5 ms·
This is yet another argument against car centric city design. Cars represent shackles that allow city and state debt collectors to get their claws into the most
by foxyv 3y ago
This is yet another argument against car centric city design. Cars represent shackles that allow city and state debt collectors to get their claws into the most vulnerable Americans. If we had a working public transit system and pedestrian/cyclist friendly cities then this would be a non-issue.
However, by forcing people into cars, we suddenly have significant problems. Especially considering the housing crisis that makes cars the primary residence of a couple hundred thousand people who can't afford a parking ticket. Much less a $1500 reinstatement fee.
It's absurdly expensive to be poor. Cars are yet another reason for that.
- mjhay 3y agoI am in 110% agreement with everything you are saying here. There's a quite bizarre thing here, though: In typical American car-centric areas, suspending someone's license because of debt takes away their ability to pay back debt. This seems just as counterproductive to creditors as debtors prisons were (and sometimes are).
- tanseydavid 3y agoI agree. It is a Debtor's Prison in everything but name.
- WheatMillington 3y agoIf you take away the licence of someone who is ALREADY not paying their debt, what has changed in that respect?
- sterlind 3y agothe potential for future repayment?
- superb_dev 3y agoYou’re assuming they aren’t trying to pay their debts in the first place, which isn’t true for most people.
- vuln 3y agoYou’re assuming they’re only like a month behind, right?
- superb_dev 3y agoNo
- willcipriano 3y agoIf you've seen what they have done with cars you probably aren't optimistic about what's going to happen when they take those away.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y agoI don't think anyone is arguing that the cars should be taken away - well, OK, someone probably is, but there's someone arguing everything on the internet - it's more about having options where losing your car doesn't stop someone from getting to work so that they can pay off the debt that is keeping them from using their car.
- willcipriano 3y agoThe government is draconian with cars. They use car ownership as a tool to turn the screws on poor people. Now step into the shoes of that poor person, who has had the screws turned on them. Whould you give up your car and trust the government? That's why they don't trust public transit, they don't trust the government and rightly so.
- foxyv 3y agoPoor people don't use public transit because it has been dismantled to the point it's unusable. In fact, it has been demolished explicitly because poor people use it.
- vuln 3y agoPeople don’t use public transportation because there is people with mental issues on them causing fights, teenagers causing fight, addicts causing a ruckus. Public transportation isn’t safe for a majority of the population
- foxyv 3y agoI have yet to have a single issue with public transportation. In addition, all the people fighting on public transit aren't crashing into each other in multi-ton vehicles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JgukjFWlcc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JgukjFWlcc https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2021/20-843/20-843-15.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2021/20-8...
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago>This is yet another argument against car centric city design. If there were debt-based suspensions of the right to ride public transport, would you categorize this as an argument against public transport centric city design? This is a plain ridiculous assertion. EDIT: the point here is that bad policy that involves something you happen to dislike doesn't lend strength to the viewpoint that the thing is bad. I mean, I happen not to like pitbull-type dogs, but I acknowledge that a putative law which prevented debtors from getting dog licenses would not be an argument against owning pitbulls.
- foxyv 3y agoYou do not need a license to ride the bus or train. Just a couple bucks and a good book.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoYou're continuing to miss the point. The license is an irrelevancy. If you can have your license suspended for <stupid reason> you can also be banned from public transport for <the same stupid reason>. Banning people from using transportation that they probably need for work is dumb, bad policy, and bad economics. It tells you nothing about the merits of the kind of transport from which they're being banned.
- foxyv 3y agoCan you ban someone from walking to the store if it is less than a mile away? Or riding their bicycle to work if it is less than 4 miles away? If your government can do that, cars are not going to save you from the totalitarian dictatorship you are living under.
- sokoloff 3y agoBe sure to let us know when people are barred from using public transportation because of unpaid child support.
- 3y ago
- seoulmetro 3y agoNo. Cars aren't the problem here. This is targeting the clouds for raining on your clothes. The problem is you put your clothes out to dry when it was raining. Car, bike, walking, they are all means of transport that the government can restrict easily. Cars are just good to travel in low density areas.
- howenterprisey 3y agoWalking? Easily?
- seoulmetro 3y agoWhere were you during the years 2020-2021? Most places on Earth this restriction was in place for quite some time. And all they had to do was say so.
- macintux 3y agoI’m unaware of any walking restrictions in my part of the world. I’m very, very skeptical about the “most places” claim.
- seoulmetro 3y agoLookup the word "lockdown". It's fairly common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lockdowns
- Swizec 3y agoAt least here in SF, walking was explicitly allowed during the lockdowns. As long as you said it's for exercise or for a necessary activity like grocery shopping.
- seoulmetro 3y agoThat's not what was meant by the comment. Walking as a means of transport doesn't exist if you have no legal destination. It's not rocket science. Unsure how many of you are struggling here. Suspending your license doesn't stop you from sitting in, using or driving your car, just stops you from driving it onto the road.... you know, like walking and lockdowns.
- SoftTalker 3y agoWhy would a better public transit system make this a non-issue? People could be banned from it just as easily as people could have their driver's license banned.
- shiroiushi 3y agoHow exactly do you ban someone from public transit? And why would you? In every major city I've visited, there's no way to track who used the system: you either pay with cash (buying a ticket), or you put money on an anonymous stored-value card and use that in the fare gates. Anyone with cash can ride.
- int_19h 3y ago> And why would you? To punish them. For all the talk about rehabilitation and compensation, our "justice" system is fundamentally still about making some people happy by letting them watch other people get hurt.
- SoftTalker 3y agoPublic transit is public. I.e. the government controls it. They could implement a transit pass tied to identity and prevent anyone with debts owed or other poor "social credit" from obtaining one.
- foxyv 3y agoPolice have much more legal power to stop, identify, search and harass you if you are in a car. For instance, your 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure is nullified by forced identification laws and implied consent. A simple pre-textual stop for "Possible intoxication" makes it easy to target undesirables for searches and forced identification. This is not nearly as easy on public transportation or for pedestrians. Terry stops have much less power when you don't have a hundred traffic laws and licensing requirements that you can get a car driver for. In addition, you can't revoke someone's walking license if they don't pay child support.
- 3y ago