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, 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]