April Biketivist Forum Recap: The Role of Video Surveillance in Bike Safety
You all know this -those of us who love riding bikes are extremely vulnerable road users. We will always lose when it comes to a bike versus a car. So, what do we do? Having a police officer on every corner is unrealistic, costs a lot of taxpayer dollars, and has negative implications on certain demographics. We also know that design solutions, like re-striping the roads differently and slowing down drivers are the very best ways to improve safety, but those changes take years to implement, and sadly, are irrelevant to those that are determined reckless drivers. So, what do we do, now, today, to make sure we’re safe?Many folks have started focusing on things like automated speed safety cameras, helmet-mounted cameras and other forms of surveillance. And while those solutions make sense on the face of it, there are implications on the collection of data, privacy, and more, that caused us to host a forum on this topic, so that we can better understand the pros and cons of using cameras to improve the safety of people who ride bikes.
At this Biketivist Forum titled “Role of Video Surveillance in Bike Safety”, we heard from three panelists with distinctive points of view share their perspectives, benefits and consequences of using video surveillance.Our first panelist, Craig Davis, founder of Cyclist Video Evidence(CVE) began by stating that the cycling population will only increase when cyclists have the confidence to ride on the roads. To do so, Davis recommends the cycling community to ride with mounted cameras and enter all assault and reckless driving incidents in CVE’s Incident Management system, This system is a tool which Davis developed for crowdsourcing information to help police departments identify repeat offenders and identify hotspots, potentially improving transparency and accountability in the legal system. Davis concluded that by focusing on improving safety through enforcement of existing traffic laws (3-foot violation, reckless driving and assault) with cyclist-initiated episodic (not persistent) camera evidence, drivers can be positively influenced before they injure or kill a cyclist. It’s a different approach that could address some of the equity implications of traditional forms of surveillance and we’re hoping to use his example as a way of better understanding how and if we can develop ways of making the streets more safe outside of traditional forms of law enforcement.
Our second panelist, Lt. Stephen Donohue from the San Jose Police Department (SJPD) explained the role of government in utilizing video documentation, its limits, and the parameters under which police officers work. While people are allowed to take videos in public for their own personal use, there is a gray area in how such video footage can be used by law enforcement. Donohue discussed why a lot of traffic collisions are not prosecuted and explained that because assault is only considered when there is intent, reckless driving even when it has caused a lot of harm may not always be viewed as assault under the eyes of the law. While video evidence can help people biking to report an incident, there are also some unintentional consequences that come from video surveillance whether from an individual or from law enforcement specifically in communities of color.
Our third panelist, Yolanda Davis-Overstreet, community organizer and activist in Los Angeles helped the participants better understand the lived experience of folks who are wary of the use of cameras. For Davis-Overstreet, fatalities, injuries and lack of respect for cyclists exist because the community itself cannot bike or walk on the sidewalk safely as their sidewalk and streets are crumbling “literally”. Davis-Overstreet stressed that in order to change the minds of the community regarding video surveillance, especially communities of color, education and community engagement is required. But because the use of surveillance and over policing in communities of color is an issue in itself, surveillance cameras alone will not address the issue of bike and pedestrian safety. In her community and in other communities like Davis-Overstreet’ the issue of police harassment needs to be addressed before they can begin having conversations about speed cameras and other forms of surveillance.
What we re-learned at the Biketevist Forum was that the use of cameras in bike safety is not black and white. We also learned that there was a lot more to learn as we didn't even get into interesting issues around vigilantism and much more. What we do know is that addressing the structural causes of traffic violence, meaning, designing our communities so that biking and walking is the most obvious and preferred choice, is pivotal to keeping people who ride and walk safe. As we continue forward in the bike movement, we will continue to do so in accordance with SVBC's commitment to race and equity, and we will continue to try to be very intentional about looking at these types of issues through a lens that is just, equitable and inclusive. In doing so, we will create safer streets for the most underserved and marginalized communities all while creating safer streets for everyone.
Biketivist forums bring city advocates together on the same platform, encourage interaction and cross-learning between the members, promote and build new leaders, and make teams more effective at advocating for local improvements and bike-friendly policies.
Join us for our May Biketivist Forum on May 18, 2022. May is not just Bike Month, but also Affordable Housing month! In order to celebrate both, SVBC in collaboration with SV@Home, is planning the May forum to dive into the importance of affordable housing in land use and what impacts it has on different modes of transportation. It will also talk about how a sustainable land use model can bring people out of cars and encourage use of other modes. Register Here.