Hacker News Reader

Comment by arkades | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com