Hacker News Reader

I think the point of the story is that drivers with dark skin are (it appears) much more likely to be pulled over in the first place.

if the initial infraction isn't worth citing, no big deal

Well, no. The whole objection to profiling, whether Hispanic drivers in Atherton or black kids in NYC, is that the cops have no good reason to be stopping them in the first place.

This report provides no data on how many red-light running/speeding/drunk white drivers were not pulled over, or were let go and told to "be more careful next time."

While I'm sure that being very wealthy is amazing, I've never heard "amazing" used to describe Atherton.

Source: I live two blocks away.

Also, if it's totally not racist at all, then why did they stop providing the information as soon as this analysis was put up? That makes them look way more suspicious than they already did.

I think I just posted the same thing you did. Also:

Strawman: 'Well these people all drive crappy cars with stuff wrong with them' Teardown: Where's all the traffic violations for poor white people? Poor black people? Further, what about all the other kinds of traffic violation (drunk driving etc.)? Are Hispanics the only people who ever do anything wrong on the road?

There are not a lot of poor white or poor black people in RWC/Atherton; it's mainly rich white/asian people and poor hispanic people, in my experience. Poor people are relatively more segregated by race in the Bay Area than I'd expect -- poor white people tend to be in various parts of the East Bay, poor black people in a few specific neighborhoods of SF and EPA and Oakland/Richmond, poor asians in some parts of the South Bay (and maybe Oakland?), poor hispanics in ESJ, parts of the Peninsula, south of Oakland, etc.

It seems like poor people are actually more segregated than rich people here -- aside from the general shortage of rich black people in general, the rich people I see in PA/Piedmont/etc. are a pretty representative mix of white/asian/hispanic/etc.

And no poor non-Hispanic people driving through on El Camino, getting from A to B? I don't know the local geography, but I would assume that a main thoroughfare would get _some_ non-residents.

ECR is not a great road to take for any distance, since it has stoplights everywhere. It's parallel to two expressways (101 and 280), so it's really only applicable to maybe a 5 mile radius, otherwise you'd take another road.

As far as I can tell, there are ~no poor people living in Atherton, Palo Alto, or most of Menlo Park, unless you count startup founders, retirees who live on low retirement incomes in $5mm present-value homes, and the like. There are poor people living in RWC (sort of), who are almost exclusively Hispanic (at least from the neighborhoods I saw; I was looking at houses in North Fair Oaks and RWC at one point.) Even the poor people in RWC didn't seem that poor, more like working class or middle class (which is poor by comparison to Atherton.)

There are poor people in EPA and Belle Haven (Menlo Park east of 101). They would be very unlikely to take ECR through Atherton, though, since 101 is closer. (they used to be almost exclusively black, now it's partially black and partially hispanic and partially pacific islander). And even there, real estate is now becoming absurdly expensive again.

There are weird poor (white, and other) people living in the inaccessible parts of Portola, but they seemed really old, or rarely left their homes, and they probably weren't actually poor, just "people who live in the middle of the woods and are kind of weird."

For long-range through traffic, 101 is better, but routes through Atherton are ideal ways to access to parts of town with businesses which may be relevant to minority residents, such as Chavez Supermarket (great taqueria). It's also possible to transfer from 101 to 280 on routes which take you through Atherton. I've done it many evenings myself.

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?

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.)

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]

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.)

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.

There are a tiny number of people who don't get licenses because they don't believe the state should have the authority to license them, and maybe a few others who don't because they're otherwise on the run for other crimes (but never got a license), and others who have licenses but are living under other identities (which isn't strictly illegal; only if it's being done to defraud. If you thought MS-13 was out to kill you, it might be prudent to give up your identity, including your license, assume another identity, and thus be "unlicensed")

There are also people who have non-valid licenses by being in-state for a long time with another state license, or perhaps a foreign license (i.e. they had a UK license, came to the US for a long time, failed to correctly get a CA license when they were able to do so.)

But those are all in the statistical noise, I think, vs. undocumented immigrants who either can't get licenses (most states) or don't (because they're afraid CA DMV will turn their records over to DHS ICE, I guess?)

It's a "all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares".

Hispanics are statistically far more likely to be illegals and thus unlicensed or uninsured. The problem is, most people of hispanics are 100% legal. Some have ancestors that have been in California since before it was a US territory.

Woodside certainly isn't a consolation prize. It's beautiful, and features the stunning Skyline Blvd drive and Alice's Restaurant!

I also like Portola Valley, but while I like driving on winding roads sometimes, I think it would get a bit lame to do every time I wanted to come home late, etc. And the cellphone reception/internet access/etc. thing, although I suppose a lot of places have decent LOS for a point to point free space link.

not sure if i should upvote the alice's reference. I love it place but those roads are crowded enough around there. too many cagers to enjoy the twisting roads already :(