How KCMO can limit harm and traffic violence with its Automated Enforcement Policy
By Avery Jones, BikeWalkKC Community Organizer
In the wake of rising concern with instances of police bias and violence within traffic stops, a growing number of city officials and transportation advocates alike have turned toward automated enforcement systems as the solution. Red-light cameras that detect cars that run red lights and speed cameras that monitor cars for speeding can achieve what humans, often riddled with biases, cannot, right?
On its surface, automated enforcement seems like an infallible way to decrease traffic violations equitably. They can be an effective deterrent for speeding and do reduce the risk of traffic violence that often results from traffic stops. However, they can still perpetuate inequities that fall upon people of color and low income earners the hardest. Nearly ten years after the Missouri Supreme Court significantly curtailed the use of such technology, Kansas City introduced plans to return to automated enforcement for both speeding and red-light infractions in 2025.
BikeWalkKC has several recommendations for how to implement this in ways that limit harm for vulnerable communities:
Ensure the cameras are not placed disproportionately in Black and Brown neighborhoods
Many cities end up doing this when they place cameras in areas with the most speeding instances. Wide streets encourage speeding, and most wide, highway-like roads are built in lower income neighborhoods. Those residents shouldn't suffer from badly designed roads and be punished for living near those badly designed roads.
Ensure the cameras detect Black and Brown faces accurately
Under KCMO’s program, instead of capturing license plates, the cameras will have facial recognition software so that fines are accredited to the driver of the vehicle, but only if the driver is also the owner. However, there have been instances when police cameras have misread Black features, leading to wrongful arrest. If the chosen technology isn’t accurate, the fees could fall upon the owner even when they weren’t driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction.
Implement a scaling fine system
The people living with the worst roads and incurring the most fines from those roads are usually the least able to pay them back. Data from the Urban Institute shows that families with traffic fines or fees were significantly more likely to face financial hardship than others. Options for sanctions that are non-financial, reduced, or on payment plans help alleviate the oversized impact. The University of Chicago Law School pleads this case, stating that one-size-fits-all fines “fail to meet the basic goals of the justice system”. Fines should be based on income, so that a speeding ticket doesn’t lead to missed rent and other financial difficulties.
Prioritize fines and fees going toward repairing streets on the High Injury Network
One of the biggest concerns with auto-enforcement programs is when the fines go towards filling gaps in the city’s budget. The fair thing to do is to invest the funds generated from the fines in Vision Zero street safety measures for the streets where speeding occurs most. This will target the root causes of traffic violence and decrease the need for the cameras over time. We were relieved to see mention of this in the adopted legislation, but it’s equally important that we see this in the implementation of the program as well.
The camera program should be administered by an entity other than the police department
Many advocacy organizations post-2020 have released statements, goals and resources as part of a broader effort to reduce the role of enforcement in achieving Vision Zero. These include the League of American Bicyclists, Safe Routes Partnership and Vision Zero Network. KCMO is already pursuing this route by planning for the camera effort to be a city-controlled system. The program should be staffed by someone from the planning or public works department instead of the police department. This would enable better oversight by the City Council, which is more directly accountable to residents.
Implement a warning period
One of the pros with cameras is that they don’t make human mistakes, but that can also become a concern. Usually when a new rule has been implemented, some people get off with just a warning because it’s an adjustment period. So with the cameras, sending warnings instead of tickets the first few months will help people recognize their speeding and adjust their behavior before it leads to punishment. Especially when it’s the norm for most drivers to go above the speed limit on certain streets, the written notice is helpful. There is also precedent for this, as the new hands-free law from the Missouri legislature included a 16-month waiting period.
BikeWalkKC is eager to see KCMO take steps to address traffic violence. At the same time, it is critical that the city’s efforts don’t deepen the harm that under-resourced neighborhoods face at the hands of inequitable transportation. We also encourage leaders in KCMO and elsewhere to review the recommendations made by the Vision Zero Network in their new report “Fair Warnings: Recommendations to Promote Equity in Speed Safety Camera Programs”. Above all, we must remember that an outsized emphasis on enforcement alone will not help us achieve Vision Zero. A greater focus on engineering our deadliest streets is where we’ll see real progress that punishes no one and prevents traffic violence before it occurs.