← Back to context

Comment by dangus

1 day ago

This is also why car dependent infrastructure is a bad thing for Americans’ freedom.

You have more civil rights as a pedestrian than you do in a licensed motor vehicle.

16 comments

dangus

Reply
ww520  1 day ago

Facial and gait recognition tech make the pedestrian vs car point moot.

  • dangus  1 day ago

    Sure, but being identified is only part of the issue. It’s also about the quantity of rights you have in a vehicle versus outside of one.

    • cucumber3732842  7 hours ago

      >It’s also about the quantity of rights you have in a vehicle versus outside of one.

      And who's fault is that?

      The government could decide tomorrow that driving confers implied consent for them to quarter soldiers in your home and a huge chunk of people would defend it because those people just don't like cars and want to see the users screwed at every turn in order to make other things comparatively less worse. Of course they won't tell you that because they know they're in the wrong so they'll use the pretext that driving is a privilege not a right, public safety etc. etc.

      Look at the discussion about ebikes. At first iw as all "look how cool and great and free of downsides these are". Now the discussion is all "those darned kids and poors are dangerous" and "nobody needs to go more than 20mph". Give it 10yr and you'll be forced to by insurance for them too.

      Vehicles are regulated how they are and you have less rights to the extent you do specifically because people 50-70yr ago wrung their hands about them until laws were passed, just like we're doing to ebikes now.

engineer_22  1 day ago

Pedestrians are limited to a ~20 mile radius.

Travelling further, without a car, then requires use of public transportation and by using public transportation depending where you are you have implied consent to being searched "for safety".

Acknowledging civil asset forfeiture is a problem in some jurisdictions, private automobiles still provide a greater expectation of privacy than public modes of transport.

  • array_key_first  21 hours ago

    Realistically you're much more likely to be searched in a motor vehicle than on the subway. I've had my car searched - it's very easy for the police to do.

  • dangus  1 day ago

    First I would question why anyone has to drive 20 miles to reach basic needs like grocery stores and employers. Isn’t that already a failure of urban and suburban planning?

    Existing on public transit is not an automatic agreement to be searched as you describe.

    Here’s an attorney website that describes your general rights:

    https://azharillc.com/blog/youre-riding-the-l-train-can-cops...

    There are many more things that are illegal for you to be doing as a driver of a car versus existing in public on public transportation. Many of these things can trigger searching your possessions being legal compared to being a person on public transit.

    You’re also required to present your drivers license and fully identify yourself if you are stopped for minor traffic infractions like a tail light being out.

    As a pedestrian, in most states you do not have to present ID to an officer on the street.

    For example, it’s generally not probable cause to search on public transit if an officer smells alcohol, while in a vehicle it’s basically an automatic search of your whole car. You would also have the issue of what a court or jury thinks of the reasonableness of the search based on the context. If you’re quietly minding your own business on the train and you smell like alcohol is a judge or jury going to think the search was reasonable? Now compare that to a driver in a vehicle smelling like alcohol.

    Furthermore, the whole concept of a DUI checkpoint where every person is stopped and questioned is at the very least impractical and often illegal for pedestrians.

    Thank you for your service as the incorrect carbrain of the day.

    • tocs3  1 day ago

      First I would question why anyone has to drive 20 miles to reach basic needs like grocery stores and employers. Isn’t that already a failure of urban and suburban planning?

      I live in central TX and until recently it has been fairly rural. It is now very suburban and it is very common to have to drive 20 miles or so for groceries. There are also lots of traffic lights. For most there is almost no practical way to get to any consumer business on foot and no public transport. Twenty years ago it was "living in the country" and travailing for anything was just part of the deal to live here. It is about the same but with the added joys of traffic, less privacy, and higher taxes.

      4 replies →

    • ungreased0675  1 day ago

      This seems so obvious to me, but maybe it’s not… sometimes I want to go somewhere that’s far away. Last weekend I went to a restaurant that was 90 minutes and two states away. Should I not be allowed to do that? If I want organic oranges, and my local grocery store doesn’t have any, should I just make do?

      Most people don’t live in NYC. Transit and urban planning solutions appropriate for there is supremely unhelpful for most other places.

      1 reply →