1342
America, exblain (europe.pub)
submitted 4 days ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
438 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 4 days ago (16 children)

I have the utmost confidence in the TSAs ability to make rail stations just as bad as airports.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 4 days ago

    Oh you complain now, but as soon as someone hijacks a train and steers it off course into a building, you’ll be begging TSA to grope you before letting you cram yourself into a reasonably spacious train seat that a public entity runs and has no reason to maximize the number of bodies it can cram into one area to create more shareholder value.

    (I’m not crying you are……..)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago (8 children)

    They already do the inspections for rail stations and they're about 1/10th as annoying and time-consuming as the ones for airports.

    Trains just don't have the capacity for a 9/11 so I don't see that changing any time soon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    Trains just don't have the capacity for a 9/11

    Not to bring down buildings, but in terms of terrorism they sure do.

    Any modern 9/11 attempt will be made by cargo jet. So protection against aircraft bringing down buildings is provided by the US airforce, not the TSA.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    I feel like you said "No" and then agreed with me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (5 children)

    I agree with your whole statement, but disagree if it is broken up into separate parts.

    Passenger vector terrorism is equal on trains and planes (and busses to a much lesser extent). This is the TSAs area.

    Infrastructure damage is much higher on planes, but this also applies to the 10% of flights that are cargo and the TSA has no influence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (4 children)

    For whatever reason it's just not equal in the US as far as I'm aware. Maybe it's a benefit of a society who thinks trains are lame.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (3 children)

    When the train's average speed is 50mph and no-one uses them then the target isn't big enough for large scale terror.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (2 children)

    Your position is very confusing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 4 days ago

    TSA is a justification to violate rights. It may have started as a reaction for safety at some levels but the rules have been bent and abused to an insane degree. Now they use the special zone airport rules so they can search your devices and myriad other constitutional violations completely unrelated to stopping a 911 style attack reoccurring.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    Why would there be security checks at train stations? I know those are a thing in some countries, but this never made any sense to me. They aren't where I live; a train can't be driven into buildings and if something does explode on them (exactly as possible as in any crowd), the train will simply stop, not fall from the sky.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    A similar number of people would be injured/die from a plane explosion as a train explosion.

    Your arguments against no security checks apply equally to trains and planes (and busses).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Not really because an explosion on a train or bus doesn't cause the entire vehicle to crash into the ground, only to stop. An explosion on a train or bus is going to kill or injure people in its radius of impact, but people sitting far away from it (granted: not many of those on a bus, but very much so on a long train) won't be injured. On a plane, if that plane stops operating mid-flight, even people on the other end of the plane from the explosion are unlikely to survive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

    An explosion in the front carriage of a train going 200mph is not going to be good for anyone travelling behind it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    OK, "won't be injured" wasn't exactly true; but they are still in a lot less danger than someone in the same situation on a plane. A train or bus can stop anywhere on its route if there is a dangerous situation, a plane cannot, so in my mind it makes a lot of sense that there are security checks before boarding a plane, but not when boarding a train or bus.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent