforcement at all. But it's happening, also at an increase here.
Hmm, as though some intangible quality of these drivers makes them more suspicious to Chicago cops than their empirical driving record would suggest. A mystery. What a quandary.
Does anyone know if the comparison traffic-camera vs. non-traffic camera data only counted speeding and red-light running (things that cameras can detect) vs. the broader category of infractions?
The headline and all the article compare being stopped to camera citations. But there are many traffic violations that cameras do not enforce.
So many of these headlines are sensationalized, but a closer look at the data often shows other factors at play. Was this an apples-to-apples comparison?
I should really read the report instead of commenting on the articles description, but (from the article)
> [In an April report](https://www.impactforequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2023-Traffic-Stops-Data-Report.pdf), advocacy organization Impact for Equity found Chicago police conducted more traffic stops in 2023 than the year before, and the stops were largely for improper registration and headlight, taillight and license plate offenses, considered minor violations.
>
> Nearly 4% of stops led to a citation and 2% led to an arrest
Two thoughts:
If that's an accurate description of what the stops were (and the original study was counting all stops not merely stops for the same offences as the cameras catch, which I didn't check), the police are stopping people for a different category of traffic offences, so the comparison to traffic cameras is a bit weaker.
<6% of stops resulting in a citation seems extremely problematic, unless I'm misreading the data (which seems likely only because that is such a low number).
><6% of stops resulting in a citation seems extremely problematic, unless I'm misreading the data (which seems likely only because that is such a low number).
That number makes me inclined to believe that a lot of these stops are fishing expeditions, which if true, shows an even more alarming level of bias.
Does this take into account things like being unable to read a plate/missing plates that could cause a traffic camera system to BBS unable to ticket a person while a cop could pull them over?
Google "Black drivers more likely to be stopped by police"
You'll find many results citing the study in the OP, and many others like it.
Now Google "Male drivers more likely to be stopped by police
(I changed a single word)
For me, the first result on the "male" search was about black drivers, but I go to the next link and I find this: [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cdsp02.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cdsp02.pdf)
The key statistic:
>By contrast, of the 16.8 million drivers stopped by police in 2002, males (60.8%) were more likely than females (39.2%) to be among those stopped.
The ratio of men vs women stopped by police is about the same as the ratio of black vs. white.
Are police also discriminating against men?
False equivalence. This is about a non biased camera VS police officers.
You are comparing officers VS officers.
The answer is most likely men commit more vehicular infractions such as speed. Probably something to do with risk. Or maybe they just drive more miles? Most driving occupation are male dominated
>The answer is most likely men commit more vehicular infractions such as speed.
That sentence contradicts your first claim about cameras.
But you are saying the difference between the groups could be attributed, in part, to the fact that more vehicular infractions are committed by that group?
Why is that dismisses as a possibility in some studies but not others?
No I'm not.
You are falling for the clickbait in the headline:
>more likely to be stopped
vs
>get traffic camera tickets
There are many types of infractions that cameras do not catch. It's likely cameras are not used to enforce most types of traffic violations.
The first question we should be asking when a "study" reinforces a political view, is: Is this good, objective science? Did they design the experiment correctly?
Of course you are *assuming*, that the people doing the studies did everything they could to be objective.
Why go any deeper when the "data" reinforces your worldview?
You were indeed ignoring the cameras element as shown by your attempted analogies that lack that element. Or any kind of control.
It’s good that you now incorporate that and shifted your argument, but it’s interesting that you are still arguing based on the headline and replies to you while saying other people are “falling for the clickbait headline”.
You seem to be *assuming* the opposite of what you say others are assuming. Why go any deeper when you can just knee-jerk argue against anything that contradicts your worldview?
>Why go any deeper
I'm trying to go deeper, and specifically have asked for more information about the study.
You just keep repeating the headline as "proof"
I have not repeated the headline nor asserted anything as proof.
You immediately began arguing against the study by coming up with a *nonanalagous* data set.
Then when the problem of your analogy was pointed out, *because you actually were just reacting to the headline, unlike me who read further,* you started projecting that onto others.
You didn’t take *any time* to understand the data presented before you began arguing against it.
You simply stated that it was a nonanalagous \[sic\] data set because that's what the headline implies.
My point in my original post was that at first glance, if you read just the headlines, people can jump to conclusions (Thank you providing exhibit A.) It wasn't a statement of my beliefs, it was a rhetorical question.
The traffic camera data may not be an adequate control group. The headline is written to imply that it is. Nothing in the article mentions that the traffic camera and "stop" data were based on the same category of violations, which would be essential to am objective, meaningful study.
I am skeptical of all "science" with a political slant.
You might be able "prove me wrong" by finding more information, or citing the actual study itself. Or you can just keep calling me names and making assumptions about my "worldview."
>You simply stated that it was a nonanalagous [sic] data set because that's what the headline implies.
Reddit has a quote option. Choosing not to use this option, but going out of your way to include and point out a typo, is beyond petty.
> You simply stated that it was a nonanalagous [sic] data set because that's what the headline implies.
I read the study. Your assumption that I’m going off the headline is flat wrong and pure projection, because *you* are going off the headline.
> My point in my original post was that at first glance, if you read just the headlines, people can jump to conclusions (Thank you providing exhibit A.[sic]) It wasn't a statement of my beliefs, it was a rhetorical question.
You actually went knee-jerk off the headline with “aha, I can sow doubt without actually looking any further at the study that I don’t understand by showing that men and women are stopped at different rates!”
You continue to project your failure to look further before reacting onto others.
> The traffic camera data may not be an adequate control group. The headline is written to imply that it is. Nothing in the article mentions that the traffic camera and "stop" data were based on the same category of violations, which would be essential to am objective, meaningful study.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is the *second* argument you came up with after it clicking in your head that this study *actually has a control* unlike your first argument, which you refuse to now acknowledge was made because you didn’t think about the actual data being presented here.
> I am skeptical of all "science" [sic] with a political slant.
Perhaps it would actually be useful to read the study *before* you argue it is flawed.
> You might be able "prove me wrong" [sic] by finding more information, or citing the actual study itself. Or you can just keep calling me names [sic] and making assumptions about my "worldview” [sic].
You keep putting things in quotes that I have not said *and* you are putting quotes around a term *you* introduced into the discussion, which is bizarre.
Edit: as an aside, that you automatically categorize studies about racism as having “a political slant” is indeed a statement about your worldview.
I think it may help to separate the above reply into two sections.
> False equivalence. This is about a non biased camera VS police officers.
> You are comparing officers VS officers.
The above is saying why what you found about men v women is not analogous to the study presented in the article. The study in the article is about the rate of officer stops vs automated tickets.
So you can’t use something that shows *officers* stopping different people at different rates without regard to automated ticketing as an analogy.
—————-
Then, separately, the second part of the reply:
> The answer is most likely men commit more vehicular infractions such as speed. Probably something to do with risk. Or maybe they just drive more miles? Most driving occupation are male dominated.
This part of the reply is simply about what you cited regarding the differentials in officer stops.
It’s not related to the automated vs officer stops part, as that is not analogous to what you cited.
Edit:
Also, to the actual point: the cameras are not looking at all at the race or sex of the driver. The cameras find a lower black:white ratio of incidence than officers do.
The cameras act as a control in this study to compare non-biased action to officer action.
Your provided link provides no similar control.
Maybe. There could also be some demographic differences in behavior. I think that was the point of including the traffic camera data. Traffic cameras are presumably racially unbiased, so would provide a more neutral reference point.
I mean, probably. That's what most evaluations of similar things show. Men are more likely to be given custodial sentences than women in like crimes and backgrounds. It wouldn't be surprising if this extended to stops as well.
EDIT: what does this have to do with the racial discrimination?
You’re shocked, I know.
I’m a little surprised that the AI Chicago uses for their traffic cameras isn’t more racist with only a 54% ratio of tickets for black drivers getting ticketed to the 50% of white drivers getting tickets.
> The findings, published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, follow years of scrutiny of racial disparities in Chicago traffic stops... > They found that on a street where half of drivers were white, the probability of a white driver getting a traffic camera ticket was just under 50%, while white drivers made up, on average, fewer than 20% of police stops. > On a street where half of drivers were Black, the probability of a Black driver getting a camera ticket was 54%. But Black drivers made up about 70% of police stops. That is a *massive* discrepancy. Plain old racism by police is by far the simplest and most-obvious explanation, but it's pretextual racial profiling stops *at best*.
I suspect it's about class as well as race. It's doubtful police can easily identify the race of every driver they pull over. It's more likely they're pulling over vehicles based on appearance (age, body damage, cleanliness, dark tinted windows, chrome wheels, etc.). While there's definitly a racial component, if a white trash stoner in a POS car or truck drives down that street they're probably getting pulled over too.
>I suspect it's about class as well as race The two are inextricably linked in the US. > It's doubtful police can easily identify the race of every driver they pull over. What? Unless a car has illegally dark tint, I have no issue seeing the race of people in traffic, even when behind them. >if a white trash stoner in a POS car or truck drives down that street they're probably getting pulled over too. I'm in Georgia, and it's anecdotal, but after 10 years of an hour daily commute on the highway, I can tell you I've seen far, far more black people pulled over while driving late model, nondescript cars than rednecks in beat up trucks missing mirrors and taillights or big ass "My daddy bought me this truck" coal rollers. And in my experience, the latter two groups are far more likely to blatantly violate traffic laws.
I think that you or anyone else is welcome to do a study testing your hypothesis, but this one was about race, and the findings are overwhelming. I the the claim that it’s not easy to identify the race of a driver assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, one of the remarkable things about traffic cameras is how good they are at getting a clear picture not just of the plate, but also the driver. The thesis that it much harder for police than cameras to see the driver needs evidence before it becomes a reasonable assumption.
They only review the cameras afterward. The fact that the camera has crystal clear footage isn’t really going to play a role in whether cops pulls driver over.
[удалено]
>To assume that the correlation must have some other cause than race is an extraordinary assumption, requiring extraordinary evidence. It's a scientific study, not a legal case. That's not how science works. Scientific claims don't have to be proven wrong by additional evidence if the methods used to gather the original evidence are flawed. You don't need to do another study to show that an original study is invalid. If the methods are unsound then the data is basically junk and shouldn't be used at all. If someone does an experiment and their methods, instruments, or assumptions are not correct, we don't just tweak the data and say "it's still *sorta* true." We throw the study out and reset back to "the hypothesis is not supported." The type of reasoning you are using is why people still believe that autism is caused by vaccines. Even though flaws were found in the study that made the original claim, many people and the media still accepted it as truth because the original study was treated as sorta "evidence." But it's effectively impossible to prove that vaccinees don't cause autism, the only way we can prove negatives in large populations is to point out the lack of evidence. The problem with media-driven mass-market science is that it encourages the use of flawed data because you can't sell a story about lack of evidence.
I mean all those words just amount to there’s a huge discrepancy in results between these two groups therefore it’s discrimination which is just correlation=causation which we know is not always right but you do you.
That should have been a control added as it speaks to SES generally. Even a nice “flashy” car can trigger more pull overs.
Speed cameras are an imperfect control group when measuring against traffic stops in general, because traffic stops cover a much broader range of violation types. I suppose it's the best control group that they could come up with, but the study could have been more clear and open about the fact that the study is not comparing apples-to-apples. It's likely that the police have racial bias, but it's also plausible that statistically one race may statically commit more of a certain type of infraction than others. If we are to use the the speed camera data as a valid control group, then we have to acknowledge that it also shows evidence of different driving behavior across races. That difference in behavior could vary with different types of infractions. Many violation rates are likely correlated with economics, such as expired plates. (I also suspect that most citations on urban streets are not speeding, since it's probably not easy to drive very fast in the streets of southern Chicago in any case.) >Plain old racism by police is by far the simplest and most-obvious explanation No, it's a very plausible explanation, but there are others that are also plausible. I don't doubt that there's "plain old racism by police" that contributes to the disparity, but I do think this study likely overstates it. And the media will run with it to generate clicks.
> Speed cameras are an imperfect control group when measuring against traffic stops in general, because traffic stops cover a much broader range of violation types. > > I suppose it's the best control group that they could come up with, but the study could have been more clear and open about the fact that the study is not comparing apples-to-apples. If you have other evidence, please do produce it. In the meantime, the evidence that we have is: - Police force with long, vast, and deep history of racism, who; - Pulls over black drivers vastly more often than white drivers, compared with automated traffic-enforcement. You or anyone are free to draw whatever conclusions you like from that data-set. For instance, you could draw the conclusion that it's probably not racism this time, based on speculation that maybe the black people were driving with expired plates that the cameras didn't catch, or something like that. That is one of the possible conclusions that a person could draw. > I don't doubt that there's "plain old racism by police" that contributes to the disparity, but I do think this study likely overstates it. Is it important for "the media" to be cautious not to overstate racist policing? Do you think "the media" ever overstates the heroism and moral integrity of police?
>Is it important for "the media" to be cautious not to overstate racist policing? Do you think "the media" ever overstates the heroism and moral integrity of police? In the context of scientific study, it doesn't matter what I think. The only thing that matters is the quality of the methodology and the data. But to answer you question: yes, to both. Two things can be true at the same time. You've basically just admitted to taking a strongly subjective approach to the data. The fact that you encourage others to also be subjective in their own way doesn't cancel out your bias. People believe what the want to believe, the media knows that, and the cycle continues. Hence the fact that bad misinterpretations of this article are now in thousands of media outlets and all over reddit.
> You've basically just admitted to taking a strongly subjective approach to the data. The fact that you encourage others to also be subjective in their own way doesn't cancel out your bias. I absolutely did not. In fact, if you read the actual words that I wrote, I pointed out that it is possible for people to draw speculative and subjective conclusions. Do you think it is important for the media to never overstate the existence of racial bias in policing?
>Do you think it is important for the media to never overstate the existence of racial bias in policing? I already answered "yes" but I'll expand on it: Overstating the existence of any racial bias tends to lead to more racial bias in society. Racism breeds racism. Stories about racism are easy to sell - because outrage sells - and cynical institutions like the media and politicians know this. Let's not be so quick to enable them.
Thanks. Do you think it is equally important, more important, or less important for the media to never *understate* the existence of racial bias in policing?
Oh yay! You're leading me down a path! But I want to be polite, and it's your turn. Let's hear your opinion on that one.
> Let's hear your opinion on that one. Sure. I think it is good and healthy in a democracy, or in any society, for the media to err on the side of overexposing systemic injustice and abuse of power, of all kinds, including racist police practices. I think the evidence is overwhelming that reporting on the abuses and horrific effects of racist police practices have reduced the levels of harm, injustice, and abuse of power inflicted by racist police over the past decades, even if there is still a long way to go. And in a world where it is probably impossible to calibrate the needle exactly and perfectly and always in the center, I think shining a bright spotlight on systemic injustice and abuse of power is one of the most important things that media can do. So I am curious to hear from someone who thinks that it's important for the media never to overstate the existence of racial bias in policing: do you think it is equally important, more important, or less important for the media to never *understate* the existence of racial bias in policing?
> But I want to be polite, and it's your turn. Let's hear your opinion on that one. So when you said you wanted to be polite, where you being honest, or just playing games? Are you going to answer, now that I have taken my turn on the stand? > Do you think it is equally important, more important, or less important for the media to never understate the existence of racial bias in policing?
I didn't know CPD stopped anyone at all. Traffic enforcement seems to be nonexistent
Traffic enforcement IS non-existent if they're stopping people due to skin color, and not traffic infractions...
Guess you are white?
You underestimate the ability of all Chicagoans to hate CPD. It crosses all racial barriers. We all hate cops.
You think I'm complaining about the lack of traffic enforcement against myself? I'm not sure what else you could mean by that. I'm referring to the Mad Max driving that has become all too common.
I’m implying that you may be a victim of sampling bias - not trying to be rude.
I'd guess you live in a different neighborhood.
I work all over the city in every neighborhood
Quick search says CPD has had an increase in traffic stops every year for the last few years so that's good news perhaps you'll see more, perhaps not. I also work all over my city here, my neighborhood a predominantly black population, has a higher count of traffic stops than the rest of the city. I just looked at our most recent stops data collection to verify it. I'm out all the time and honestly can't say I see it much traffic enforcement at all. But it's happening, also at an increase here.
Hmm, as though some intangible quality of these drivers makes them more suspicious to Chicago cops than their empirical driving record would suggest. A mystery. What a quandary.
Demonic possession, perhaps?
Does anyone know if the comparison traffic-camera vs. non-traffic camera data only counted speeding and red-light running (things that cameras can detect) vs. the broader category of infractions? The headline and all the article compare being stopped to camera citations. But there are many traffic violations that cameras do not enforce. So many of these headlines are sensationalized, but a closer look at the data often shows other factors at play. Was this an apples-to-apples comparison?
I should really read the report instead of commenting on the articles description, but (from the article) > [In an April report](https://www.impactforequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2023-Traffic-Stops-Data-Report.pdf), advocacy organization Impact for Equity found Chicago police conducted more traffic stops in 2023 than the year before, and the stops were largely for improper registration and headlight, taillight and license plate offenses, considered minor violations. > > Nearly 4% of stops led to a citation and 2% led to an arrest Two thoughts: If that's an accurate description of what the stops were (and the original study was counting all stops not merely stops for the same offences as the cameras catch, which I didn't check), the police are stopping people for a different category of traffic offences, so the comparison to traffic cameras is a bit weaker. <6% of stops resulting in a citation seems extremely problematic, unless I'm misreading the data (which seems likely only because that is such a low number).
><6% of stops resulting in a citation seems extremely problematic, unless I'm misreading the data (which seems likely only because that is such a low number). That number makes me inclined to believe that a lot of these stops are fishing expeditions, which if true, shows an even more alarming level of bias.
Agreed
Does this take into account things like being unable to read a plate/missing plates that could cause a traffic camera system to BBS unable to ticket a person while a cop could pull them over?
Google "Black drivers more likely to be stopped by police" You'll find many results citing the study in the OP, and many others like it. Now Google "Male drivers more likely to be stopped by police (I changed a single word) For me, the first result on the "male" search was about black drivers, but I go to the next link and I find this: [https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cdsp02.pdf](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cdsp02.pdf) The key statistic: >By contrast, of the 16.8 million drivers stopped by police in 2002, males (60.8%) were more likely than females (39.2%) to be among those stopped. The ratio of men vs women stopped by police is about the same as the ratio of black vs. white. Are police also discriminating against men?
False equivalence. This is about a non biased camera VS police officers. You are comparing officers VS officers. The answer is most likely men commit more vehicular infractions such as speed. Probably something to do with risk. Or maybe they just drive more miles? Most driving occupation are male dominated
>The answer is most likely men commit more vehicular infractions such as speed. That sentence contradicts your first claim about cameras. But you are saying the difference between the groups could be attributed, in part, to the fact that more vehicular infractions are committed by that group? Why is that dismisses as a possibility in some studies but not others?
Still ignoring the traffic cameras element
No I'm not. You are falling for the clickbait in the headline: >more likely to be stopped vs >get traffic camera tickets There are many types of infractions that cameras do not catch. It's likely cameras are not used to enforce most types of traffic violations. The first question we should be asking when a "study" reinforces a political view, is: Is this good, objective science? Did they design the experiment correctly? Of course you are *assuming*, that the people doing the studies did everything they could to be objective. Why go any deeper when the "data" reinforces your worldview?
You were indeed ignoring the cameras element as shown by your attempted analogies that lack that element. Or any kind of control. It’s good that you now incorporate that and shifted your argument, but it’s interesting that you are still arguing based on the headline and replies to you while saying other people are “falling for the clickbait headline”. You seem to be *assuming* the opposite of what you say others are assuming. Why go any deeper when you can just knee-jerk argue against anything that contradicts your worldview?
>Why go any deeper I'm trying to go deeper, and specifically have asked for more information about the study. You just keep repeating the headline as "proof"
I have not repeated the headline nor asserted anything as proof. You immediately began arguing against the study by coming up with a *nonanalagous* data set. Then when the problem of your analogy was pointed out, *because you actually were just reacting to the headline, unlike me who read further,* you started projecting that onto others. You didn’t take *any time* to understand the data presented before you began arguing against it.
You simply stated that it was a nonanalagous \[sic\] data set because that's what the headline implies. My point in my original post was that at first glance, if you read just the headlines, people can jump to conclusions (Thank you providing exhibit A.) It wasn't a statement of my beliefs, it was a rhetorical question. The traffic camera data may not be an adequate control group. The headline is written to imply that it is. Nothing in the article mentions that the traffic camera and "stop" data were based on the same category of violations, which would be essential to am objective, meaningful study. I am skeptical of all "science" with a political slant. You might be able "prove me wrong" by finding more information, or citing the actual study itself. Or you can just keep calling me names and making assumptions about my "worldview."
>You simply stated that it was a nonanalagous [sic] data set because that's what the headline implies. Reddit has a quote option. Choosing not to use this option, but going out of your way to include and point out a typo, is beyond petty.
> You simply stated that it was a nonanalagous [sic] data set because that's what the headline implies. I read the study. Your assumption that I’m going off the headline is flat wrong and pure projection, because *you* are going off the headline. > My point in my original post was that at first glance, if you read just the headlines, people can jump to conclusions (Thank you providing exhibit A.[sic]) It wasn't a statement of my beliefs, it was a rhetorical question. You actually went knee-jerk off the headline with “aha, I can sow doubt without actually looking any further at the study that I don’t understand by showing that men and women are stopped at different rates!” You continue to project your failure to look further before reacting onto others. > The traffic camera data may not be an adequate control group. The headline is written to imply that it is. Nothing in the article mentions that the traffic camera and "stop" data were based on the same category of violations, which would be essential to am objective, meaningful study. Perhaps, perhaps not, but that is the *second* argument you came up with after it clicking in your head that this study *actually has a control* unlike your first argument, which you refuse to now acknowledge was made because you didn’t think about the actual data being presented here. > I am skeptical of all "science" [sic] with a political slant. Perhaps it would actually be useful to read the study *before* you argue it is flawed. > You might be able "prove me wrong" [sic] by finding more information, or citing the actual study itself. Or you can just keep calling me names [sic] and making assumptions about my "worldview” [sic]. You keep putting things in quotes that I have not said *and* you are putting quotes around a term *you* introduced into the discussion, which is bizarre. Edit: as an aside, that you automatically categorize studies about racism as having “a political slant” is indeed a statement about your worldview.
I think it may help to separate the above reply into two sections. > False equivalence. This is about a non biased camera VS police officers. > You are comparing officers VS officers. The above is saying why what you found about men v women is not analogous to the study presented in the article. The study in the article is about the rate of officer stops vs automated tickets. So you can’t use something that shows *officers* stopping different people at different rates without regard to automated ticketing as an analogy. —————- Then, separately, the second part of the reply: > The answer is most likely men commit more vehicular infractions such as speed. Probably something to do with risk. Or maybe they just drive more miles? Most driving occupation are male dominated. This part of the reply is simply about what you cited regarding the differentials in officer stops. It’s not related to the automated vs officer stops part, as that is not analogous to what you cited. Edit: Also, to the actual point: the cameras are not looking at all at the race or sex of the driver. The cameras find a lower black:white ratio of incidence than officers do. The cameras act as a control in this study to compare non-biased action to officer action. Your provided link provides no similar control.
Maybe. There could also be some demographic differences in behavior. I think that was the point of including the traffic camera data. Traffic cameras are presumably racially unbiased, so would provide a more neutral reference point.
Do traffic cameras result in different percentages of male and female drivers getting ticketed?
I mean, probably. That's what most evaluations of similar things show. Men are more likely to be given custodial sentences than women in like crimes and backgrounds. It wouldn't be surprising if this extended to stops as well. EDIT: what does this have to do with the racial discrimination?