Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 601 to 621 of 621

Thread: Happy now BLM?

  1. #601
    As shown in Figure 1, the
    distribution of speeds ticketed by the Florida Highway Patrol between 2005 and 2015
    shows substantial excess mass at speeds just below the first fine increase. Meanwhile, a
    remarkably small portion of tickets are issued for speeds just above. We take this bunching
    as compelling evidence that officers systematically manipulate the charged speed, commonly
    charging speeds just below fine increases after observing a higher speed, perhaps
    to avoid an onerous punishment for the driver.3 We also find that a substantial portion of
    officers throughout the entire state exhibit no such bunching (Figure 2), suggesting that
    the aggregate bunching reflects officer discretion rather than drivers choosing to bunch
    below a fine.
    By studying officers’ choice to discount a speeding ticket, this paper makes four contributions.
    First, we document the presence of racial bias in officers discounting. We
    show that this bias is robust to accounting for all relevant contextual factors, including
    past driving history, and persists after accounting for racial differences in true speed.
    Second, and most importantly, we generate officer-level estimates of lenience and bias
    by comparing each officer’s behavior towards whites and non-whites. We find that 25%
    of officers are biased against black and Hispanic drivers and reject that this number is
    greater than 30% of officers. Third, we correlate these estimates to officer demographics
    and show that officers tend to favor their own race, older officers are more racially
    biased, and women and college educated officers are less biased on average. We show
    that officers who are more lenient in general are less likely to receive complaints or use
    force on the job. Officers who are more biased against minorities seem to use more force,
    though standard errors are too large to say conclusively. Fourth, we explicitly model each
    officer’s decision process, accounting for potential racial differences in speed, allowing us
    to perform various counterfactuals and evaluate which personnel policies may be useful
    for ameliorating the treatment gap. Directly firing biased officers and hiring more women
    and minorities reduces the gap, but not substantially. More effective is to re-assign the
    most lenient officers to heavily-minority areas

    Its only 2.5 pages in FFS. The officers fudge the numbers because they can. I've had it happen to me all four times I've been pulled over for speeding. In both a bright yellow 240SX with airbrushed flames and a Honda delsol si. Each time the officer found me "right under" the threshold for a serious fine (when I very clearly wasn't). Once I was given a $7 insurance processing fine, once I was fined for the lower threshold, and the last 2 times I was let go when they asked about the ID badge i had on my console.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  2. #602
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,961
    25% doesn't sound like "a few rotten apples" either.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #603
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,948
    I read that section Ominous. I am not satisfied with the logic "we take this bunching as compelling evidence that officers systemically manipulated the data" rather than that drivers are responsible.

    The logic of an increased threshold is to punish drivers who break that threshold and to change driver behaviour. Drivers bunching is simply dismissed here yet is the very reason the thresholds were introduced!

    If the assumption that drivers aren't themselves bunching is flawed (and your laws actively encourage driver bunching) then the rest of the study is flawed. Garbage in, garbage out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  4. #604



    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  5. #605
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,948
    I don't see anything in any of those graphs on your silly picture to disprove the theory that drivers are naturally bunching as the law intended. Especially considering sub 10 apart from 9 aren't really recorded.

    The next peak on the graph isn't just below a threshold as the hypothesis assumes, it is at 15. In fact 15 to 19 is a reasonably hefty cluster as you'd expect - high enough to make speeding "justified" in the eyes of the driver, low enough not to get the biggest fines. Quite frankly why anyone would drive 11 or 21mph over is beyond me. Once you pass 20 though there is a natural decent continuing rather than a trough and then going back up as I'd expect. With a peak not at 29 but at 25.

    So yes I call bullshit on "we assume corruption so therefore there is corruption". Drivers are bunching as the law intended.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  6. #606
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,026
    I'm curious if driver behavior also impacts what the officer decides to do when listing mileage on the ticket.

  7. #607
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,948
    It probably does if there is leniency involved. Not sure what OG is asking for? Does he wish the cops had ticketed him more?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  8. #608
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,961
    White driver goes 10 over = gets ticket for going 9 over
    Black driver goes 10 over = gets ticket for going 10 over

    Which part of that do you not get?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #609
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    11,685
    We also find that a substantial portion of officers throughout the entire state exhibit no such bunching (Figure 2), suggesting that the aggregate bunching reflects officer discretion rather than drivers choosing to bunch below a fine.
    Reading is good for you, you guys should try it.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  10. #610
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Especially considering sub 10 apart from 9 aren't really recorded.
    This claim shows both a lack of understanding concerning how to read the graphs, and a failure to read the sourced material.


    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Not sure what OG is asking for?
    For you and lewk to be a teeny tiny bit less racist?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  11. #611
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post

    For you and lewk to be a teeny tinny bit less racist?
    Says the person that likely supports the party who has state mandated racism in their platform.

  12. #612
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    White driver goes 10 over = gets ticket for going 9 over
    Black driver goes 10 over = gets ticket for going 10 over

    Which part of that do you not get?
    The proof. Correlation does not equal causation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Reading is good for you, you guys should try it.
    Also not proof. A suggestion is not proof if is an assumption. The idea that some cops stop people who aren't bunching is not proof that bunching isn't naturally occurring with other cops.

    It was raining today suggesting it must always rain is that logic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #613
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,961
    It's becoming harder and harder to see your contributions to these crime threads as anything but that of a racist troll.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  14. #614
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,948
    Asking for actual evidence rather than suppositions is trolling?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  15. #615
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,286
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Asking for actual evidence rather than suppositions is trolling?
    Saying proof isn't proof because you don't have 25% of the officers saying on camera "yeah, I did it because they're black and I want to stick in to the damn ni@#$" is trolling. Or more fairly, it's a racist jackass saying that anything short of going out and lynching people of color isn't racism.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 08-08-2017 at 10:31 PM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  16. #616
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,948
    Saying some didn't have bunching so others can't isn't proof. Why should they all be the same?

    Panel A shows quite a reasonable spread in the proportion of officers at different share levels. They're not all the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  17. #617
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    11,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    It's becoming harder and harder to see your contributions to these crime threads as anything but that of a racist troll.
    An alternative explanation may be illiteracy given that the specific objections he raises are addressed in section 2.4 and the overall assessment of whether or not the findings of racial disparities should be regarded as persuasive (lack of customary peer review notwithstanding) are dealt with in the rest of the paper. They show that an individual officer's inclination to be lenient, in quantitative terms, persists over time and space, refuting the argument that the bunching may be an artefact of other factors such as driver behavior or unequal geographical distribution of certain kinds of drivers or some other explanation that is plausible a priori.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  18. #618
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    An alternative explanation may be illiteracy given that the specific objections he raises are addressed in section 2.4 and the overall assessment of whether or not the findings of racial disparities should be regarded as persuasive (lack of customary peer review notwithstanding) are dealt with in the rest of the paper. They show that an individual officer's inclination to be lenient, in quantitative terms, persists over time and space, refuting the argument that the bunching may be an artefact of other factors such as driver behavior or unequal geographical distribution of certain kinds of drivers or some other explanation that is plausible a priori.
    He's never grasped so hard at straws in the past, even on Brexit.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #619
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    An alternative explanation may be illiteracy given that the specific objections he raises are addressed in section 2.4 and the overall assessment of whether or not the findings of racial disparities should be regarded as persuasive (lack of customary peer review notwithstanding) are dealt with in the rest of the paper.
    Really where in section 2.4 does the idea that drivers may themselves be bunching as the law intends them to do so get addressed?
    They show that an individual officer's inclination to be lenient, in quantitative terms, persists over time and space, refuting the argument that the bunching may be an artefact of other factors such as driver behavior or unequal geographical distribution of certain kinds of drivers or some other explanation that is plausible a priori.
    You're right the rest of the paper does have some interesting points, but no it does not refute unequal geographical distribution in fact it does quite the opposite and declares unequal geographical distribution to be a bigger factor than alleged racial bias.
    The majority of the disparity is due to the fact that the most lenientofficers patrol in counties with the fewest minorities – 47% of the white-nonwhite speed
    gap disappears without bias or sorting of officers across counties; the remainder is due
    to differences in driven speed. By construction, all of the disparity in discount treatment
    vanishes in the absence of racial bias and officer sorting. Without any difference in treatment,
    the white-minority speed gap reduces from 2.1 MPH to 1.1 MPH, suggesting that
    the majority of the difference in ticketed speeds is due to true differences in speeding.

    Performing the counterfactuals discussed above, we find that policies targeting bias
    directly are only mildly effective at reducing the treatment gap
    Gee almost as if driver behaviour matters!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  20. #620
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Section 7.5, their emphasis not mine
    In the model results, we find significant heterogeneity across counties in the level oflenience towards all groups. In particular, minorities tend to be in areas where all drivers
    are treated worse. Because of this relationship, many of the policies aimed at reducing bias
    are ineffectual because a large share of the disparity is spatial. In this section, we explore
    why this relationship exists, and whether it is truly about race or other confounding
    factors.
    So all drivers (white or minority) are treated worse in minority-heavy areas. Combined with the "true difference in speeding" documented earlier its almost as if real driving differences are causing areas where speeding is a bigger problem to cause consistent differences. Gee, driver behaviour matters in how driver behaviour is reacted to. Funny that!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #621
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    11,685
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Really where in section 2.4 does the idea that drivers may themselves be bunching as the law intends them to do so get addressed?
    Of course, this apparent dispersion in officer-level lenience could be due to differences in speeds and driver characteristics across patrol areas and shifts. To account for this possibility, we compute a residualized measure of officer-level lenience by regressing an indicator for a 9 MPH charge on year, month, day-of-week, posted speed, and county fixed effects, computing residuals, and averaging by officer. Panel B plots the officer-level distribution of these measures and demonstrates that substantial variation in lenience remains after adjusting for the time and location of stops.

    We provide further evidence that lenience is an officer-level phenomenon by showing that an officer’s residualized share of stops with a 9 MPH charge is highly correlated across time and space. Specifically, we residualize lenience using the same procedure as above and average at the officer × year level (Panel C) or officer × county level (Panel 9D). In Panel C, we plot each officer’s residualized lenience in his year with the second most stops (y-axis) against his residualized lenience in year with the most stops (x-axis). A strong correlation is evident – an officer who charges 9 MPH relatively more often in one year also does so in other years. In Panel D, we plot lenience in the county with the second most stops against lenience in the county with the most stops. The story here is the same, with officers who charge 9 MPH relatively often in one county also likely to do so in other counties. We take this as compelling evidence that bunching in the ticketed speed distribution is generated by the behavior of the officers.
    The study looks at ticketing behavior at the level of the individual officers, and section 2.4 shows that ticketing behavior is consistent across time and space. If driver behavior were sufficient, then you would not see this distribution, unless you're trying to tell me drivers follow officers around the county. This is also in line with previous studies on speed discounting that found strong indicators that speeds reported by officers were heavily influenced by officers' discretion, after eliminating other plausible explanations such as drivers' choices. I'll see if I can get a response from the authors on the question of whether or not they can get any insights from subjecting the reported speeds to analyses used in forensic accounting, eg. digit analysis.

    You're right the rest of the paper does have some interesting points, but no it does not refute unequal geographical distribution in fact it does quite the opposite and declares unequal geographical distribution to be a bigger factor than alleged racial bias.
    In the aggregate, yes. The validity of the policies proposed rests squarely on the validity of the more complex models (see descriptions of those models in the text and the discussion of caveats including assumptions about selection or lack thereof in choosing to ticket in the first place. Also note that the section you quoted discusses "true differences in speeding", which cannot be ascertained directly from the data as true speeds are not reliably recorded and were not analyzed) but the policies deemed (by the authors) to be the most effective serve to mitigate the impact of the 25% of officers that are racially biased.

    The conclusion about the comparatively low impact of simply removing the most biased officers is based on both the assumption that there is no bias in choosing to ticket in the first place as well as on the decision to model the removal of the most biased officers, regardless of the direction of their bias. The authors don't conclude that removing racial bias has no impact:

    Removing officers who are at the 15th percentile or worse of bias reduces the gap from .093 to .08, a 14% reduction
    They merely conclude that their models show a smaller effect for policies aimed at eliminating biased officers than those aimed at addressing exposure to lenient officers.

    My comment was about the geographical distribution of drivers and not about the geographical distribution of officers, and it was in response to the suggestion that driver characteristics fully explained the observed racial disparities. Obviously you could, in theory, move people to areas with more lenient officers, and that would reduce the racial disparities in ticketing, according to these models.

    Gee almost as if driver behaviour matters!
    Has anyone said that it did not?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •