It's interesting to see that the Bicycle Advisory Committee passed a resolution to remove Safe People Strategies 4.1 through 4.7 from Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP). The Pedestrian Advisory Committee recently discussed a similar resolution, but tabled discussion (1/many) https://twitter.com/OurStreetsMpls/status/1286071829417930752

I am not speaking for the PAC here. I speak only for myself. A very wide range of beliefs about enforcement are held by PAC members, from support for the status quo to opposing either civil or criminal enforcement of most traffic laws. (2/)

The VZAP calls for strategic, equitable, and fair enforcement of the most dangerous behaviors on Minneapolis streets. It specifically calls out driving under the influence, distracted driving, speeding, red light running, and unsafe turning (Safe Streets Strategy 4.1). (3/)

(Vision Zero Action Plan: https://bit.ly/3jpL7F4 )

These behaviors are not self-correcting. Re-engineering streets to reduce the danger posed by these behaviors is at best an extremely long-term strategy. Some behaviors are so dangerous that they pose immediate danger, and intervention is sometimes urgently needed. (4/)

To be clear, nobody on the PAC spoke up in favor of police using officer discretion to enforce minor traffic safety violations. VZAP (strategy 4.4) calls for legislative approval of automatic enforcement for red light running and speeding, which reduces officer discretion. (5/)

VZAP also calls for regular evaluation of the City's traffic enforcement (strategy 4.3) and evaluation of automated traffic enforcement (strategy 4.5) to ensure equitable enforcement and maximizing traffic safety benefits. (6/)

When people are cited for traffic safety violations, VZAP supports diversion from traffic tickets (strategy 4.7) and adjustment of fines based on income (strategy 4.8). (7/)

This leaves us with VZAP Safe Streets Strategy 4.6, which calls for evaluating recreating the traffic enforcement and crash reduction unit. (8/)

There is not a unanimous vision on the PAC of whether traffic enforcement is desirable, or what it should look like. Though we did not vote, my sense was that a substantial majority of the PAC rejects the use of armed police for routine traffic enforcement functions. (9/)

When the VZAP was drafted, replacing MPD with a public health-oriented community safety division was not a goal of the City. Naturally as the City's public safety functions transition to a new structure, traffic enforcement should be part of that transition. (10/)

But high-speed vehicular traffic is also an equity issue in Minneapolis. We have specifically called out numerous infrastructure projects that will cause private vehicles to travel at high speeds in Minneapolis communities. (11/)

Private vehicle owners have, on average, more financial resources than people who walk, roll or use transit. Protecting those people is an equity issue. VZAP calls for that to be done in an equitable manner, with the emphasis on education, outreach, and diversion. (12/)

There are PAC members who strenuously disagree with me, and I'm glad to work with them. But I wanted to share why, while I have grave concerns about the use of armed police for routine traffic enforcement, the Vision Zero Action Plan lays out a vision I support. (13/fin)