I am a retired police officer. Actually, it is not the severity of punishment but the surety of punishment that is the deterrent.
Draconian penalties are not a deterrent if the person doesn't believe he is going to be caught. The person who has been arrested 10 times for driving drunk has probably actually done it hundreds of times. Each time he gets behind the wheel he believes he will make it home OK again this time.
People today do not believe they will be caught. If caught they don't believe they will be convicted. If convicted they don't believe they will get the draconian penalty.
Minor penalties will be enough if the person gets caught and punished EVERY time they step out of line. The penalty must also be timely. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Draconian penalties should be reserved for the person who has proven over and over that they are not going to change.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Look folks, let's get right to the heart of the matter. In the old job I had quite a few contacts and friends who were police officers. These were the street cops, the "combat soldiers" as I called them (to their delight!) who were out there every day keeping the streets safe to the best of their abilities. If I heard this from one I heard it from dozens: The only thing that keeps a dirtbag in line is FEAR. Fear of what you'll do to him if he gets out of line. The problem isn't mass transit, or where it goes or doesn't go. Where's the fear factor as far as the bad guys are concerned? In many parts of the country it doesn't exist anymore, for a variety of reasons. Pick your favorite and it'll be hard for anyone to prove you wrong. I've got my favorites but I won't waste anyones time reciting them.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/02/02/2979635/police-teen-robbed-at-light-rail.html
Sam1 henry6: I think there is the insinuation, Sam, that public transit should be eliminated because it attracts crime but not stated right out. Doing some cursory survey work on the possiblity of returning passenger train service to suburban and rural areas several years ago I came across a lot of anti rail sentiment because of a fear of passenger trains importing crime, making it easier for city drug dealers to enter the area. The truth, of course is, that the very rural areas host marajuana farming and the four lane highways make it easy for after dark trips from the cities to the farm and back. Plus there is always at least one undercover narcotics operitives at many of the bus stations at all times. Rail would not make it any easier than it is now to be a criminal. This same arguement was used in the 1800's when railroads were being first built! The article talked about an increase in transit related crime in Dallas, TX. No one suggested or implied that public transit should be eliminated. If people perceive that riding public transit places them in harms way, those passengers with a choice will shun it. Perception is reality for all of us. If we think that riding public transit in Dallas or anywhere is dangerous, as indeed many people in Dallas do, we will shun it. The comments about crime rates away from public transit or what did or did not happen a hundred years ago are irrelevant.
henry6: I think there is the insinuation, Sam, that public transit should be eliminated because it attracts crime but not stated right out. Doing some cursory survey work on the possiblity of returning passenger train service to suburban and rural areas several years ago I came across a lot of anti rail sentiment because of a fear of passenger trains importing crime, making it easier for city drug dealers to enter the area. The truth, of course is, that the very rural areas host marajuana farming and the four lane highways make it easy for after dark trips from the cities to the farm and back. Plus there is always at least one undercover narcotics operitives at many of the bus stations at all times. Rail would not make it any easier than it is now to be a criminal. This same arguement was used in the 1800's when railroads were being first built!
I think there is the insinuation, Sam, that public transit should be eliminated because it attracts crime but not stated right out. Doing some cursory survey work on the possiblity of returning passenger train service to suburban and rural areas several years ago I came across a lot of anti rail sentiment because of a fear of passenger trains importing crime, making it easier for city drug dealers to enter the area. The truth, of course is, that the very rural areas host marajuana farming and the four lane highways make it easy for after dark trips from the cities to the farm and back. Plus there is always at least one undercover narcotics operitives at many of the bus stations at all times. Rail would not make it any easier than it is now to be a criminal. This same arguement was used in the 1800's when railroads were being first built!
The article talked about an increase in transit related crime in Dallas, TX. No one suggested or implied that public transit should be eliminated. If people perceive that riding public transit places them in harms way, those passengers with a choice will shun it. Perception is reality for all of us. If we think that riding public transit in Dallas or anywhere is dangerous, as indeed many people in Dallas do, we will shun it.
The comments about crime rates away from public transit or what did or did not happen a hundred years ago are irrelevant.
Surely an exaggerated fear of crime does lead some people to shun public transportation in favor of their cars, just as fear of accidents does lead some people to shun airplanes and trains in favor of their cars (even though their cars are statistically more accident-prone.)
And fear of crime does also lead some people to take a NIMBY attitude toward public transportation. A case in point is Livermore, CA whose mayor and council have pressured BART to put the town's upcoming station along the I-580 freeway at the edge of town rather than in the downtown area where it would be accessible to more people. I saw letters to the local paper arguing for this on the basis of stories about crime at existing BART stations.
However, it's a shame to surrender to "perception is reality for all of us" when perception is exaggerated. For example, many people perceive that railroads can't safely transport hazardous materials, and therefore such shipments should be required to take circuitous routes, traveling hundreds or thousands of extra miles to avoid urban areas just so they're "not in my back yard." Luckily for the railroads, the federal government preempts local attempts to regulate such shipments in response to that "perception".
Phoebe Vet That rude behavior has nothing to do with transit. That is who those people are. That is the way they behave everywhere they go. That is why security guards are always trying to chase them out of the mall. Perception of danger at specific places is a direst result of the way it is presented by the ratings driven melodramatic news media. 30,000 people a year die in car accidents but that only gets a passing remark on the news. But if a car gets hit by a train it will be big news for a week whether or not there are any injuries. What percentage of the assaults and robberies in Dallas occur at transit facilities?
That rude behavior has nothing to do with transit. That is who those people are. That is the way they behave everywhere they go. That is why security guards are always trying to chase them out of the mall.
Perception of danger at specific places is a direst result of the way it is presented by the ratings driven melodramatic news media. 30,000 people a year die in car accidents but that only gets a passing remark on the news. But if a car gets hit by a train it will be big news for a week whether or not there are any injuries. What percentage of the assaults and robberies in Dallas occur at transit facilities?
The sentence referred to rude behavior on public transit in Dallas. What is it about rude behavior on public transit that leads one to believe that it has nothing to do with transit? Ride the light rail trains in Dallas, as I did for years, and still do on occasion, and you can see for yourself. Afternoon trains are your best bet. I did not state or imply that the issue was rude behavior elsewhere. Elsewhere has nothing to do with public transit, especially public transit in Dallas.
DART management cannot do anything about unruly behavior in the school system. But it can do something about rude behavior on its light rail trains. And it has! It has dramatically increased a transit police presence around the stations since the system opened in the mid 1990s. Unfortunately, given the design of the light rail cars, placing police on them would not be terribly effective.
The Dallas Police Department publishes a map of the crime rates in Dallas. Have a go! All you have to do is figure out where the trains run. And buses!
henry6 I think there is the insinuation, Sam, that public transit should be eliminated because it attracts crime but not stated right out. Doing some cursory survey work on the possiblity of returning passenger train service to suburban and rural areas several years ago I came across a lot of anti rail sentiment because of a fear of passenger trains importing crime, making it easier for city drug dealers to enter the area. The truth, of course is, that the very rural areas host marajuana farming and the four lane highways make it easy for after dark trips from the cities to the farm and back. Plus there is always at least one undercover narcotics operitives at many of the bus stations at all times. Rail would not make it any easier than it is now to be a criminal. This same arguement was used in the 1800's when railroads were being first built!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Phoebe Vet Crime is everywhere, that is why we hire policemen. Pizza delivery drivers get robbed, banks get robbed, convenience stores get robbed, automobile drivers get carjacked, taxicab drivers get robbed, shoppers get robbed in shopping mall parking lots, in Kansas in 2009, a doctor was murdered as he sat in a pew in church. We don't try to use that crime as an excuse to eliminate any of those. So why should we use the occasional transit crime as an excuse to eliminate mass transit?
Crime is everywhere, that is why we hire policemen.
Pizza delivery drivers get robbed, banks get robbed, convenience stores get robbed, automobile drivers get carjacked, taxicab drivers get robbed, shoppers get robbed in shopping mall parking lots, in Kansas in 2009, a doctor was murdered as he sat in a pew in church. We don't try to use that crime as an excuse to eliminate any of those.
So why should we use the occasional transit crime as an excuse to eliminate mass transit?
I don't recall anyone suggesting that we should eliminate public transit because it has a tendency, at least in some locations, to attract crime. This has been true everywhere that I have lived that had a large public transit system, e.g. New York, Melbourne, Dallas, and Austin (area). The problem is not just crime. It is also unruly behavior, which occurs frequently in Dallas. School kids board the trains in the afternoon. I have seen some of them swinging from the straps whilst others have spilled forth a litany of four letter words that would have caused my Marine Corps drill instructor to blanch.
Users as well as public transit management need to know that some modes of public transit are more prone to crime. And that it occurs more frequently in certain neighborhoods and at certains times of the day. They need to plan for it.
Management needs to be aware of the impact of crime on the rider's and potential rider's perception of the safety of public transit. It needs to put the appropriate controls in place to reduce the probability of a criminal incident.
Criminal incidents at 7-11, mall parking lots, etc., have nothing to do with a person's perception of the safety of using public transit. The question is whether they feel safe on a bus or train. And in this case it applies to Dallas, which was the root source of the article.
It is also a case of those who use mass transit have to use mass transit so they use mass transit no matter what happens. Every once in awhile a white knight appears and all is clean again. For the moment.
But the definition of crime and its percieved danger differs when faced with it. I did a radio show on Saturday nights in a small city and didn't leave the station until well after midnight. There had been some daytime, mid week shootings, and the usual drug problems. Several of my listeners who had never ventured into town called me and asked how I could dare go to work when there were shootings and drug trafficing. I told them it didn't phase me, that I never felt endangered nor was ever harmed but they couldn't believe me. I understand that one incident reported by the media permeates in the minds of those who have never experienced the scenes of the crimes before and so it sounds worse than it really is. I don't think a person hearing of a mugging on a New York City subway really understands that the mugging might be one incident amosts a million or more rides on the NYC subway that day. It may be the same once in a million occurance in their own home town but when you have say 10 million people it will happen 10 times more often.
Phoebe Vet Crime is everywhere, that is why we hire policemen. So why should we use the occasional transit crime as an excuse to eliminate mass transit?
Clearly we shouldn't. Fortunately, the people who live in many of our major cities who have depended on mass transit for years continue to support it. Thankfully metropolitan Chicago transit (RTA) is not controlled by those radical elements who want to turn everything into user-paid-for services.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
St. Louis has had some problems in certain areas with crime, especially on the buses. One guy forced a girl off a bus with a gun and raped her, he said he'd shoot if she yelled and he told a couple of passengers the same thing, the driver had no idea of what was going on.
We've also had some crime at Metrolink light rail stations in certain areas, with gangs of youths terrorizing the people waiting for trains.
But I ride public transit every day and have never had a problem. But I'm not on at night or in certain high crime areas. I'm sure it's the same in every big city.
Unlikely. The Metra Circle route mostly would have served/linked suburbs already served by existing Metra lines from Chicago for many years. Last I looked, places like Lake Forest, Winnetka and Barrington aren't striving to kick Metra out for fear of undesirables.
I sure it's the same in other urban areas, but fear of crime was one of the factors in driving white flight to the suburbs. This fear of crime is also an unstated reason why certain wealthy suburbs were strongly opposed to Metra's proposed Circle Route on the EJ&E, fear of congestion (the stated reason) really means "gotta keep those undesirables out of our neighborhood".
"At the end of the day, I believe the threat of crime, real or imagined, is a major reason why people will stick with their cars if they can afford to do so."
You make a good point. But a key take away from my post is reflected in the above sentence. People perceive that crime in Dallas, especially crime associated with transit, is a problem. And perception is reality for most people. Having said that, crime rates in Dallas, indeed all of Texas, are down for most categories.
In 2010 there were 73,286 reported crimes in Dallas, including 9.161 violent crimes. The crime rate for 2010 was down approximately 10 per cent from 2009. City wide approximately six per cent of the population was a crime victim in 2010. As one might imagine, crime tends to be concentrated in certain areas of the city. Crime rates in Dallas, on average, are higher than those in Texas as a whole as well as the nation.
Whilst I lived in Dallas, which was for nearly 33 years, there was a long standing debate about the accuracy of Dallas crime statistics. The Dallas Police Department was taken to task on several occasions by the Justice Department, if I remember correctly, for under reporting crime.
Given the Dallas crime rates, it is probably fair to say that the increase in transit associated crime in Dallas is greater than from 1 to 2 and less than 25,000 to 50,000.
Again, one needs to remember a central point of the article. Transit crime exists. People think it is bad. And that will keep people away from public transit, especially during late evening hours.
The original article indicates crime -- mostly thefts -- doubled, but it doesn't give the numbers, except for sexual offenses. Without an idea of the scale being discussed, it isn't possible to judge the severity of the problem. Did it double from 1 to 2 or from 25,000 to 50,000?
Sam1 Many of the people who post to these forums know more about security than the TSA, transit police, etc. Just ask them. Fortunately, most of them don't know what they are talking about. Even more fortunate is the fact that the task of securing our airports, railroads, utilities, etc. has been placed in the hands of security professionals. That is not to say that they don't make mistakes or that their policies and procedures cannot be improved. But it is to say that armchair security experts should recognize the limits of their capabilities.
Many of the people who post to these forums know more about security than the TSA, transit police, etc. Just ask them. Fortunately, most of them don't know what they are talking about. Even more fortunate is the fact that the task of securing our airports, railroads, utilities, etc. has been placed in the hands of security professionals. That is not to say that they don't make mistakes or that their policies and procedures cannot be improved. But it is to say that armchair security experts should recognize the limits of their capabilities.
No doubt. But, sometimes what's obvious from the outside isn't so clear when you're buried in the minutiae.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Numerous people in our service area knew more about running an electric utility than we did. All you had to do was ask them. Unfortunately, when we did so, it was clear that they did not have a clue about the electric utility business or much else for that matter.
Many of the people in our company knew more about accounting and finance than the accountants. All you had to do was ask them. Get the picture. Most of them did not have a clue.
This thread, by the way, started out with a reference to an article in the Dallas Morning News about crime on the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system. That was the intended scope for the discussion.
OK. One TSA rant and then I'm done.
Flew from Germany to Atlanta. Went thru security in Germany. Didn't have to take off my shoes. Flight traveled 1000 miles over US soil - from NY to Atlanta.
Got to Atlanta. Arrived in concourse E. Picked up bags, cleared customs. Now, in order to leave the airport, you have to travel through the other concourses on the "clean" side of security. I should be "clean", right? After all, I was checked in Germany and already flew 1000 miles over the US, and had no chance to go outside a secure zone since we took off.
Should be "good to go", right? NO. Had to go through TSA screening again. Bag had to be rechecked and rescanned. Shoes off and everything. Presumably, I could have gotten something through German security, and then done something with it in Atlanta or a connecting flight. Huh?
Remember the shoe bomber? Because of him TSA makes us take off our shoes. Where did he get on a plane? In Europe. Do they make you take off your shoes in Europe. No. Huh?
So, millions of dollars of equipment and payroll is employed in Atlanta to rescreen passengers and bags that have already flown miles and miles over US territory. Might even be enough to cover the subsidy on a long distance train or two.
TSA should be replaced by professionals. All this taking stuff out of you pockets, shoes and belts off, etc. should be discontinued. And things that a person inadvertently left in their carry on or pockets should be placed on the flight and returned at your destination.
I think you are confusing TSA (wannabe be cops) and sworn peace officers. TSA are just Rent A Cops at the airport. I know one and she could not hold down a job before she was hired by TSA. When she found out all the power she would have I thought she was going to have an organism. Transit Police or Local police contracted by transit agencies provide a vital service. Its not an illusion passengers are safer, they are safer after the freak is taken off the bus. Just the threat of the police being requested many time results in the freak calming down or fleeing. And believe it or not some of these freaks are chronic problems and the police know just where to find them.
Just the opposite happened in Los Angeles. Shortly after the first light rail line was opeened the Transit Police were abolished and enforcement was taken over by the LAPD and LASO. LASO now has the entire contract and their response is much better.
Crime is an unfortunate outgrowth (ingrowth?) of civilization...it happens as long a man congregates in any density. As we've progressed from cave man to today (is "progressed" misused? Some would say so.) there has always been dangers from those seeking power or wealth by stealing.
Framing this discussion within our proclivity for being railfans. In the 1800's posters warned of the coming of the railroad because of the perils of the steam locomotive and the criminals it would attract. Still we built railroads and created cities and towns and crime flourished because of the society setup rather than because of the railroad itself. Even in the 21st Century we hear cries of not reintroducing passenger rail services because of the criminel element in the form of drug dealers etc. it would bring while turning a blind eye to the neighbors fields of the illegal crops, the ease in which black limosines and SUV's ply the 4 Lanes to and from the city with the harvest. If the railroad or a light rail line or other rail transit form were the cause of crime, then anyone would be right in saying "nay". And, yes, being a victum of a crime, will make you "gun shy" of a recurrence but hopefully also more vigallant. I was attacked by a tenant who failed to pay his rent. Should I, and others, therefore, not build houses and apartments for rental purposes because of that incident? We can't let one incident hold up or stop the rest of society, nor should it also stop any one of us from living. We just need to find more and different ways of protection.
Yes, I am saying that TSA should be abolished and people should be allowed to roam freely about the airport and board airplanes without being treated like criminals by government agents. That is called freedom. Transit facilities should be patrolled by police officers who are constrained by the constitution and who only detain and search people when they have reasonable cause.
Your reply clearly indicates that you are one of the people who prefers the illusion of safety that the TSA security theater provides to freedom.
Phoebe Vet Crime happens, it was not invented by the light rail system. Anywhere there are people there is crime. That is why we hire policemen. We keep enforcement in perspective by supervising those policemen with a court system. Anything that weakens that court system is dangerous. My claim that people prefer the illusion of safety to actual freedom is evident all around you. People support the bizarre treatment of citizens by TSA because it makes them feel safe, even though TSA has never caught a terrorist. They have, however, arrested numerous citizens who had the audacity to be offended by their tactics, and they make a substantial amount of money auctioning off all the property they have seized from those citizens. Congress has passed the USAPatriot Act which negates the need for many search and wiretap warrants and Americans support it. Our government tortures military and CIA prisoners, and Americans support it. Congress in the last couple of days, attached to the defense funding bill, a section that allows the President to detain people, even citizens arrested in the US, for years without trial if he suspects them of terrorism. President Obama says he is going to sign it. People think it's a good idea because it makes them feel safer. I stand by my statement that Americans prefer the illusion of safety to actual freedom. An unconstrained government is more dangerous that any terrorist or any criminal.
Crime happens, it was not invented by the light rail system. Anywhere there are people there is crime. That is why we hire policemen. We keep enforcement in perspective by supervising those policemen with a court system. Anything that weakens that court system is dangerous.
My claim that people prefer the illusion of safety to actual freedom is evident all around you. People support the bizarre treatment of citizens by TSA because it makes them feel safe, even though TSA has never caught a terrorist. They have, however, arrested numerous citizens who had the audacity to be offended by their tactics, and they make a substantial amount of money auctioning off all the property they have seized from those citizens.
Congress has passed the USAPatriot Act which negates the need for many search and wiretap warrants and Americans support it. Our government tortures military and CIA prisoners, and Americans support it. Congress in the last couple of days, attached to the defense funding bill, a section that allows the President to detain people, even citizens arrested in the US, for years without trial if he suspects them of terrorism. President Obama says he is going to sign it. People think it's a good idea because it makes them feel safer.
I stand by my statement that Americans prefer the illusion of safety to actual freedom.
An unconstrained government is more dangerous that any terrorist or any criminal.
Balancing personal freedom with the need for personal security is a challenge. To hear you tell it, however, people wanting to be safe from crime are wimps. What are you saying? That the TSA should be abolished, and we should go back to the day when anyone could roam around an airport or board an airplane without any meaningful security?
Yesterday, I flew from Baltimore to Austin via Little Rock and Dallas. I passed through security in less than two minutes. The same was true when I flew from Austin to Baltimore via Orlando. I don't know anyone who likes the airport screening procedures. But they dislike even more the prospect of being hijacked or worse. Moreover, no one was complaining about the procedure. Most of the reasonable people that I know accept it as the world that we live in.
As is frequently the case, you missed the main point of my posting. The light rail system in Dallas is a magnet for crime as reported by the Dallas Morning News. That is not to say that crime does not happen elsewhere or that transit creates crime. But it is easy pickings for the bad guys and a few bad gals. If you think I am kidding, take a ride on DART during the late evening hours. Notice who rides the trains and, moreover, who hangs around the transit stops, especially those in relatively remote locations.
Crime rates in the United States, especially those for violent crime, have declined dramatically. For example, in Texas, the murder rate has dropped from more than 3,000 in 1995 to 1,249 in 2010. But many if not most people in this area believe transit is afflicted with high crime rates. And that is one of the reasons they stay away from it. Less than three per cent of the people in the Austin area ride public transit. And of those who do, approximately 40 per cent don't have an alternative. They are poor. As long as people believe that riding public transit is not safe, they won't use it.
Phoebe Vet That's a fact. Americans have demonstrated time and again that they prefer the illusion of safety to freedom.
That's a fact. Americans have demonstrated time and again that they prefer the illusion of safety to freedom.
Get mugged one time, as I was at a transit station, and your views about crime and safety are likely to change. No more glib statements about crime anywhere or weak kneed Americans over reacting to it, which is great sloganeering but adds nothing of substance.
Prior to the coming of the light rail line in Dallas, big D did not have a transit police force. It did not need one. But that changed with the coming of the rail line. Today, the Dallas Transit Police force numbers approximately 185 officers. Needless to say, numerous variables have contributed to the need for a significant transit police force, but is is not an unnoticed coincident that the need for the police force arose with the coming of the light rail system.
They extended the platforms on the blue line to accomadate three car trains. It cost several million dollars.
Due to the economy public transit is being forced to cut back on service both rail and buses. Also due to changes in the design of buses about 30 years ago a forty foot bus now only has about 45 seats as opposed to 55 seats on old buses. This has been resently addressed with 45 foot buses but many agencys won't buy them because of the re-training need to operate them
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.