4 ms·

> Everybody loves public transit until they get panhandled for the jillionth time People love driving until they're stuck in traffic, or their kid dies in a fi

> Everybody loves public transit until they get panhandled for the jillionth time People love driving until they're stuck in traffic, or their kid dies in a fiery car crash after being ran into by a drunk driver, or they get a flat tire, or can't afford their monthly car payment. To your point about society needing to be better, that applies generally and has nothing to do specifically with transit, walking around outside, or any other daily activities. You can live in a big city, affordably, with a yard and even a garage and have public transit like a light rail or a bus system, or just damn sidewalks that go to places. These supposed trade-offs are non-existent except in extreme cases like New York City, which isn't what is generally being discussed.

mothballed 1y ago
It applies to public transit specifically because people have freedom of speech to be assholes on public transit. If I have an uber or a private taxi or even a private collectivo which is a private system that works like public transit in much the 3rd world, if I get sick of someone panhandling for the Nth time I can kick them the fuck out. If you look at places with nice public transit like Germany or Japan, they have much weaker freedom of speech and assembly laws so they can enforce the kind of rules private enterprises do in the USA. Americans, and I agree with them on this point, aren't going to weaken civil rights just because it would happen to make public transit more viable. Private transport just has a lot of opportunities to deal with security or annoyance concerns you can't address with public transit. I don't think the opposition is so much to mass transit, just public transit, if the USA had something like the jeepnees they have in the philippines where I could pay $.25 to go across town and the bus driver can shove the assholes right off he bus, it'd be awesome.
- piva00 1y ago
  I don't think it has anything to do with free speech laws, it's simply civics and the lack of it in American society due to a multitude of factors. American society doesn't understand collectivism in any level, your country has been built upon individualism without much care for collective living, you just reap what you've sown.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    I'm not sure that's quite the case, because as a country we do tend to be rather compassionate when motivated to do so. You frequently hear from travelers "Americans are the nicest folks you'll meet" and I generally believe that's true. It's not about individualism vs collectivism, but lack of empathy enforced through transportation methods that by design create a lack of social cohesion. Scandinavian countries for example score much higher on the individualism scale, yet you don't see as much of this behavior as you might in the United States.
    - LargeWu 1y ago
      Americans might be nice, but they're not necessarily kind.
    - Daishiman 1y ago
      Being nice and being empathetic are very different things. Niceties are protocol; you can be empathetic and considerate while displaying very different types of mannerisms.
      - ericmay 1y ago
        Ok. Americans are nice, kind, empathetic, polite, and considerate. Or is there more you want to quibble about on this topic?
        Daishiman 1y ago
        I’ve found a good chunk of Americans to be vacuous, self centered and obsessed with performative individualism. Other people don’t need to make a show about their kindness.
    - piva00 1y ago
      > You frequently hear from travelers "Americans are the nicest folks you'll meet" It's fake niceness, it's the American way of being "polite", most times I interact with Americans it's pretty clear it's surface-level niceness, more like a theater than genuinely being it. To me it's quite grating and makes Americans feel untrustworthy. > Scandinavian countries for example score much higher on the individualism scale, yet you don't see as much of this behavior as you might in the United States. I live in Sweden and usually tell people that it's the most individualistic collectivisc place I've been to, people are individualistic in the sense of self-sufficiency but care about the collective if you are acting against it. In that sense we are much more collectivisc than the USA, whenever I've been in the US it's very clear that most aren't caring for the collective aspect at all.
- afavour 1y ago
  I don't think that's true at all. Police in NYC are able to remove passengers who are being a nuisance, there just aren't enough of them to police every car of every subway train. In my experience (as an NYC resident) the people causing problems on the subway aren't just being assholes for the sake of it. They're homeless, have mental issues or frequently both. I suspect when you visit Germany or Japan you're seeing the effects of much more comprehensive social nets that actually care for these people rather than let them fall through the cracks and live on subway trains.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    You don't need police to trespass someone in private transit though. You can just tell them to leave, and if they don't they can be made to leave (depending on the state). If you're familiar with bouncers you understand this function. Expecting a police to be available to every transit disturbance, I agree, is not going to end with a functional outcome.
    - afavour 1y ago
      I'm not sure why there would be a distinction, really. The NYC subway has a specific transit police force who would act as the "bouncers" in this scenario. Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Disruptive passengers can be ejected on public transit.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        You don't see the difference between every driver being able to be a bouncer, and only sworn police being able to be a bouncer? Private citizens generally can't trespass people on public property. You have to get a policeman and the policeman has to cite a specific policy or law they have violated. The private system in this case is way more pragmatic since every driver that is already on the bus has bouncing rights.
        afavour 1y ago
        I don't really understand what this has to do with the original discussion. You said: > It applies to public transit specifically because people have freedom of speech to be assholes My response to was to say I do not believe that is true at all. Passengers on public transit do not have freedom of speech to be assholes.
potato3732842 1y ago
>>> Everybody loves public transit until they get panhandled for the jillionth time >People love driving until they're stuck in traffic, or their kid dies in a fiery car crash after being ran into by a drunk driver, or they get a flat tire, or can't afford their monthly car payment. The relative rates of these things are very, very different (as are the harms).
- magicalist 1y ago
  > The relative rates of these things are very, very different (as are the harms). I mean, as a first approximation, about twice as many people die in car crashes than are murdered in the US every year so...

mothballed 1y ago

It applies to public transit specifically because people have freedom of speech to be assholes on public transit. If I have an uber or a private taxi or even a private collectivo which is a private system that works like public transit in much the 3rd world, if I get sick of someone panhandling for the Nth time I can kick them the fuck out. If you look at places with nice public transit like Germany or Japan, they have much weaker freedom of speech and assembly laws so they can enforce the kind of rules private enterprises do in the USA. Americans, and I agree with them on this point, aren't going to weaken civil rights just because it would happen to make public transit more viable. Private transport just has a lot of opportunities to deal with security or annoyance concerns you can't address with public transit. I don't think the opposition is so much to mass transit, just public transit, if the USA had something like the jeepnees they have in the philippines where I could pay $.25 to go across town and the bus driver can shove the assholes right off he bus, it'd be awesome.

piva00 1y ago
I don't think it has anything to do with free speech laws, it's simply civics and the lack of it in American society due to a multitude of factors. American society doesn't understand collectivism in any level, your country has been built upon individualism without much care for collective living, you just reap what you've sown.
- ericmay 1y ago
  I'm not sure that's quite the case, because as a country we do tend to be rather compassionate when motivated to do so. You frequently hear from travelers "Americans are the nicest folks you'll meet" and I generally believe that's true. It's not about individualism vs collectivism, but lack of empathy enforced through transportation methods that by design create a lack of social cohesion. Scandinavian countries for example score much higher on the individualism scale, yet you don't see as much of this behavior as you might in the United States.
  - LargeWu 1y ago
    Americans might be nice, but they're not necessarily kind.
  - Daishiman 1y ago
    Being nice and being empathetic are very different things. Niceties are protocol; you can be empathetic and considerate while displaying very different types of mannerisms.
    - ericmay 1y ago
      Ok. Americans are nice, kind, empathetic, polite, and considerate. Or is there more you want to quibble about on this topic?
      - Daishiman 1y ago
        I’ve found a good chunk of Americans to be vacuous, self centered and obsessed with performative individualism. Other people don’t need to make a show about their kindness.
  - piva00 1y ago
    > You frequently hear from travelers "Americans are the nicest folks you'll meet" It's fake niceness, it's the American way of being "polite", most times I interact with Americans it's pretty clear it's surface-level niceness, more like a theater than genuinely being it. To me it's quite grating and makes Americans feel untrustworthy. > Scandinavian countries for example score much higher on the individualism scale, yet you don't see as much of this behavior as you might in the United States. I live in Sweden and usually tell people that it's the most individualistic collectivisc place I've been to, people are individualistic in the sense of self-sufficiency but care about the collective if you are acting against it. In that sense we are much more collectivisc than the USA, whenever I've been in the US it's very clear that most aren't caring for the collective aspect at all.
afavour 1y ago
I don't think that's true at all. Police in NYC are able to remove passengers who are being a nuisance, there just aren't enough of them to police every car of every subway train. In my experience (as an NYC resident) the people causing problems on the subway aren't just being assholes for the sake of it. They're homeless, have mental issues or frequently both. I suspect when you visit Germany or Japan you're seeing the effects of much more comprehensive social nets that actually care for these people rather than let them fall through the cracks and live on subway trains.
- mothballed 1y ago
  You don't need police to trespass someone in private transit though. You can just tell them to leave, and if they don't they can be made to leave (depending on the state). If you're familiar with bouncers you understand this function. Expecting a police to be available to every transit disturbance, I agree, is not going to end with a functional outcome.
  - afavour 1y ago
    I'm not sure why there would be a distinction, really. The NYC subway has a specific transit police force who would act as the "bouncers" in this scenario. Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Disruptive passengers can be ejected on public transit.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      You don't see the difference between every driver being able to be a bouncer, and only sworn police being able to be a bouncer? Private citizens generally can't trespass people on public property. You have to get a policeman and the policeman has to cite a specific policy or law they have violated. The private system in this case is way more pragmatic since every driver that is already on the bus has bouncing rights.
      - afavour 1y ago
        I don't really understand what this has to do with the original discussion. You said: > It applies to public transit specifically because people have freedom of speech to be assholes My response to was to say I do not believe that is true at all. Passengers on public transit do not have freedom of speech to be assholes.

potato3732842 1y ago

>>> Everybody loves public transit until they get panhandled for the jillionth time >People love driving until they're stuck in traffic, or their kid dies in a fiery car crash after being ran into by a drunk driver, or they get a flat tire, or can't afford their monthly car payment. The relative rates of these things are very, very different (as are the harms).

magicalist 1y ago
> The relative rates of these things are very, very different (as are the harms). I mean, as a first approximation, about twice as many people die in car crashes than are murdered in the US every year so...