4 ms·

So... if being unlicensed is not a sufficient justification for a traffic stop, then why are these drivers being pulled over in the first place? Are you saying

So... if being unlicensed is not a sufficient justification for a traffic stop, then why are these drivers being pulled over in the first place? Are you saying that they get pulled over for something else, and it so happens that they are also unlicensed? In that case, why is it only Hispanic drivers being pulled over? Are Hispanics the only ethnic group in the areas north and south that commit traffic infractions?

rdl 13y ago
I'm assuming lots of people get pulled over for various infractions, and the Hispanics among them are the ~only ones who are unlicensed and are thus the ~only ones cited for being unlicensed. Other citation types appear less biased (I just scanned, I didn't do actual analysis, I'm trying to finish my RSA 2014 submissions right now). There may be profiling in pulling over "old/cheap" cars more for the same violations, but I have a hard time telling if someone is white/hispanic/whatever in another car, particularly from behind. I can identify black vs. white from sides/front in a car, but doing so from behind is quite hard, too. So I am less likely to believe there's racial profiling in who is stopped; the greatest potential for racial discrimination would be in cite vs. not cite on specific violations committed (like, letting white people have a pass on speeding, while citing nonwhite people) after the car is already stopped. I don't think most police would let anyone have a pass on unlicensed/suspended, though, regardless of race (or, in some cities where immigration status prevents being licensed statewide, but the city/local people support undocumented/illegal people, maybe they'd be more likely to give an unlicensed driver who was otherwise not at fault a pass if stopped for something really not his fault like being in a non-at-fault accident.)
- bloopletech 13y ago
  Are Hispanic people unlicensed at such a high rate relative to the general population that it would fit this data? Also, > I don't think most police would let anyone have a pass on unlicensed/suspended is a direct contradiction to: > Even if someone were unlicensed and caught, if you didn't have the cause to stop him for something else, he'd walk on the unlicensed driver charge. Which you posted above. [edited to fix bad c+p]
  - rdl 13y ago
    1) Most Hispanic people in the Bay Area are US citizens or lawful residents, and licensed (and pay taxes, and are otherwise generally representative of everyone else). We're talking about the set of people who get caught for unlicensed/suspended, which is already a pretty small subset, and not representative of the overall population at all. However, most unlicensed people are that way due to immigration status, which is almost entirely Hispanic people (since our illegal immigrants are essentially all Mexican or Guatemalan). Suspended license people are often DUI or other things like that, which I'd assume is much more universal. I don't know the breakdown between unlicensed and suspended; generally I think suspended/revoked are punished more harshly than unlicensed, partially because you have to be a fuckup to get your license suspended in the first place, and it's a bit more willful to continue driving at that point. If there were no legal way to get a license, it's a lot more morally defensible to drive anyway (although, insurance...); fortunately CA seems to make it possible to get a license anyway, so failing to do so is an affirmatively lame action. 2) No -- I meant if you wanted to prosecute someone for the unlicensed, but your PC to stop him originally was bad (i.e. you claimed he ran a red light, but it turns out he didn't), the court would let him walk (rather, it'd never go to trial). If a cop had legitimate PC to stop, and then stopped and found suspended license, the cop would almost certainly cite/arrest/whatever for the suspended license. Those are two entirely different cases. (It's pretty easy to generate legitimate PC to pull ~anyone over, though, due to how the vehicle code is written and how people actually drive.) (Another unanswered question is "is there a variation in vehicle maintenance or driving rule compliance in different race/ethnicity drivers?" -- I tend to think there isn't. Even if you wanted to go by rich/poor, I've even seen plenty of expensive cars with maintenance issues, and obnoxious rich people with huge numbers of bikes on bike racks obscuring license plates, unsecured loads, etc. The only real distinction I've seen is that pickup truck drivers, in general, are the cause of almost all object-in-road problems.)
    - bloopletech 13y ago
      Ok, after reading your response, I was somewhat confused, and now looking at the code, it seems like the drivers licenses are done in California is quite a bit different than here, in Australia. It seems that in California, at least, there is a legal distinction between a 'revoked' license and being 'unlicensed'. In Australia, AFAIK there's no distinction; if you commit an offence serious enough to have your license revoked, then you no longer have a license and are unlicensed; i.e. it's the license that gives you the right to drive, and if your license is revoked then you don't have a license any more. It's the same deal for suspensions - in Australia, if your license is suspended, then you're by definition unlicensed for the period. So there may be a semantic mismatch where I misunderstood you. It would seem that in California, pretty much the only way you could get a 12500(a) is if you'd never held a license at all; in this case, it fits your assertion that Hispanics are the only _unlicensed_ drivers.

rdl 13y ago

I'm assuming lots of people get pulled over for various infractions, and the Hispanics among them are the ~only ones who are unlicensed and are thus the ~only ones cited for being unlicensed. Other citation types appear less biased (I just scanned, I didn't do actual analysis, I'm trying to finish my RSA 2014 submissions right now). There may be profiling in pulling over "old/cheap" cars more for the same violations, but I have a hard time telling if someone is white/hispanic/whatever in another car, particularly from behind. I can identify black vs. white from sides/front in a car, but doing so from behind is quite hard, too. So I am less likely to believe there's racial profiling in who is stopped; the greatest potential for racial discrimination would be in cite vs. not cite on specific violations committed (like, letting white people have a pass on speeding, while citing nonwhite people) after the car is already stopped. I don't think most police would let anyone have a pass on unlicensed/suspended, though, regardless of race (or, in some cities where immigration status prevents being licensed statewide, but the city/local people support undocumented/illegal people, maybe they'd be more likely to give an unlicensed driver who was otherwise not at fault a pass if stopped for something really not his fault like being in a non-at-fault accident.)

bloopletech 13y ago
Are Hispanic people unlicensed at such a high rate relative to the general population that it would fit this data? Also, > I don't think most police would let anyone have a pass on unlicensed/suspended is a direct contradiction to: > Even if someone were unlicensed and caught, if you didn't have the cause to stop him for something else, he'd walk on the unlicensed driver charge. Which you posted above. [edited to fix bad c+p]
- rdl 13y ago
  1) Most Hispanic people in the Bay Area are US citizens or lawful residents, and licensed (and pay taxes, and are otherwise generally representative of everyone else). We're talking about the set of people who get caught for unlicensed/suspended, which is already a pretty small subset, and not representative of the overall population at all. However, most unlicensed people are that way due to immigration status, which is almost entirely Hispanic people (since our illegal immigrants are essentially all Mexican or Guatemalan). Suspended license people are often DUI or other things like that, which I'd assume is much more universal. I don't know the breakdown between unlicensed and suspended; generally I think suspended/revoked are punished more harshly than unlicensed, partially because you have to be a fuckup to get your license suspended in the first place, and it's a bit more willful to continue driving at that point. If there were no legal way to get a license, it's a lot more morally defensible to drive anyway (although, insurance...); fortunately CA seems to make it possible to get a license anyway, so failing to do so is an affirmatively lame action. 2) No -- I meant if you wanted to prosecute someone for the unlicensed, but your PC to stop him originally was bad (i.e. you claimed he ran a red light, but it turns out he didn't), the court would let him walk (rather, it'd never go to trial). If a cop had legitimate PC to stop, and then stopped and found suspended license, the cop would almost certainly cite/arrest/whatever for the suspended license. Those are two entirely different cases. (It's pretty easy to generate legitimate PC to pull ~anyone over, though, due to how the vehicle code is written and how people actually drive.) (Another unanswered question is "is there a variation in vehicle maintenance or driving rule compliance in different race/ethnicity drivers?" -- I tend to think there isn't. Even if you wanted to go by rich/poor, I've even seen plenty of expensive cars with maintenance issues, and obnoxious rich people with huge numbers of bikes on bike racks obscuring license plates, unsecured loads, etc. The only real distinction I've seen is that pickup truck drivers, in general, are the cause of almost all object-in-road problems.)
  - bloopletech 13y ago
    Ok, after reading your response, I was somewhat confused, and now looking at the code, it seems like the drivers licenses are done in California is quite a bit different than here, in Australia. It seems that in California, at least, there is a legal distinction between a 'revoked' license and being 'unlicensed'. In Australia, AFAIK there's no distinction; if you commit an offence serious enough to have your license revoked, then you no longer have a license and are unlicensed; i.e. it's the license that gives you the right to drive, and if your license is revoked then you don't have a license any more. It's the same deal for suspensions - in Australia, if your license is suspended, then you're by definition unlicensed for the period. So there may be a semantic mismatch where I misunderstood you. It would seem that in California, pretty much the only way you could get a 12500(a) is if you'd never held a license at all; in this case, it fits your assertion that Hispanics are the only _unlicensed_ drivers.