North Billerica's railroad hazard

Lately the MBTA has initiated a frenzy of intrusion on its customers. As noted in my earlier posts, it's been reported (correctly or not) that it's expanded its invasiveness to people's cars and (if you believe the Herald) has threatened to arrest people for refusing a search. One purpose of these maneuvers is to make you think that the person sitting next to you on the train or parked at the garage is a threat which the T has to protect you from, distracting you from real hazards. Every death on MBTA facilities has been caused by something other than terrorism.

So let's talk about one of those hazards, the crossing at North Billerica station. I go to work from this station once or twice a week. You can board the northbound train only from the east, the southbound (Boston) train only from the west. There's a northbound train which arrives at 7:21, and a train for Boston which arrives at 7:26. Often the northbound train is two or three minutes later. I regularly see people running in front of the northbound train to catch the Boston train, or running in front of the Boston train itself.

A picture may help. Here's a shot of the station , courtesy of Google Maps:
View Larger Map

The track runs north-south, just a bit to right of center, and there's a parking lot on each side. You'll notice a path which runs from the east lot to the track, and a dark spot on the track a bit north of there (you may have to uncheck "Show labels" to see it). This dark spot is the only crossing; there's a wire fence everywhere else. You can't cross while a six-car train is stopped in the station, and you can't board from the wrong side.

People who park in the east lot have to go north from the path and cross to catch the Boston train. If they arrive at 7:20, they're likely to see the northbound train coming, and they know the southbound train will be coming shortly. In my experience, the southbound train always stops till the northbound train has left the station, but there's no guarantee of it, so people run to beat the train. If passengers arrive at 7:25, they have to decide if they can safely cross before the train gets there. If they can't, they'll miss the train.

I haven't heard of any injuries or deaths as a result of this situation, but I have heard of a passenger or two who crawled under the train to catch it.

The situation is fairly easy to remedy. Instead of, or in addition to, the crossing at its present location, there should be a crossing where the path from the east parking lot meets the tracks. Even a seven–car train in the station leaves this part of the track clear. People could cross behind a northbound train, and would have a greater margin of safety to cross for a southbound train.

I don't know how much this would cost, but my guess is it would be a reasonable tradeoff for safety. But it would require Dan Grabauskas to admit that the actual hazards in the system aren't the passengers.

MBTA police state update

The MBTA reportedly is now searching people's cars at Alewife garage, and has brought the TSA in to share the fun. As far as I can tell, there was no particular reason to do this beyond a desire to bully commuters.

MBTA ups harassment level of passengers

As found on Universal Hub and reported on WBZ's website, the MBTA is engaging in an enhanced campaign of searching passengers' bags.

It's necessary for the government to keep people feeling scared, so that we'll accept whatever intrusions they make into our lives.

Today is also Walk to Work Day, so I hadn't noticed.

In somewhat related news, yesterday a photographer in Boston reported that he was threatened with shooting for taking a picture of a public building.

Republicans push to protect lawbreakers

Several Republicans in the House of Representatives are making a renewed push for legal immunity for telecom companies from lawsuits concerning illegal wiretapping.

On Wednesday, a number of Republican leaders, including Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.), began circulating what's known as a "discharge" petition, which they characterized as a "rare step." If they obtain 218 signatures from their colleagues, they say the Democratic leadership will be forced to schedule a vote on a version of the bill passed by the U.S. Senate in February that would likely wipe out pending lawsuits against AT&T and other phone companies accused of illegal cooperation with the National Security Agency.

Republican whip Roy Blunt has called the lawsuits "frivolous." If they are, that's a decision for the courts, not Congress, to make. The fact that Bush has called so desperately for immunity, having suppressed FISA legislation by declaring that he'll veto it unless it contains an immunity provision, suggests not only that the suits have merit, but that Bush is deeply involved in illegal activity and doesn't want the matter to come to court. Congress should be investigating Bush, not rolling over for him.

Guerilla photography on the T

There have been continued reports (such as this and this) of MBTA police harassing people who take pictures legally, so I think it would be nice if as many bloggers as possible took MBTA pictures, posted them, and linked to the policy (PDF) which plainly states that the most the T cops can do is ask you for identification, as long as you're in a public area and not using professional equipment or causing a problem. Printing out a copy and carrying it with you might be a good move too.

Besides, I like the way this picture of Harvard Station came out. Come on and arrest me.

NJ Supreme Court upholds right to privacy

A police department in New Jersey tried to find out who was behind the vandalizing of a website. Unfortunately, they issued a seriously defective subpoena, naming a nonexistent case as its basis. The defendant, Shirley Reid, challenged the subpoena, and the state Supreme Court has upheld the challenge, holding that New Jersey law provides stronger guarantees of privacy than the U.S. Fourth Amendment. (The linked article spells the defendant's name as "Read," but the court decision (PDF) spells it "Reid." I'm assuming the court decision is correct.)

Cases like this are always frustrating. It appears from the information that Reid is guilty, yet she may get off because the police didn't follow proper procedures. But given the tendency of governments to abuse their power, especially in victimless crime cases, the exclusionary rule is necessary. The decision left the door open for continuing to prosecute using correct procedures, rather than throwing out the whole case.

What's more important in the long run is that the ruling upholds privacy on the grounds of state law, where the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a much weaker standard of privacy. As with the Kelo (eminent domain) case, perhaps we'll see action in a number of states to defend the liberties which the SCOTUS has choked out of the "living, breathing" Constitution.

Thanks to Deb Geisler for calling my attention to this.

EU may make "provoking terrorism" a crime

A press release by the European Union Council discloses a proposal to make "making public provocation to commit a terrorist offence," explicitly including speech on the Internet, a crime. I'd very much like to know what this means. If you say something terrorists don't like, and they attack you, will you be charged with "provoking" them? The press release offers this for an explanation:

It aims to equip our legal systems across the EU with the adequate tools to bring to justice the criminals who spread violent propaganda providing terrorism tactics and instructions on how to manufacture and use bombs or explosives to provoke others to commit terrorist acts.

Whoever composed that sentence was either illiterate, drunk, or both. Anyone who could publish such an incoherent jumble is unsuited to teach first grade, yet the people who did are proposing to make laws on what people may or may not say.

A different Whitewater scandal

According to an article on the website of The Daily Cardinal in Wisconsin, James Coan, the police chief of Whitewater, Wisconsin, has been abusing his office to harass a blogger who is critical of the city government. In the course of investigating the Free Whitewater blog, Coan (apparently) misidentified someone as the author of the blog, referred to him as a "suspect" without naming any crime, and had a "lengthy conversation" with him. The Janesville Gazette also carries a report of these actions,as does the Wisconsin State Journal. The latter mentions that Whitewater Police Detective Tina Winger pronounced the anonymous blogger an "anti-government radical" (that's statist-speak for "a critic of the people in power") whom "we want to keep an eye on."

Stories like this show why the right to anonymous speech is so important. When government officials misuse their power and question "suspects" to learn the name of an anonymous critic, their goal is to intimidate.

The Faiths of the Founding Fathers

My third book review in a week! (Update: Sorry, closer to two weeks, now that I've re-checked the dates.)

People trying to turn America into a "Christian nation" have systematically distorted and falsified the religious views of the nation's founders. Their critics have sometimes erred in the opposite direction, painting a heavily non-Christian picture of the founders. David Holmes, a professor of religious studies, avoids both errors and gives a convincing account of the dominant view of their religious philosophy in The Faiths of the Founding Fathers.

Read the full review here.