Over on StreetsBlog, Kea Wilson makes a strong case for how we need consequences, not punishment, for reckless driving.
Consequences, Singer explained, "are the direct effect of an action; they’re guaranteed, and they teach a lesson." When a driver strikes a concrete bollard separating a bike lane from the driving lane, a mangled bumper and the steep repair bill that follows are both consequences, and they're serious ones most sensible motorists will take action to avoid.
…
"Consequences are for the offender," she continued. "They teach the offender a lesson. But punishments are for the offended. It makes the offended feel better. Consequences teach you responsibility for your action; punishments make you feel shame."
I love a good distinction in language, and this distinction between consequences and punishment really hits home for me, since it is something I’ve been trying to use raising my kid. I try to avoid punishing him for his behavior and instead have him face reasonable consequences for his choices: bed time comes at the same time every night, it’s non-negotiable, so delaying teethbrushing or getting into pajamas only takes away from how much time we have to read stories before bed; as opposed to threatening, “I will take away your LEGOs if you don’t put your pajamas on.” (Not that I don’t have my bad days when I threaten punishment, but I try not to.) Anyway, I digress…
This opinion piece didn’t really advocate anything I didn’t already believe, but I found the framing of safer street designs as enforcing consequences for reckless driving novel. When I first began reading it, I was skeptical. What consequences are there for reckless driving if not enforcement through fines and such? But of course narrower streets or concrete bollards discourage reckless driving precisely because of the consequences of damage to your vehicle. I had just never thought of it in terms of consequences vs. punishment.