SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a new book, Policing the Open Road, How Cars Transformed American Freedom http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674980860 the author makes the claim that the USA's slippery slope toward a totalitarian or police state (often discussed on SN) started when cars became popular. Before that time (about 100 years ago), most policing was handled by various non-gov't organizations and the professional police force was small. With the advent of the car, everyone (rich and poor, upstanding citizen or rogue) broke traffic laws and police forces expanded to deal with it--testing constitutional rights in the courts and many other aspects of our society.
The Boston Review http://bostonreview.net/law-justice/sarah-seo-how-cars-transformed-policing has a extended book review which is well worth a read. Here's a clip:
Before cars, police mainly dealt with those on the margins of society. Voluntary associations governed everyone else. Churches enforced moral norms, trade groups managed business relations, and social clubs maintained social harmony. Citizens and private groups, including banks and insurance companies, pursued criminal investigations and initiated prosecutions. Aside from the constable or sheriff, who worked for the court and mainly executed warrants, publicly-funded police rarely took part in private enforcement efforts. A nineteenth-century treatise on the “duties of sheriffs and constables” indicates that the bulk of their work was to serve summonses, warrants, and writs, as well as to supervise prisoners. Large cities began establishing police forces in the mid-nineteenth century, but even so, municipal coffers did not support the extent of protection that wealthier neighborhoods and business districts sought. A system of “special policemen” licensed by the government but paid for by private citizens—private security, essentially—filled the void.
This would all soon change when Americans embraced the “horseless carriage.” In 1910 the number of registered passenger cars was just under 500,000. That figure exploded to over 8 million in 1920 and to nearly 18 million in 1925—a thirty-fivefold increase in fifteen years. New regulatory and police practices soon developed to respond to cars’ mass adoption. Soon no one could drive without taking a test, applying for a license, registering the car, and buying insurance. And that was just the beginning. Once a person set out for a drive, speed limits, stoplights, checkpoints, and all the other requirements of the traffic code restricted how one could drive.
But towns and cities quickly ran into an enforcement problem: everybody violated traffic laws. Noncompliance was not a new phenomenon, but violations of the rules of the road presented a different quandary for two reasons. First, drivers included respectable people, and their numbers were growing every year. Second, traffic lawbreaking resulted in tremendous damage, injury, and death, and those numbers were increasing every day. It soon became clear that the public’s interest in street and highway safety required more policing.
This meant that everyone became subject to discretionary policing. The well-off were among the first to buy cars, as were farmers who needed cars for more practical reasons. Even if independent farmers may not have been as wealthy as the early auto enthusiasts, as a group, they enjoyed social standing in a country with a strong sense of agrarian virtue. Driving quickly became a middle-class, or what used to be called “business-class,” phenomenon by the mid-1920s, when car ownership passed a tipping point: 55.7 percent of families in the United States owned a car in 1926, and 18 percent of those had more than one. But even the rest of the population who did not drive and instead walked were policed, too, for the regulation of drivers on public streets also required the regulation of pedestrians on those same streets.
This completely transformed U.S. society. ...
So much for that fantasy of the open road!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @01:05PM (21 children)
I wonder if it makes the distinction between "rights" and "privileges". Much of the problem with driving is, you have no "right" to operate a motor vehicle on any road that you don't personally own. You need a license to operate on public roads, with the caveat that if you don't obey the traffic laws, your license may be suspended. Violation of those laws is almost never a criminal offense, but an administrative offense.
Those distinctions probably didn't seem of much importance a hundred years ago. Aside from offenses like "driving while black", the worst abuses didn't become apparent until - ohhhh - maybe 40 years ago. Today, there are many meaningless "offenses" that no sensible person would have taken seriously 50 years ago. Tinted windows, seat belt laws, vehicle height, on and on it goes.
Given all of that - how are self-driving cars going to affect policing? We have to make a couple of presumptions - like the cars will obey the speed limit, they won't weave like they're drunk, and they will use signals and high/low beams appropriately at all times. So, cops should (almost) never have a reason to pull a vehicle over, right? So, we should all tint our windows almost opaque, light a blunt, pour our favorite drinks, and the hell with the seat belts, right? LOL, we all know better. The authorities aren't going to let go of any authorities they have assumed, or presumed!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @01:48PM (2 children)
I wonder if this book is doing the classic correlation-causation thing without considering whether a third factor didn't cause both. Police cause cars? No, doesn't make sense. Cars cause police? Doubtful because as you put it:
It's about power and control, not social necessity.
Asked the duck and found May Day: A Radical Strike into the Belly of the Beast [libcom.org], which touches on the Haymarket Massacre in 1886. Primary sauce [libcom.org] implicated virtuous Christians:
Not sure how many cars were around in 1886 or why we should be nostalgic for the good old days when "churches enforced moral norms."
It might be a case of their cool story being right for the wrong reasons. There may not be many privately-owned cars in the socialist era, probably only enthusiasts and hobbyists, sort of like the protagonist in A Nice Morning Drive [2112.net] (note that capitalist era causes the alloy air-cars, because if safety were the concern, the authorities would have spent more on public transportation instead) or Tom Paris from ST:VOY. There also will be no army of the bourgeoisie.
But I'm guessing the conclusion of the book is that we need to go all cargo cult and get rid of cars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @02:40PM
Also found The Danger of Getting Sidetracked [consortiumnews.com]. Does this book sidetrack us?
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday July 01 2019, @01:13AM
A bigger factor might have been how large the private police forces were becoming towards the end of the 19th century. The Pinkerton's by themselves were bigger then the American Army.
The Pinkerton Detective Agency was created to keep workers in line, from wiki,
And went on to do government work, which eventually worried the government, which passed the Anti-Pinkerton Act in 1893.
The Pinkerton's and other private police/mercennary forces are a good lesson on how private can be worse then public though they did employ women and minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 30 2019, @02:48PM (10 children)
>vehicle height
is a pretty serious safety concern on the public roads. Hiked up trucks are not only dangerous to normal height vehicles and their passengers, they also physically impair (the usually already intellectually impaired) their drivers' ability to see vehicles and pedestrians in danger from their vehicle.
Source: asshole in a hiked up truck nearly ran over a kid in the dropoff circle at elementary school, because he couldn't see that there was a kid in front of the truck.
Of course, the latest Ford Power Wagons or whatever the hell they're called come like this from the factory now, so I guess it's all O.K. with the NTSB.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:23PM (8 children)
Maybe vehicle height wasn't the best choice to make my point. However, not all laws regarding vehicle height are equally sensible. Maybe I should have used wheel size (which in some cases drastically affects vehicle height). Should the kids who buy 20 or 24 inch rims, with a thin skin of tire wrapped around them be stopped and arrested?
Power wagon? I thought that was a Mopar name - lemme look for it. https://2020suvs.com/2019-ram-power-wagon/ [2020suvs.com] I'm not sure what truck you're talking about, but the Power Wagon doesn't look very high. The wheels look like about 16" - the steps are probably positioned between 9 and 12 inches off the ground, and the front bumper looks about even with the steps.
I'm afraid you'll have to find a link to the truck you're talking about, before I can understand.
I will note, though, that one of my sons has a Dodge that I don't like. 3/4 ton pickup, with some really piss-poor styling. That huuuuuge hood makes the truck feel like it's 8 feet (or more) in width, and the ground immediately in front of the truck is hidden for several feet ahead. I've driven tractor trailers with better visibility. All of the class-8 truck manufacturers offer their trucks with sloping hoods, narrowed at the front - what we used to call "anteaters". Even the more traditional long nose Peterbilts and Western Stars don't seem to obstruct the view as much as the kid's Dodge.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:42PM (5 children)
This is the disturbing trend I'm referring to. Customizers accomplished this with lift kits for time immemorial, but now they're coming from the factory like: https://shop.ford.com/build/superduty/?intcmp=show-bp#/config/Config%5B%7CFord%7CSuperDuty%7C2019%7C1%7C1.%7C600A.F2A.142....250.CBC.REC.YZKAA.SRW.XLL.%5D [ford.com]
which aren't quite as bad, but definitely heading in that direction. At least the factory height bumpers aren't at decapitation levels, but as you say, the near front visibility is turning to shit. It's a continuation of the "I like to see OVER the other traffic" trend that launched the SUV wave.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:25PM (1 child)
> It's a continuation of the "I like to see OVER the other traffic" trend that launched the SUV wave.
Pretty sure that what launched the SUV and pickup wave was the Feds -- when safety, emission and fuel (CAFE) regulations were getting going (1980s?), they gave trucks an easier time, with the result that trucks were considerably cheaper. Probably (in some cases) the trucks ran better too, as the companies tried to figure out how to meet the more stringent emission and economy rules for cars. So people bought trucks and initially put up with the lousy ride and cheap interiors.
The manufacturers noticed that trucks were being used like cars, and they responded by making the trucks more car-like in terms of amenities.
The rules also made for some odd calls, for example, Chrysler managed to get the PT Cruiser classified as a truck, which meant it helped their CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) rating more than if it was a car.
As the height of the "fleet" increased, then the need to see OVER the other traffic became more of an issue.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:41PM
The impetus for SUV's started with the 1979 oil embargo. So, yes, you've nailed it with CAFE and your (1980s?) question.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:37PM (2 children)
I've seen the Super Duty Fords. I would have to sit in the driver's seat for a minute, or better yet drive it, to pass judgement. From the view offered on that page, it doesn't look bad. The hood actually slopes downward steadily, from the windshield, all the way to the front. Even better, the outer sides of the hood slope away even faster than the center. The guys with tiny dicks who put 3" or bigger lift kits under that truck are going to obstruct their views pretty badly - but the factory pic I'm seeing shouldn't be bad. The 350 Super Duty is all around larger, and higher, so it's going to be worse than the 250. I can agree with you, this is not a family car, and it probably shouldn't be found at the local elementary school, picking up children. Most certainly, not driven by people less than 5' 6". 6' 6" maybe. A child 4 feet tall will most certainly be hidden in front of that hood, unless the child is more than six feet out in front of the vehicle, unless the driver's eyeballs are up near the roof of the truck.
Most people who have a legitimate use for a vehicle like that are going to avoid downtown, school zones, church zones, etc. You'll find those people on the ranch, on a construction site, hauling cargo down the highway, OR, at the Cowboy Church.
Pretty cool place, about four miles outside of town. They have about five acres, maybe a little more, with a huge barn-like structure they use for a church. There's a big corral, I'd guess a hundred fifty people on horseback could gather up inside it. Those people show up in this sort of truck, pulling combined horse trailer/campers. I'll eyeball the horses, but the fascinating part of their get-togethers are those trailers. I'd love to tour some of those campers!
I've never seen a gang of kids running around in that church yard though . . .
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Sunday June 30 2019, @08:12PM (1 child)
>Most people who have a legitimate use for a vehicle like that are going to avoid downtown, school zones, church zones, etc.
Quite possibly.
The real question though, is do the majority of people who own such a vehicle have a legitimate use for it, or just enjoy the size, styling, or feeling of power and utility?
I know an awful lot of people who have powerful "commerical grade" pickups who *might* have a legitimate use for a light-duty pickup or SUV, but would probably actually be better served by a hatchback or station wagon, perhaps supplemented with a light-duty trailer that they use every few months.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @08:42PM
Quite honestly, I think that all of those Super Duty trucks I've seen are being legitimately used in business. They all seem to have commercial plates, or farm plates on them. I can't swear to that, but from memory, I just don't recall seeing those trucks driven by kids, or loaded with kids. The Super Duty and similar trucks built by the competitors cost more to purchase, and cost more to license. Insurance is probably priced higher as well. And, face it, these larger vehicles are going to drink more fuel.
Come one step down from these commercial grade trucks, and you're in the niche where you find most of the tiny penis people. What we used to call a "heavy half ton" is the truck most commonly jacked up three feet, rolling coal, four foot high mud tires, four wheel drive, and all the other crazy stuff insecure people need.
The only solid complaint I have with visibility in a factory vehicle, is with Dodge. Even back in the '70's, Dodge had that big, sweeping hood that just filled up your view from the driver's seat. At some point in time, that hood was restyled ever so slightly, and visibility improved. Then, they made that newest hood, with the faux air scoop that looks like it belongs on a ram-charger. I say it sucks, but Dodge fans seem to love it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:50PM
I think he means the Wagon Queen Family Truckster
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @10:31PM
If past experience is any guide, not holding my breath!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:14PM
> ... with the NTSB.
with the DOT/NHTSA, and any state/local regulations.
ftfy
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 30 2019, @02:52PM
>how are self-driving cars going to affect policing?
Give the police more time to profile and invent fines for other "violations."
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:12PM (5 children)
This is actually a common misconception, legally speaking. In a state governed by the rule of law, there are actually no such things as "privileges".
Owning a drivers license is obviously not a right, because then nobody would be legally allowed to take it away from you, under any circumstance and for any reason whatsoever. Heck, any kind of license wouldn't even be necessary for driving a vehicule on public roads.
On the onther hand, it is also not a privilege. A privilege is a "permission" that is granted to you by a superior authority, at its discretion. If owning a drivers license were a privilege, then the motor vehicule authority would be legally allowed to take it away from you at any time, for any reason whatsoever, and even without any reason at all. But they can't. If you obey all the rules and meet all the required conditions enumerated in the law, the motor vehicule authority are not only legally forbiden from taking away your license, they are legally obligated to grant you one.
The rule of law is actually something that is greatly misundertood by a large percentage of the population, which is very sad. In a state governed by the rule of law, citizens are not obligated to obey the governement, nor is the governement obligated to obey its citizens; by the rule of law, both the citizens and the governement are obligated to obey the law. This is the fundamental principle on which free democratic nations are built.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:30PM (2 children)
You've mostly got the "privileges" down, but you miss a key factor. Yes, you may be stripped of your privileges. It happens all the time in the military. Privileges are granted based upon rank, and/or position. And, you may be stripped of rank and/or position, with cause. At which point, you lose all of the privileges associated with that rank and/or position. Privileges, such as use of the Acey-Deucey lounge, use of the Petty Officer's club, or the Chief's club, membership in a private mess, keeping personal firearms aboard ship, or on base - on and on it goes. Privileges are generally taken away as a result of some misconduct, which is the case in revocation of a driver's license. As you have pointed out, that misconduct leading to revocation of a driver's license is also a violation of the law.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @09:01PM (1 child)
I think we're disagreing on semantics here. The examples of "privileges" you give, I call "conditional rights".
And example of what I call "privilege" would be a landowner giving you permission to hunt on his property. In my book, this is truly a privilege he's giving you, because at any moment, and for any reason, or no reason at all, he can take away this permission.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @12:46PM
So, like the typical social network TOS?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:44PM (1 child)
Just like spelling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @09:03PM
Not all posters on this board are native english speakers.
How many languages do you speak ?