Hacker News Reader

Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

Maybe I'm showing my age, but I honestly don't understand what's "anti-poor" or "anti-homeless" or "ableist" about this design? To me, it can only seem this way if you see fare evasion as a natural right of the citizens.

Am I a curmudgeon, or is the level of concern shown in the article a legitimate thing?

View on HN

In some places, homeless and poor people get issued tickets for free rides because of their condition. In others, they put inverted guillotines because it would be unsightly to post armed guards preventing the undesirables from illegally using the service.

It isn't about fare evasion, it's about how a given society perceives its more disadvantaged members: some want to help them, others want them to just die off.

> some want to help them, others want them to just die off.

Oh please, as if it that dichotomy were only true.

BART runs a massive deficit each year, and yet you think there should be no deterrents to evading fare? The BART barely collects on the tickets it issues as is[1]. Plenty of people who are able to pay and are of sound mind hop the turnstiles. If you want to subsidize the travel expenses for a certain group, fine, but why promote even more lawlessness in an already terrible system?

[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/Almos...

In some places, homeless and poor people get issued tickets for free rides because of their condition.

Every dude I see jumping the gates arriving in the city has $200+ sneakers and/or huge screen smartphones.

I don't get this either. If the author designing to prevent people from not paying for something with a price , it implies that the author either a) doesn't believe said thing should have a price or b) thinks certain groups shouldn't have to pay said price and that it should be subsidized by those the author thinks should pay said price.

So, the thing is:

Would you endorse a law that would break bones or crack skulls for fare evasion? Would you consider that just? I’m not asking whether you endorse fare evasion, just whether that punishment is proportional.

In this case, the state is effectively promulgating such a policy - without bothering to even get it through the legislature.

And that sort of thing - disproportionately punitive policies without even the superficial glance of legislation - tend to only fly when aimed at disenfranchised groups. Eg, poor.

That’s the anti-poor part of these designs. If you’re wealthy enough for a car and speed fast enough to risk killing a human being, you owe the state 200$ and all is well. If you’re poor and try to stiff the state for $2 at the BART, we’ll take a shot at cracking your skull.

So called hostile design in fact reduces the incidence of confrontations between police officers and trespassers. Since it reduces the incidence of confrontations, and therefore violence, I think comparing it to "cracking skulls" is unwarranted.

While I disagree with the article, most of the hostile design elements in the article are in spaces that are essentially public space. You can't be busted for trespassing for sleeping on a bench downtown.

From what I've personally seen, the vast majority of "hostile design" is employed on private property. Particularly on property owned by corporations or universities, moreso than private residences. It's pretty easy, and common, to sleep in a city park around here.

If a private property owner has trouble with people loitering or sleeping on their property, what options do they have? Call the police or hire a security guard, who will use [threats of] violence to solve your problem. Or using "hostile design" that non-violently but clearly communicates the desires of the property owner, thus avoiding any potentially lethal confrontation.

It seems obvious to me that "hostile" design is in fact the humanitarian approach.

But nothing about these designs breaks bones or cracks skulls for fare evasion. They just make it harder to kick your feet over.

Is your argument that making a barricade harder to bypass is responsible for causing injuries to fare evaders? Would the same hold true for any more effective barricade? I can punch right through a hollow core door, but I'll break my hand if I try it on a solid core door. How much blame should the design of the door get(or the people that chose to put the specific type of door there) when I break my hand?

Well, the thing is, an effective turnstyle that makes it difficult to get through but makes failure to get through harmless is distinct from a barricade that makes it somewhat harder to get through, and makes attempts more likely to cause injury.

These don’t just make it harder to kick your feet over. I strongly recommend to google a video of these in action.

If I headbutt a brick wall because it's in my way, was it the wall that gave me a concussion? Or was it me that gave me a concussion?

If the goal is to stop fare evasion, BART can put agents at every gate to control passengers.

It is a much more human situation than designing urban architecture that can physically hurt people (particularly if they’re old/in a wheelchair/etc).

My favorite solution I’ve seen in Tokyo: gates that are open by default to optimize passenger throughput, but close down if you don’t present proper fare (and adequately staffed to boot).

> If the goal is to stop fare evasion, BART can put agents at every gate to control passengers.

The goal seems to be stop fare evasion, but merely as a cost saving measure, not as a moral imperative to be achieved at any monetary cost.

That would be bad for poor riders because fares would have to be increased.

Anti-poor because poor people can't afford BART, and thus need to jump the turnstiles if they're going to ride BART.

Anti-homeless because they're poor.

Abelist? I don't know, either.

I find it ironic that this post is being marked down so much. This is literally the argument.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fare-evasion-crime-pover...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com