Comment by tshtf
14 years ago
Are they really concerned about public safety?
What if, while the cell sites were powered down, a crazed lunatic with a knife started stabbing people on a BART platform or train? How could anyone call for help?
This is lunacy.
From the article: "In addition, numerous BART police officers and other BART personnel were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity."
So, to answer your question, BART police would have detained him, or someone would have used one of those phones to call for help.
Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
>Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
Disrupting protest would be an obvious motivation. The less effective the protest, the less bad press for the transit authority.
Read what happened last time there was a protest by this group: http://sfist.com/2011/07/12/bart_protesters_chant_vandalize_...
This is not your typical peaceful protest - BART was probably more concerned about preventing trains from being blocked, vandalism, and safety. And about safety - in this case, it's not some euphemism for control. These are train stations where people stand on a platform inches away from trains going at high speed. A rowdy crowd in a space like that is definitely a threat to safety.
I think of it BART taking away one of its amenities in order to maintain its core services and responsibility to safety than a draconian abuse of force. It's like a coffee shop that turns off its wifi because of abuse. Cell 'towers' placed in BART tunnels and stations are provided for the convenience of customers (as previously pointed out, not for safety).
For what it's worth, I ride the BART twice a day, every week day. I would choose train service over underground cell service any day.
3 replies →
Claiming it's for safety is what we in the business call "bullshit".
They address the safety of people on the platform, but what about people that didn't have a few dozen cops nearby?
I have ill family members, and need to be able to be on a plane in a few hours notice. Avoiding some bad PR photos justifies missing that important inbound phone call?
Simply put, the primary purpose of bart is to run a train service and maximize availability of that service. Cell service is a non essential (and until a few years ago, nonexistant) enhancement of that service.
The theory here is that if they allowed cell service to continue then protesters would have disrupted train service. So then the more pressing issue becomes getting people to the airport, not cellphone availability.
So yes, you missed your important call, but that's better than others missing their important flight.
3 replies →
What happens if you need to be on a plane when you're already on a different plane?
People have used subways for over 100 years and dealt with "crazed lunatics with knifes" without cell phones for all but the past 10 of those years. Cell phone != safety
Having worked in emergency services as well as lived in countries without such services, services like 9-1-1 have absolutely increased the safety and security in developed countries. Just because people dealt with things in a less-than-optimal way before is no justification to return to those times.
Cars didn't have airbags and safety belts for a long time, too.