Flying Car Yes! Riding Bike No!

How can we lead the charge for New Mobility and Equity in Transportation if some cannot bike to work or drive in their town without being accosted by traffic enforcement policies? 

While a flying car has been cleared for takeoff, we have not addressed the millions of people who are haunted by policies and regulations covering traffic and vehicle enforcement and fines. There are classes of people who cannot freely ride a bicycle in Los Angeles and many other cities in the U.S. And there are thousands of motorists who have a great likelihood of getting snared in places like Brookside, Alabama’s traffic enforcement boondoggle.

I am passionate about the prospect of new mobility. It is something that is no longer a Jetson’s dream but a reality across the globe.

Just recently we had a flying car awarded a certificate of air worthiness by the Slovakia Air Transport. This clears the way for the flying car to begin commercial service in Slovakia within 12 months. There are so many instances that make aircar transport a game-changer in the mobility space. We must not pass up an opportunity to bypass locally congested streets, and move goods and people in an extremely efficient manner.

A licensed pilot is required, and test flights appear to be in line with the standards of the European Aviation Safety Agency. According to a report on the flight in CNN.com, the company stated that the flight tests included full range of flight, performance maneuvers and a demonstration of dynamic stability in the aircraft mode. This hybrid vehicle converts to car mode once the aircraft lands.

How incredibly exciting but this highlights the shocking extreme dichotomy between flying cars in Europe and the limited mobility of many residents in local cities in the U.S.

Repeated studies show traffic enforcement policies and government revenue squarely lined up to take money out of the pockets of those who can least afford it in the name of protecting society. This situation occurs repeatedly all while large swaths of environmentalist and new mobility proponents encourage micro mobility usage – from walking to bikes to scooters.

And what is the point of lauding bicycle use when you might be more likely to encounter negative interaction with law enforcement just because you are on a bicycle? What is the point of tax breaks for electric vehicle (EV) purchasing when the average EV is $56,437 some $10,000 more than the average internal combustion engine vehicle (ICE)? How is it that the communities that need a change from ICE to EV most are the ones where almost 25% of their residents do not even have access to a car? Before we rush forward to finalize plans for new mobility, we need to address the issues that we have right now.   

There will be no robot delivery on a sidewalk that people cannot even walk on because the infrastructure is in such ill repair. There will be no electric vehicle widespread adoption and confidence if we do not institute necessary maintenance and repair and minimum uptime standards. And there will be no widespread use of people bicycling to and from their jobs and daily lives in communities where they are seen as criminals instead of cycling citizens.

The wrong people are getting caught up in these predatory practices by towns who are just looking for more revenue. It hurts the truck driver, school bus driver, delivery person, essential worker and the mom and dad next door. Creating ongoing debt for people who can least afford another bill is unconscionable. In some states where a traffic ticket is a crime, it now puts people in the penal system who do not belong there. This can create a lifelong stigma that prevents them from getting certain jobs or even living in certain places. 

The LA Times recent study on bicycle stops by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department is horrifying. Hispanics make up less than 50% of the population, yet they account for 7 out of every 10 stops by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Illegal items are found only 8% of the time and weapons less than one half of one percent. The justification for this clear disparity in stopping Hispanic cyclists is just as alarming. According to the LA Times article, a written response from the Sheriff’s office alleges riding a bike allows criminals “to traverse a neighborhood unnoticed, faster, and safer than on foot, and additionally makes it easier to avoid police contact. We are not conducting traffic stops of persons obviously engaged in the use of a bicycle for exercise or amusement.” 

The reality is that no matter the ethnicity these traffic stops do little to nothing to increase safety on our roadways. Ticketing someone for riding on the sidewalk where there are no bike paths, and the roadway conditions are hazardous is clearly not done to support the safety of the public and certainly comes off as heartless.

It is hard to encourage people to share transportation, take public transportation, walk more and bike more when the law enforcement view is that if you bike and it’s not for leisure you are subject to being stopped and interrogated.

There is often an expectation that local government is looking out for its citizens but who is speaking out about the practices taking place in Brookside, Alabama? There is cognition that officials are overpolicing their roadways to the tune of an increase in the revenue the town gets from fines and forfeitures of more than 640%. The town of Brookside has a population of only 1,217 people. In a recent article in Alabama (AL.com) it was noted that Brookside law enforcement went from towing 50 vehicles in 2018 to 789 in 2020.  Each of these tows carry substantial fines and result in hardship for the people who were towed. There are allegations of racist language used in the traffic stops and many if not most falling on the poorest residents of the community. Despite having no traffic light, Brookside was collecting almost 50% of the towns budget from fines and forfeitures. We cannot turn a blind eye to traffic enforcement used as town revenue streams, while touting new and better mobility for all.

Those of us who are championing equity in transportation and praising all the expected benefits of new mobility must stand against these unjust practices and policies. The political economy of new mobility, the value of the voice of those working in the industry who can create public pressure can and must eradicate this deplorable conduct. A federal investigation into the types of actions occurring in Brookside, Alabama and Los Angeles, California should result in national legislation to prevent towns from using their citizens like piggy banks that they can raid over and over again. It should also put a stop to neanderthal thinking that says if you bike and it’s not for fun you must be doing something wrong.

Let’s stop throwing the word equity around if we do not fully intend to act upon it. We have the obligation to not just dump new mobility into existing systems but a duty to fix, correct and improve our transportation networks before adding anything else to the mix. Transportation is mobility and mobility is freedom.