Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday June 30 2019, @12:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the license-and-registration-please dept.

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!


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday July 01 2019, @09:58AM (2 children)

    by Unixnut (5779) on Monday July 01 2019, @09:58AM (#861862)

    > Hey, the Brits could kick out the royalty any time they wanted - of course there's the /minor/ detail that a large part of Britain's operating budget comes from profits on the vast royal wealth held in trust by the government in exchange for allowing the royals to continue their titular rule

    There is also the minor detail that the royal family is in control of the army. All armed forces units still swear an oath to serve and protect the crown, not the government, nor the common people for that matter. The current arrangement as such is the royal family do not exercise any influence on military or political decisions, and delegate all control to the government, but as head of the armed forces, they can at any moment remove the delegation and assume control of the military.

    It is one of the ways of keeping the government in check, so even if by some chance we end up with our own version of loony dictator wanting to conquer the world, the crown can overrule them, dismiss parliament and even arrest said loony and stick them in the tower of London, if they wanted to.

    Downsides include that the armed forces could (and would, in the past) be used against their own people, if they got a bit too uppity against the crown. In fact it was them using the army against the common people that eventually resulted in the arrangement above, as the people organised into their own army and a bunch of wars were fought until we reached the current status quo.

    > Kick out the royals, and the Brits have to either give back all that immense wealth, or openly steal it.

    I would disagree about calling it stealing. After all, it isn't like the royals originally got that wealth through clean means, and we have moved away from the idea that "god ordained them to rule all" as it was in the past. Most of their wealth was through conquest and/or violence. Theft, essentially, from the rest of us. They should be the last to complain about it being "stolen" back from them.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 01 2019, @11:04AM

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday July 01 2019, @11:04AM (#861875)

    > All armed forces units still swear an oath to serve and protect the crown, not the government, nor the common people for that matter.

    The queen is the government and the common people. Hence the Royal wee.

    > the crown can overrule them, dismiss parliament

    Interestingly things changed rather recently.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org]

    I *think* the queen can no longer dissolve parliament.

    It is irrelevant because practically the queen cannot dissolve parliament as she is not allowed to collect taxes without parliament. We had a civil war over this one (two or more if you include 1688 and the Jacobite rebellions) and it is the keystone to British democracy.

    > arrest said loony and stick them in the tower of London

    No, the awesomely-named "star chamber" was done away with in the 17th century. We had a civil war over this one.

  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday July 01 2019, @08:08PM

    by Immerman (3985) on Monday July 01 2019, @08:08PM (#862136)

    If you steal something from me, that I stole from someone else, you've still committed theft.

    Right now all that wealth legally belongs to the Crown - doesn't matter how they got it, it's legally theirs (morally is a separate question, irrelevant to law). Which means taking it would be theft.