You must log in or register to comment.
so is this ad meant to push people to pay the fare or to start a revolution?
It’s saying the quite part out loud about the normalized police state we live in.
I’d say a bit of both. The numbers they showed for it if I remember was that they spent $150m to catch like $100,000 of fares that were skipped. Then throw in 4 people dead and you didn’t do much to help. You just made it more miserable for people travelling.
With fares making up 23% of your income, and payroll taking up over 30% of expenses… Odds are they could cut the number of guards patrolling tolls, ticket sales people, customer service reps, maintenance workers for all the machines/guard terminals etc by a shit ton and make the transportation free, and offset the costs elsewhere. It would also likely boost the economy of the area, do to people not needing to scrape together a couple dollars to take the train and spending it at businesses they otherwise may normally avoid do to costs or not having that extra few dollars.
In Ontario, asshole political leader Doug Ford is trying to stop free public transit by paying for transit cops out of the provincial budget. That way no one can make the payment you just made. Can we have the same amount of money to spend on improving public transit? No. The only thing fearless leader Doug Ford fears more than free public transit is good public transit.
What a bag of dicks. Watch other conservative states and provinces follow his lead!
Well he also fears bike lanes.
Wait, where in Ontario has free transit? The topic of your article, Ottawa, charges for transit.
It was floated last election and has made the rounds a few times. This is a pre emptive attack.
Darn. Free or even just cheaper transit would be pretty cool and might increase ridership. I mean, roads are free to use, so why not transit as well?
This is why it’s important to remember that in any revolution, resistance, or targeted action, it’s the police that are the first enemy. They’ll be the ones that respond first, and will likely toe the line the most reliably.
NY transit starts getting complaints about an ad they have no idea about.
“No, m’mam, we don’t have a death penalty policy…no…no m’man, I don’t know what poster you saw…”
“but yes m’aam we did shoot and kill 4 human beings for cheating us out of the 2.90 fare”
Fortunately none of them died as far as I can find. Surgeons had to crack open the skull of the bystander they shot in the back of the head to relieve his brain swelling though. I hope he recovers because he’s gonna be set for life.
They spent 150 million on overtime for cops to stop fare evasion. How much were they losing in fares? I’m gonna go ahead and guess it wasn’t even a teeny fraction of that.
They spent 1500x more on enforcement than they could have ever recovered from fare evaders. Just like every single other monitoring and enforcement program for public services.
Has there ever been a single program like that which is actually a net positive? Fare enforcement, food stamps means testing, public services with drug screens, “welfare queen” check ups, means testing, etc. I’m not aware of a single instance where it wouldn’t have been cheaper just to let a few people get benefits that “didn’t deserve them” than putting these restrictions in place
But God’s forbid we let poor people have nice things, or just to do good things for our society. Goddamned toxic puritanicalism. …
Well wait…can the NY transit be blamed for that, if it was NYPD?
That would be like if some guy stole a loaf of bread from a grocery store, so they call the cops, and the cop shoots the theif.
Do you blame the grocery store?
The vast majority of people who steal food from a grocery aren’t doing it out of malicious reasoning but simply for their and their families survival.
Using a systemic monopoly on violence to stop people from trying to non violently survive in a world that refuses to help them is always immoral.
We should be calling the cops on supermarket chains for hoarding and not sharing their exes of wealth with citizens who actually need it.
”We should be calling the cops on supermarket chains for hoarding and not sharing their exes of wealth with citizens who actually need it."
I think the word you were looking for was “excess.” What you wrote seems like an oddly specific kink for divorcees.
Its a happy little accident.
Homer: You know, Mr. Burns, you’re the richest guy I know. Way richer than Lenny.
Mr. Burns: Yes, but I’d trade it all for a little more
Don’t worry there’s plenty of blame to go around in this fucked up system we’ve got.
But I agree with you. No matter what this guy did, these cops engineered an unnecessary confrontation and then shot innocent bystanders, the suspect, AND themselves. They are to blame. They are not qualified to use firearms in the performance of their duties because they lack good judgement.
Wait… they did WHAT?!
I read the advert and just assumed, the suspect just tried to ran and they needlessly used guns to stop them instead of running after them or something like that?!
The suspect is not 100% blameless, he did hop the line, he was not following lawful commands, and he was holding a knife. Now that is a really sketchy situation because a knife can kill you real quick, real life is not like Hollywood. But he did not try to stab anyone with it and he was not threatening anyone. Cops love to talk about how a knife can kill you from 20 feet but that ain’t gonna happen when they have already drawn on him. So none of that validates their response. They could have easily backed up temporarily, called for backup, tried the tasers again, waited for him to calm down a bit, or 20 other things than unloading their guns in a crowded subway station. Idiotic. The ONLY reason they should have fired is if the suspect was attempting to harm someone. I hope they are fired and charged with negligence at the very least, attempted manslaughter sounds even better.
Do you blame the grocery store?
Yes.
