Tag: MA Vision Zero Coalition

COALITION STATEMENT ON GOV. BAKER ADMINISTRATION’S ROAD SAFETY LEGISLATION

COALITION STATEMENT ON GOV. BAKER ADMINISTRATION’S ROAD SAFETY LEGISLATION

April 27, 2021

On April 26th, the Baker Administration announced a wide-ranging road safety bill, “An Act Relative to Improving Safety on the Roads of the Commonwealth.” The Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition had no prior knowledge of this omnibus bill, nor did we have any direct engagement with the administration around its current formation and release. While there are elements of the bill that align with policies the Coalition has long advocated for, there are several pieces of the bill we find deeply troubling.

We are specifically concerned about the elements of the bill that rely on police enforcement and punitive measures that are known to have a disparate impact on Black and brown people. Vision Zero takes a “safe systems approach,” meaning we prioritize planning, engineering, and policy—not policing and punishment—to make streets safer.

The Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition is opposed to the proposed primary seat belt legislation. While we appreciate the fact that wearing seat belts saves lives in car crashes, the legislation as written relies on police officer-initiated enforcement on our roads, which increases the potential for profiling, harassment, and abuse of Black people and other marginalized groups. In Florida, Black drivers were twice as likely to be pulled over and ticketed for failure to wear a seat belt, according to a 2016 ACLU report.

In Massachusetts, we’re already seeing a racial disparity in how the state enforces a new law against distracted driving. In traffic stops for using a phone while driving between April and December last year, Black, Hispanic, and Asian people were more likely to be issued citations than white people for the same infraction.

We are also concerned about the impacts of the fines and jail time called for in Haley’s Law. As stated above, our Coalition prioritizes a “safe systems” approach to traffic safety rooted in prevention. Research has shown that increasing the severity of punishment is an ineffective deterrent to crime, and often worsens racial and economic disparities. We in no way want to minimize the pain of victims and their families; we too want to remove dangerous drivers from our roads, reduce crashes, and save lives. However, we encourage the administration to explore alternatives focused on prevention and restorative justice to end traffic violence.

There are components of the legislative package that do align with the Vision Zero Coalition’s policy priorities. Some are issues we worked on with the administration in the last legislative cycle, so we’re pleased to see the governor once again elevating them at the State House. They include:

  • Requiring a driver to maintain a 3-foot “safe passing distance” for people biking. Thirty-six other states have defined “safe distance” requirements.
  • Adding to crash reporting requirements information involving “a vulnerable user,” a term which would include pedestrians, bicyclists, public works or public safety personnel working in the right of way, and others.
  • Requiring all Commonwealth-owned and -operated vehicles over 10,000 pounds to have side guards, convex mirrors, and cross-over mirrors.

We also acknowledge that automated red-light camera enforcement was included in the Governor’s bill. However, we support a more robust automated enforcement bill (detailed below) that would go further in managing speed and reducing potential harm to low-income individuals and communities of color.

This session, the Coalition is working closely with partner organizations and members of the legislature to advance several bills that take a comprehensive, equitable, and data-driven approach to street safety. We are eager to work with the legislature and Gov. Baker to pass laws that will save lives and reduce crashes without increasing harmful interactions between people and police, including:

“An Act to reduce traffic fatalities” (HD.1888): an omnibus that bill would require additional mirrors, side guards, and backup cameras for certain trucks and other large vehicles, define vulnerable road users and set a safe passing distance at certain speeds, allow the default speed limit on state-owned roads to be lowered to 25 mph, and create a standardized crash report form for people walking and biking. This bill in particular includes important truck safety regulations and maintains the current law requiring a person biking to use either a rear red light or reflector, instead of adding a requirement to use both a rear red light and a rear reflector; the latter has been proven to lead to racial profiling in other states.

“An Act relative to automated enforcement” (HD.3705, HD.2452, SD.1962): would allow municipalities to opt in to installing cameras that would issue tickets for violations for speeding, failure to stop at a red light, failure to stop at a school bus stop arm, blocking the box, and parking or driving in a dedicated bus lane.

“An Act relative to work and family mobility during and subsequent to the COVID-19 emergency” (SD.273, HD.448): would allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses, which, in addition to being an important equity measure, has proven to increase safety in other states.

“An Act to End Debt-based Incarceration and Suspensions” (HD.2885,SD.2040): would end debt-based driver’s license suspensions, as part of a nationwide movement to stop the criminalization of poverty and break the cycle of debt. Every year, Massachusetts suspends tens of thousands of licenses for reasons unrelated to road safety. It’s time to end this.

“An Act relative to traffic and pedestrian stop data” (SD.1892): would require law enforcement agencies to collect and report on data from traffic enforcement stops, in order to analyze and address the prevalence of racial profiling.

“An Act to regulate face surveillance” (HD.3228, SD.2134): would establish meaningful restrictions on racially biased face surveillance. Last year’s police reform bill included some modest steps toward this goal, but it didn’t go nearly far enough to safeguard our freedoms from this expanding technology.

“An Act relative to traffic stops and racial profiling” (SD.1867): would create a method of automated enforcement for certain traffic laws and remove them from being the reason for a primary traffic stop, and create a task force to review further advances to address racial profiling in traffic enforcement.

WBZ NewsRadio: “Vigil Held At Mass. State House For Victims Of Traffic Accidents”

WBZ NewsRadio: “Vigil Held At Mass. State House For Victims Of Traffic Accidents”

WBZ NewsRadio: “Vigil Held At Mass. State House For Victims Of Traffic Accidents

Legislation was a focus this year for the group. On Friday, a committee of lawmakers reached an agreement on the distracted driving bill, which has been in the works for years.

“This is the first time that we feel really excited to say we’re looking at a hands-free bill that is almost about to pass,” Stein said.

The bill is set to be filed on Monday morning.

Walk Boston Executive Director Stacey Beuttell said the end goal is to save lives.

“This is a day for both promoting legislation and a rallying cry to make sure that our state legislators and all of us are still working toward safe streets, but it’s also a day to remember those who have fallen that didn’t have to,” Beuttell said. “These are crashes, not accidents. And we need to change that.”

However, according to Beuttell, there is still a lot advocates want to see get done.

“Until we have safe crosswalks, until we have protected bike lanes, and networks that allow people to move throughout the city, we won’t consider our job finished,” Beuttell said.

Posted November 17, 2019

Support for S.1376 ‘An Act relative to automated enforcement’

Support for S.1376 ‘An Act relative to automated enforcement’

October 22, 2019
Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
Michael O. Moore, Senate Chair
State House, Room 109-B
Boston, MA 02133
Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
Harold P. Naughton, Jr., House Chair
State House, Room 167
Boston, MA 02133

Re: Support for S.1376 ‘An Act relative to automated enforcement’

Dear Chair Moore, Chair Naughton, and members of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security:

Thank you for holding a hearing on legislation that promotes road safety in Massachusetts. We are asking you to favorably report out S.1376 An Act relative to automated enforcement. Let’s prevent fatalities, crashes, and injuries on Massachusetts streets.

When employed properly, automated enforcement has been shown to effectively reduce unsafe driving behavior, the number of crashes, and the severity of crash-related injuries. This approach also de-emphasizes officer-initiated traffic stops that can cause concern about racial profiling. Automated enforcement is used in 29 other states.

This bill protects the privacy of drivers and other vehicle occupants, since it requires that only photographs of the rear license plate are recorded. Addressing concerns around equity, it requires cameras be placed in locations with a nexus to safety, has fines limited to $25, and would require a statewide study of any racial and socioeconomic disparities three years after enacted. Cities and towns would only be able to receive revenue that accounts for the costs of the program, and any additional revenue received would go to the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund.

Serious injury and death from traffic crashes continue with troubling frequency on our streets. S.1376 An Act relative to automated enforcement is a comprehensive piece of legislation which aims to create safer streets for all users.

We encourage you to report this legislation out favorably.

Please find the testimony shared this morning at the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security hearing attached (as prepared).

Sincerely,
Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition


Testimony at hearing:

Brendan Kearney, WalkBoston:
Good Morning Chairs and members of the committee. My name is Brendan Kearney, Deputy Director at WalkBoston. Thank you for the opportunity for myself and two of my colleagues from the Vision Zero Coalition to testify in support of Senate Bill 1376, An Act relative to automated enforcement.

The Vision Zero Coalition was formed in fall 2015 to advocate for the implementation of Vision Zero in Boston, and for the reduction of traffic injuries and deaths across Massachusetts. Our coalition includes community-based organizations, nonprofits, businesses, civic groups, and individuals.

Speeding is a huge public safety issue: the Governor’s Highway Safety Association Report “Speeding Away from Zero” released earlier this year shared that 28% of fatal crashes in 2017 in MA were speeding-related. Higher speed, regardless of limit, is a factor in every traffic fatality or serious crash: there is less reaction time for a person driving to brake or avoid a crash, and a fast moving vehicle inflicts higher blunt force trauma on crash victims. Lower speeds have been found to be safer on our roads.

We are thankful that the Municipal Modernization Act of 2016 gave cities and towns the ability to opt-in to lower the prevailing speed limit to 25 miles per hour and create 20 mph safety zones. Similarly, this bill would allow municipalities to opt-in to a safety camera program, within parameters and limits.

Enforcement is one of the tools that we have to reduce traffic speeds on our roadways. Yet, according to EOPSS statistics, motor vehicle citations have declined close to 25% over the past 5 years. Several factors have contributed to this decline – and we think automated enforcement could help address some of these factors.

Traffic enforcement is an important measure for safety — but it must be done equitably. Equitable automated enforcement could allow enforcement within limited budgets and help to remove police bias in traffic stops, if implemented well.

This bill has several measures to design an equitable program. Local municipalities would approve the locations after a public process, with a limit of one fixed camera per 2,500 residents. This bill calls for an annual report to be sent to MassDOT with locations; and after 3 years, requires a statewide study of racial or socioeconomic enforcement disparities from this act. We are happy to engage with committee and stakeholders on any of the language.

Louisa Gag, LivableStreets Alliance:
Good Morning, my name is Louisa Gag and I’m the Public Policy and Operations Manager at LivableStreets Alliance.

The 2018 Massachusetts Strategic Highway Safety Plan recommended automated enforcement legislation be developed to give municipalities “opt in” authority to issue citations through the use of cameras and radar technology.

And there’s a reason for that. It works – some sort of automated enforcement is used in 29 other states and 130 countries. In Maryland, a study showed that the proportion of drivers traveling more than 10 mph above the speed limit declined by about 70% for locations with warning signs and speed camera enforcement. A National Transportation Safety Board review of 28 automated speed enforcement studies found that cameras reduced crashes between 8-49%. And a UNC study found that for red-light cameras, while sometimes there is a slight increase in rear-end crashes, there is almost always a significant reduction in side-impact crashes, which are typically more severe.

One common concern with automated enforcement is privacy. We believe that these concerns are addressed very well in this bill, but we’d be happy to engage with the committee and other stakeholders to improve it even further. Only photographs of the rear license plate are recorded, so that means no faces are photographed. Photos are only captured when a camera-enforceable violation occurs. 48 hours after final disposition of a violation, images are permanently deleted. Any use of a photograph before that would require a court-approved warrant.
Thank you.

Charlie Ticotsky, Transportation for Massachusetts:
Thank you, my name is Charlie Ticotsky and I’m the Policy Director at the Transportation for Massachusetts Coalition.

This bill, which if passed would likely create most thoughtful automated enforcement regulatory structure in the country, clearly presents automated enforcement in the context of safety. It is NOT a money grab for cities and towns. In fact, cities and towns would only be able to receive revenue that accounts for the costs of the program, and any additional revenue would go to the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund. The idea is that drivers would not be tricked into violations–the cameras must be clearly marked and obvious and a public awareness campaign prior to them going live would be required. The bill also allows a grace period where motorists would receive only warnings. This bill sets up a system meant to be a deterrent to dangerous driving, not a revenue scheme.

Fines would be limited to 25 dollars, and would not escalate for multiple offenses. It would not lead to increased insurance points. And while it could put your car registration status in jeopardy after serial nonpayment to force repayment, it cannot lead to license suspensions. The fine is on the car owner because there will be no photos of anything but the license plate. There is a provision for emergencies and other exemptions, and an appeals and hearing process.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, unlike in other jurisdictions, private vendors of these cameras would only be allowed to be paid based on the value of equipment and service provided–not on the number of citations issued or revenue generated–so that there will not be pressure from the private companies to increase the number of citations issued or revenue generated.

Thank you very much.

Sampan News: “Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition Releases Third Boston Vision Zero Progress Report”

Sampan News: “Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition Releases Third Boston Vision Zero Progress Report”

Sampan News: “Massachusetts Vision Zero Coalition Releases Third Boston Vision Zero Progress Report

“The investments made last year were a significant first step. However, in order for these resources to be used as effectively as possible, we would like to see increased cohesion across and within all departments relevant to Vision Zero,” said WalkBoston Executive Director Wendy Landman. “With the impending departure of the Transportation Commissioner and the Public Works commissioner position still vacant, now is the time to more fully integrate the operations and policies of the Public Works and Transportation Departments.”

Posted April 18, 2019

Boston Herald: “Report: Traffic crashes in Boston resulting in less fatalities, but not injuries”

Boston Herald: “Report: Traffic crashes in Boston resulting in less fatalities, but not injuries”

Boston Herald: “Report: Traffic crashes in Boston resulting in less fatalities, but not injuries

Advocates took issue with the fact that Boston doesn’t report its crash statistics to the Department of Transportation as most other municipalities do. The current system the police department uses for crash reports isn’t able to submit data to MassDOT, according to the city. The police department is working with a vendor to fix that, a spokeswoman said, though no information was available. Brendan Kearney of WalkBoston, a nonprofit involved with Vision Zero, said fixing that should be a top priority. “If they’re not able to report this data, they are potentially missing out on funding for safety efforts,” Kearney said.

Posted April 17, 2019