Hacker News Reader

Comment by thefounder | Hacker News Reader

>> until cities finally wrap their head around the reality that you need basic security checkpoints at entrances

Sounds like you live in a "war zone". I don't know any place in Europe with that kind of security.

Yeah it's bad enough to deal with all that when flying. If this would come to the metro I'd never use it again. All we really have in terms of crime is pickpockets. Adding security will just make them operate more on the streets.

We don't have a totalitarian state here like China. That's a good thing.

I'm not talking about the millimeter wave scanners TSA has where they make you take off your shoes and take out all your stuff. We're talking 1-2 officers who quickly glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector you walk through, similar to the security at a football game. It's more intended as security theatre by the presence of officers to discourage petty crime than to catch terrorists.

Forcing criminals to move to the streets makes public transportation more appealing, I think that's obvious enough.

>> glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector

Why would you like transportation staff to treat you like a criminal?

>> Forcing criminals to move to the streets

Maybe a better approach would be to have less criminals rather than to move them around?

> Why would you like transportation staff to treat you like a criminal?

Because I accept that a slight inconvenience will lead to a much better riding experience. For example, Amtrak has aggressive fare checkers onboard (full pass of the train every few minutes) who will remove a lot of the type of people that cause disruptions. If you've already been checked, you have a ticket stub above your seat. Is it a coincidence that Amtrak trains are also very clean and have basically no crime? I feel comfortable using my phone on Amtrak without gripping it with two hands and constantly looking around me to prevent theft - I can't say the same about BART.

> Maybe a better approach would be to have less criminals rather than to move them around?

SFBA cities' budgets are quantified in the billions. We can afford to work towards having less while simultaneously reducing the locations they have access to for committing crime.

> We're talking 1-2 officers who quickly glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector you walk through, similar to the security at a football game. It's more intended as security theatre by the presence of officers to discourage petty crime than to catch terrorists.

So just for some security theatre I have to give up a lot of privacy, add to my travel time by waiting in a queue, pay a higher fare to pay for all these guys? I'm really glad we don't do this here.

I don't like people demanding to look in my bag, trying to frisk me or metal scanning (of course I have metal on me). It will make me feel less safe.

> Forcing criminals to move to the streets makes public transportation more appealing, I think that's obvious enough.

So then you have to deal with them when you come out of the metro :) It's only moving the problem. Better to make sure they don't have to steal by having a decent welfare system.

Was going to comment the same. What kind of city would need that?

I'm always amazed at how people think their little part of the world is an accurate representation of reality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com