People have long believed that red sports cars get more speeding tickets.
Years ago a researcher with time on his hands decided to see if it was
merely an urban legend. He designed a study and conducted it over a summer,
with the results supporting the popular suspicion.
A car's colour and configuration did, apparently, play a role in the number
of citations for speeding as well as some other moving violations. In the
area of the study red two-seaters topped the list.
One newspaper headlined the study's outcome with: "Red Sports Cars Speed
More," but the same data led another newspaper to a different conclusion.
"Police Prejudiced Against Red Sports Cars," the headline proclaimed.
The study supported the first conclusion better, but it didn't preclude the
second. Cars of conspicuous colour may attract drivers prone to busting
speed limits, and they may also attract officers prone to busting speeders.
A bright crimson hue is called "arrest-me red" for a reason. Only a
different study could answer whether drivers of red two-seaters are
scofflaws or victims of automotive colour prejudice. No study has found yet
that, when passing radar traps at identical speeds, red two-seaters are
pulled over more often than pearl-grey mini-vans.
The problem with statistical studies isn't that they're misleading at
least, it's not the only problem. A bigger problem is that people rely on
them for answers they were never designed to elicit.
It's often observed that questions can determine answers. It's less
frequently seen that the "answer" itself doesn't matter. The answer is an
intermediate step. What matters is the conclusion people draw from it. The
same answer that leads one person to conclude that drivers of red
two-seaters tend to break the law will lead another person to the
conclusion that the police tend to be unfair to drivers of red two-seaters.
This has been neatly demonstrated by Ontario Human Rights Commissioner
Keith Norton the other day.
The Safe Schools Act, introduced in 2000, calls for automatic suspension or
expulsion against students who commit serious infractions. Apparently, this
has resulted in disproportionate numbers of young African-Canadian males
being suspended or expelled. Mr. Norton deduced from this that the
legislation and its implementation unfairly discriminate against certain
minority groups. After noting this conclusion in the commissioner's annual
report, the commission duly launched human rights complaints against the
Ontario Ministry of Education and the Toronto District School Board.
Shades of red sports cars! Needless to say, the mere fact that young
African-Canadian males are being suspended or expelled in disproportionate
numbers is hardly proof of discrimination. It may only mean that a
disproportionate number of them commit serious infractions. In fact, on the
face of it, that's all it means. There would have to be evidence, either
that white or Oriental or female students are NOT being suspended or
expelled for similar infractions, or that there's something intrinsically
discriminatory about a law that holds black male students to the same
standards as other students, and measures them by the same yardstick.
I'm not suggesting that such a showing couldn't conceivably be made.
Perhaps African-Canadian males start with such social and historic
handicaps that they cannot, in fairness, be exposed to the same academic or
disciplinary expectations as other groups, and require the protection of a
special status within the Safe Schools Act. Perhaps the word
"discrimination" needs to be re-defined to include "positive" or
"affirmative" discrimination as an element of non-discrimination even if
this leads to the Orwellian concept of everybody being equal under the law
with some being more equal than others.
But until such a showing is made, arguing backwards from disparity to prove
discrimination, as Mr. Norton seems to be doing, offering "impact" as
evidence of unfairness, is pure sophistry and rather unsophisticated
sophistry at that. The law "impacts" on those who break it. If a law
impacts on a group disproportionately, this in itself is only evidence of
that group having broken that law disproportionately.
A person can't prove police discrimination just by displaying his
collection of speeding tickets. A lot of speeding tickets are evidence only
of a lot of speeding. If the Human Rights Commission's only evidence for a
complaint of discrimination is that the Safe Schools Act has resulted in
the suspension or expulsion of a disproportionate number of young black
males well, never mind a red two-seater, Mr. Norton's case has a hole
large enough to drive a red fire truck through it.
Copyright CamWest
Printer-friendly version
Email this item to a friend