Do we want to take cops off the traffic enforcement beat?
In reaction to various recent controversies related to police encounters that have gone horribly wrong, a growing number of political leaders are calling for cops to be taken off traffic duty. The idea is that they will be replaced by a uniformed but unarmed Traffic patrol that will not be expected or even allowed to make arrests.
Unlike simply “defunding” or abolishing the police, this is a reform proposal that we cannot just reject out of hand. I seriously doubt it is the answer in most jurisdictions but it is an idea that deserves to be taken seriously, and debated vigorously.
Unpopular opinion: we could use more traffic stops. There are too many people on the road driving in ways that are illegal and which put others at risk. I’ve gotten a couple of tickets for moderate speeding in my life, but I can’t count the number of times I have seen someone flying along at 90 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, or through a red light, without being stopped. I think more of the population needs to be brought around to using their turn signals. I think sometimes the punishments for drunk driving are often too severe — at least at lower levels of inebriation. But I think we should be intercepting more drunk drivers.
So, the thing I like about this kind of Traffic Patrol is that it reduces the labor cost of labor patrol duty. You don’t have to equip the patrols with weapons and you don’t have to train them in their use. You also don’t have to train them in all of the policies and procedures related to taking people into custody, or really in anything related to the enforcement of laws that are not traffic laws. Instead of paying a cop $60,000 per year to hand out tickets, you could probably hire someone to do it for $40,000. The traffic patrol vehicle and its array of devices and equipment can also probably be half as expensive as a fully appointed police vehicle. And this means cities and perhaps states could afford more traffic patrolling. That part I like.
It’s also possible to enforce many traffic laws — everything from speeding to running red lights, from illegal U-turns to expired tabs — using automated surveillance technology. I’m sure that’s where we are headed but there are a lot of complications on the way. Most jurisdictions will still need some kind of human traffic patrol for the foreseeable future.
I do worry for the safety of an unarmed Traffic Patrol. Sure, in theory if a violent criminals know they don’t risk arrest (and/or police violence) for a traffic stop, they have less reason to go all Bonnie and Clyde. But violent criminals are not famous for good decision-making. Will the government do a good job of communicating these new “rules of the road”? Even if they do, will the kind of people who might shoot or stab a cop believe what the government says?
Sure, firefighters and EMS do not typically carry guns. But they do get attacked and occasionally killed while executing their duties.
And many criminals hate cops in a visceral, tribal way that they presumably do not hate other kinds of emergency responders. Some will probably view the Traffic Patrol as de-clawed cops, as easy victims. It seems likely that what works in Belgium will be a horror show in Chicago.
And as a friend of mine pointed out, by carving out a Traffic Patrol you are employing a special-purpose tool where you could use a general-purpose tool. Just like you can’t use a bagel-cutter to cut a plastic package seal, if a traffic patroller observes a violent crime underway, they can’t do anything to stop it. Sure they can radio it in, and eventually real cops will show up. But we already have the saying “When seconds count, help is only minutes away.” How happy are we going to be about someone being carjacked, beaten, raped, or murdered while uniformed agents of the state just sit in their cars and watch with pained looks? Conversely, how are we going to feel when someone is drunkenly and recklessly careening around the road, and the cops just sit in their cars and watch with pained looks?