On a recent drive from the Seattle area back to Moscow, I noticed a sign that sparked an interesting question.
The sign said something to the effect of “Call and report HOV lane violators” with the number being 1-877-764-HERO.
At first glance it may seem benign. However, the use of “HERO” is what spurred the question, how much should we motivate people to police each other? According to the Washington State Department of Transportation, from 2015 to 2016 a total of 45,260 drivers were reported using the HERO phone number.
Griffen Winget | Argonaut
Only 24,554 of the 45,260 reported were sent brochures on driving laws.
This means 46 percent of the total reports were dismissed as inaccurate or false. This constitutes a complete waste of time.
There is the argument that only 3 percent of first offense drivers were reported and found guilty a second time.
This statistic obviously does not take into account second offense drivers that were never caught. It can be used, however, to show a large majority of first time offenders stop after their first citation.
The biggest problem with the WSDOT’s HERO program is in its name. The use of the word HERO makes one’s actions seem more impactful and important than they are.
The definition of hero is, “a person admired for achievements and noble qualities.”
Reporting an HOV violator is not an achievement, nor does it showcase noble qualities.
In fact, in the U.S. we harbor a negative stigma toward those who “snitch” to the authorities.
I do think some aspect of public reporting should exist within society.
Even the HERO system does most things right. It doesn’t send tickets based on one person’s report.
Instead it seeks to educate and give the driver two chances until the Washington State Troopers get involved.
It is the glorification of the action that merits examination.
The public is an enormous resource that largely goes unused in cases of illegal actions.
To incentivize public reports is to walk on the razor’s edge.
The ideal system would utilize the public as a watchdog while simultaneously reprimanding those who seek to abuse that system.
The issue of incentivizing public policing is nuanced and generally not discussed.
There are aspects of our reporting system that could use reevaluation.
It becomes difficult due to the conflicts between local, state and federal government.
To impose a national system would negate the advantage that state and local governments have when dealing with contextual problems.
As it stands, the best option seems to be to keep incentivization low and thus reduce the overall use of the public as a self-policing entity. This prevents abuse of the system at the cost of a larger part of the resource going unused.
Something as small as a sign can spark thought-provoking questions and flesh out opinions. You never know what will capture your interest.
Griffen Winget can be reached at [email protected]