Biden just quietly took a key step to 'decriminalize' traffic safety policy

Study after study has found no clear link between aggressive traffic enforcement and reduced crime rates.

The Biden administration recently took a crucial but little-noticed step to improve public safety: it ended a deeply flawed policing program that encouraged law enforcement nationwide to use traffic stops as a pretext for fighting crime.

It must now ensure that what comes next is a step forward.

The program, Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS), was based on the idea that by pulling over more drivers in "high crime" areas, even for minor infractions like broken taillights, police could reduce both traffic crashes and street crime simultaneously.

It sounds like a clever way to fight crime and promote traffic safety. The only problem is that it does neither.

Study after study has found no clear link between aggressive traffic enforcement and reduced crime rates. This should not come as a surprise, because the people being stopped were never suspected of criminal activity.

In Nashville, a city that at one time championed this approach, researchers found no relationship between the number of police stops and crime levels. And when Fayetteville, N.C. scaled back stops for minor violations, traffic accidents actually fell, presumably because police had more time to focus on genuine safety-related stops.

What these programs have done is erode trust, violate civil liberties, and make roads more dangerous for Black drivers. In Nashville, Black drivers were 68 percent more likely to be pulled over for non-moving violations. As the killing of Tyre Nichols tragically underscores, these stops can escalate into violence and even death at the hands of police.

The harms inflicted and risks posed by programs like DDACTS are the reason more than seventy transportation safety and civil rights organizations joined my colleagues at the Policing Project in demanding an end to the program. It's also why the NAACP Legal Defense Foundation wrote that initiatives like it should "neither be tolerated nor encouraged."

Ending federal support for DDACTS was a necessary corrective, but it's just the beginning of a broader reckoning that is needed with American traffic enforcement. In fact, there are many programs like DDACTS that should be reassessed. High-volume traffic enforcement has become a back door for discriminatory over-policing, and one that, evidence shows, neither fights crime nor makes our roads safer.

The way to fight crime is not with stops based on hunches and pretext, but by investing proactively in communities and with policing targeted at people for whom there is suspicion of serious criminal conduct.

On the other hand, there is a real traffic safety problem in this country. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, more than 350,000 people have died from crashes on American roads in the last decade. More than 44,000 people were killed in car crashes in 2023 alone. That problem needs to be addressed, urgently.

It is time we returned to proven methods of addressing the traffic safety epidemic. We know that redesigning streets and improving vehicle safety standards can save lives and prevent traffic accidents and injuries. That is where transportation officials should focus their efforts. We need to dramatically increase investment in evidence-based strategies that are proven to save lives: for example, by designing safer roads with better lighting; creating protected bike lanes and pedestrian crossings; requiring automakers to incorporate advanced safety features; and expanding access to reliable, affordable public transportation.

We also must invest more in rigorous research. For too long, traffic enforcement policies have been based on assumptions rather than evidence. We need high-quality studies that examine not just crash and crime rates, but also whether and to what extent enforcement works to reduce traffic accidents.

We should also explore the value of automated traffic enforcement, such as speed cameras with fines scaled to income. These studies should also take into account the social costs they impose on those stopped, such as whether the fines are prohibitive for those living paycheck to paycheck. And above all, we should be listening to community voices about how to improve traffic safety.

The role of traffic enforcement should be focused narrowly on the most dangerous driving behaviors, guided by data and observable safety hazards rather than hunches and pretext. It should be based on empirical evidence on the value of enforcement. It is also worth asking whether armed police are necessary for ordinary traffic enforcement.

Transforming our approach to traffic enforcement is no small undertaking. But it is a necessary one if we want a future where our roads are safe, just, and equitable for all. The end of DDACTS should be a turning point — the moment when we begin to disentangle the contradictory imperatives of crime reduction and traffic safety and chart a new vision for public safety on America's streets. We should be pursuing policies proven to work, rather than seeking easy answers with discriminatory over-enforcement.

Farhang Heydari is an assistant professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School and a senior advisor to the Policing Project.