Talk:Driving while black

/Archive 1

NPOV issues in the criticism section
Reading over the criticism section, I have a few NPOV issue. First, an editorial by Thomas Sowell arguing against the claim of "driving while black" is mentioned by no actual details about what he argues is presented. We should not simply mention that the phrase and concept was criticized but explain what the criticism is.

Secondly, the following sentence is problematic: "Contrary to the implicit claim in the phrase "driving while black" that minorities are unfairly targeted by police while driving, a 2012 study found that black drivers speed more often and more severely than white drivers, and concluded that "citizen risk for specific police behavior is partially attributable to differential behavior prior to the encounter."[45}". Let's start with the overly simplistic definition of "Driving while black" assumed her. While one definition of the phrase is that over black drivers are more disproportionately stopped by cops compared too white drivers,which ignores potential legitimate reasons for such a disparity, that is one definition of the phrase. The other definition is that blacks are disproportionately targeted by cops in areas where there would be less reasons to expect that to be the case, other then as a result of their race and that higher rates of speeding (or other driving violations) among black drivers would not explain. Part of this definition of "Driving while black" argues that black drivers are pulled over far more often for false claims driving violations such as speeding. Thus even if black drivers speed more often then whites as the study claims, that does not excuse cops who falsely claim speeding as justification for pulling over a black driving. It would be an argument against claims of "driving while black" where actually speeding had occurred, so long as speeding violations where equally issued (percentage wise) against white speeders as they where against black speeders. In short, this paragraph has Wikipedia making making an argument that is based on one concept of the phrase "driving while black" and ever then it's an argument I don't think everyone agrees with even in the specific context it's presented. If were going to present this argument we should rephrase it so that it's clear who is making this argument and that's it's not Wikipedia itself.

We now come to the Vice paragraph. Again, it seems to be relying on only one definition of "driving while black" and presented justification for why that would legitimately be the case (i.e. for reasons of it happening most in high crime areas rather then simply due to their race alone). This does not present an explanation though for the argument that black drivers in non-high crime areas are disproportionately stopped more then white drivers. It seems to be making implications about areas outside of Bloomfield, New Jersey, when we don't know from this report just how, if at all, the conclusions of this report might apply to other areas of the countries. It also presents an argument that Bloomfield, New Jersey unfairly targets blacks driver for tickets as money making scheme in ways they don't with white drivers. So it may be true that in Bloomfield, New Jersey, since most blacks live in high crime neighborhoods, their is higher police presence, and thus higher rates of black drivers being pulled over, it suggest greater effort to catch black drivers committing traffic violation vs white drivers. Thus it could be argued that by following black drivers around looking for violations while not doing the same to white drivers, or at least not at the same rate, a higher percentage of white drivers get a pass for traffic violations compared with black drivers. Basically, this report by Vice News and a group from the Seton Hall Law School does not present an argument against the concept of "driving while black" as a whole, only one definition of it and only in city. It seems we are presenting this report as if supports concussions regarding "driving while black" not actually a part of the report.

Finely let me address the Police-Public Contact Survey mentioned. The mention of this survey is not really a criticism of the concept since it's not attributed to any specific critic. Who is arguing that this specific sets of surveys disputes the concept of "driving while black"? If we want to use these surveys to argue against concept in any form, we should quote someone who uses these surveys to argue against the concept of DWB. Just mentioning the surveys risks the possibility of a misapplying statistical data that does not support the claim being made. I think their might be legitimate questions about these survey and how the collected and interpreted the data and whether their are factors that might explain how these statistics while being true don't explain away the "driving while black" concept. It's possible that overall white, blacks, and Latinos are pulled over at the same rates while their still being a higher percentage of black (or other minorities) being pulled for unjustified and racists reasons. Wikipedia should not imply conclusions from these surveys but rather report on what other have concluded from them. --2600:1700:56A0:4680:3D32:1ABA:6C1A:EF69 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the section is a problem for several reasons. WP:CSECTION, for one. As a start, I've removed the sentence "Contrary to..." since the study says it is "partially attributable" to other factors. This is not the same thing as "contrary", as this implies the other part is about race. Either way, adding a single WP:PRIMARY study for this specific point, with this specific language, violates WP:NPOV.
 * The Vice paragraph seems too long based on a single source for a single time and place. Also the CSECTION thing. It seems like a reasonable perspective which, perhaps, could be better summarized in a different part of the article, as long as it's made clear it's taken from a single location. The Vice source may not directly support it, but we shouldn't let the article imply that this kind of thing isn't going on in many places. This is not an isolated issue, and many sources document this problem. Linking A to C without WP:SYNTHing B will take some work, though. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Pretextual stops deserves own page
Hello, I would like to see pretextual stops as a separate page. Currently, that topic redirects to this page. While I do think the topic relates to Driving while black, I think it is a broader topic that deserves to stand by itself.

Thanks for the consideration!

"Biking while black" is a clear variation
Should be a paragraph in "Variations", like the rest. I can't copy or paste. I know somebody out there can; will it be you? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Dubious Tag concerning "studies" purported to be used as reference citations
The problem with the use of studies by the ACLU is that first of all the ACLU being a special interest political group implies that their "studies" aren't trustworthy, given that they aren't published in any scientific journal, and aren't clearly peer reviewed. Therefore to the extent that we call the ACLU's data a "study" it is highly dubious. Second of all, in the data calculations section of the refrence for the Florida section,they fail to provide all of the necessary statistical data in order for the findings to be properly subejct to peer review. (no p-values, no control data for whites, etc.). For that reason I will insert the dubious tag with respect to the offending references. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The ACLU reports are no longer referred to as "studies", which implies peer review. They should be treated like any other primary source. (For instance, the Seton Hall Law School report is also not peer reviewed.) Template:Dubious says that if you think the ACLU's politics make their reports untrustworthy, you should use. Wacketeer (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Florida study seems to say Black people are less likely to be ticketed when failing to wear seat belts
The data provided in the article as written shows that Black people are 67% more likely to fail to wear seat belts (14.2% vs 8.5%), but only 63% (22 vs 13.5) more likely to be cited.

Economists?
Why do we care what Sowell and Loury are saying? Neither is a sociologist or criminologist or anything else that would make them an expert in this issue. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Economists are experts on statistics and human behaviour, and therefore have domain expertise relevant to this area. Economists frequently study crime and policing, and regularly publish articles in such journals. Publius Obsequium (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Loury, sure, we can use it. The Sowell is just an opinion piece, not peer-reviewed research. Valereee (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Criminolgists, sociologists, and political scientists are the experts of this topic, not economists.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On balance I agree with EG. Even looking at the Loury piece, the only mention of driving is in a long list of similar terms, which he calls tropes, and for which he doesn't actually present any evidence of higher stop rates for black drivers. It's in a section closer to opinion than research. Valereee (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would political scientists be valid domain experts but not economists? I think we need to be consistent then and remove all sources from non relevant experts. I see quite a bit from other fields in this article that I will remove then if that is the consensus. Publius Obsequium (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Be bold. People will revert if they disagree, and then we can discuss. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * political scientist don't have any relevant expertise than economists, arguably less so Publius Obsequium (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)