Hey, there! Log in / Register
Notice to T drivers: We all have cell phones with cameras these days - and we're all watching you
By adamg on Tue, 05/25/2010 - 6:56pm
Channel 4 reports a driver on the 78 bus between Arlington and Harvard Square got a quick 10-day suspension after an alert motorist snapped a photo of him reading the paper while driving the bus this morning - and then e-mailed the portrait to the T (and Channel 4, natch).
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Interesting point...
I am always surprised at how many unemployed hipsters there are, that can still afford expensive smart phones and the 30$ a month service fee. Then again, they are also spending unemployment on lattes and expensive macbooks.
Get a job, hippie, stop trying to get someone else fired. I bet this douche reads blogs and sites every day for an hour when he had a job. Maybe I'll go to his work and take photos of him!
Driving the bus is boring, of course the guy needs to read the paper. You'd be bored out of your mind too if you had to deal with minorities and Ron Neuman all day.
Own up to it!
Which one of you left the barn door open to the Herald commenter pen again?
Two wrongs make a right now?
Can I live in your fantasy world? How are the drugs? You must have some good 'shrooms up there.
@anon, not Kaz.
I was going to say that I'm
I was going to say that I'm guessing you don't take public transportation. Which, I'd put money on still.
But then I thought about it and realized that other drivers are put at risk by this driver's actions, so I'm left to assume you just aren't in the city.
Reading a paper while operating heavy machinery? If you were pulled over driving a car doing this, I'm pretty damn sure the consequences would last longer than 10 days.
He was probably stopped at a traffic light, though.
Or in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Which doesn't really excuse it, but makes it something I've been guilty of myself. We will triust that the motivations of the hipster in question were pure as new snow: concern for the safety of his fellow passengers and the general public. Though I can say from limited experience that there's nothing quite so seductive as power- in this case, the power to get someone suspended from their job.
Uh...motive?
I couldn't care if the guy has a vendetta for bad bus drivers. If the driver wasn't screwing up on the job, then the "hipster" wouldn't have anything to take pictures of, would he?
am i missing something?
how do we know the person who took the picture was a "hipster"? because they had a camera phone? really? it's 2010. my mom is 67 years old and *she* has a camera phone. i love the lady dearly, but she's not hip in the least.
Great satire, someone.
Great satire, someone.
(Although, $30 a month was a dead giveaway. Had you said $50, it would have been a more believable response.)
Thank you, riggs!
Jesus, I was afraid no one else had picked up on that. The OP was KIDDING, folks! The fact that certain of the usual suspects here didn't get the joke doesn't make it any more real.
Stand on Zanzibar
I guess I can die now. I've seen too much SciFi come true. Now, even this.
In Stand of Zanzibar, John Brunner's dystopian novel of 1968, we read of bored, but hyper-zealous old people who ferret out crime and anti-social behavior by piloting their flying, mobile, mini-cameras, and then reporting to the police.
It certainly wasn't a nice picture, then. It is not a nice picture, now.
Jonas Prang
You're driving along, check
You're driving along, check out your rear-view mirror, and discover that the driver of the large city bus on your bumper isn't paying any attention, and your not worried?!?
Better buy your next Humvee now; the last one rolled off the line the other day.
This wasn't a case of a T driver making a cell phone call while on break (still a violation of company rules, but not an immediate danger). This was a T driver doing something remarkably stupid and of immediate danger to the driver in front of him; the photographer. Nothing hyper-zealous or even paranoid going on here. Just simple interest in self-and-others-preservation.
I also think a 10 day suspension may have been a bit of a gift. Might have been more had the photog had video rather than just still pictures maybe?
Unless we know the circumstances....
...such as whether the bus was blocked in by traffic (and not likely to move any time soon) or whether the driver was reading while driving (and thus a menace to passengers and public alike), we can't know if this suspension is too long or too short or just right.
Ciicumstances
Here's the circumstances as described by the person who took the photos:
"The bus was in traffic. Going forward a few feet at a time, stopping. Going forward a few feet at a time, stopping. And the paper was on the steering wheel while he was doing it."
Because?
Because a bus stuck in traffic can't lurch forward and hit the guy in front of him because the driver wasn't paying attention to what he was doing?
"Stuck in traffic" is not a signal to start doing your makeup, reading a paper, or texting your girlfriend whether you're driving a bus, a tank, or a car. The fact that there's already a strict rule against doing it as the driver of an MBTA bus is just even FURTHER not a signal to do it.
This is how we lost our car
This is exactly how our elderly, on-its-last-legs car was totaled - a guy talking on his cell phone lurched forward IN STOPPED TRAFFIC and rear-ended us, inflicting fatal damage to our rear bumper and trunk. The last thing I want is a full-sized bus doing a similar thing.
David Yamada, is that you?
Eff the circumstances. If he's driving a fricking bus, he doesn't get to read the paper. End of story.
Sending the photo to the T was justified
Also sending the photo to Channel 4 was just plain arrogant.
Why?
Do you think the T polices itself just fine? Really? And how is acting to protect one's own safety "arrogant"?
Um, by unnecessarily involving the media before giving the T a
chance to review and respond to the incident. If the T ignored what happened, then I could see the person going to the media then.
But I guess some people just like the "look at the good I did" feeling by forcing issues like this out in the media. And the end result will likely be that this driver will be subjected to more severe punishment (because of the UNNECESSARY public exposure the media generated) than would happen otherwise - which also means they will be more likely to appeal or challange any such action as unnecessarily strict or unequal.
And no, I don't work for the T, nor am I defending the bus driver's actions here.
Not 1975
The reason people take things to the media is because the old boy system and the internal investigation system and all of the "let us try first" systems led to coverups at worst and inaction at best.
I suppose you think it was okay when universities want to take care of rape allegations internally before going to the police? Or take care of wide ranging drug scandals internally before police or media are involved. Or when Police let the drunk drive home because he is a friend and he's almost home (nearly bankrupted Billerica in the 1980s) or choose to let internal affairs deal with spousal abuse by officers?
Sorry if that is the old insider-club, "official channels", know-your-place way - but I'm going to say to you what I said to my son's third grade teacher who was very angry that I escalated a bullying incident directly to the principal: In my world and in the modern world you don't get an extra chance to do nothing.
Answer the question, roadman
Actually, don't-- you already indicated which side you're on, and whose side you're taking. As for your claim that media exposure of unsafe driving by a T employee is "unnecessary"-- sorry, UNNECESSARY, as you put it-- that's just idiotic. Someone puts the safety of dozens of people at risk, exposing them is NECESSARY, especially given the T's record on self-policing.
And finally: Yes, you are defending the bus driver's actions here, if you think that he deserved to have things dealt with privately. He does not.
Please read my original comments again.
I am NOT defending the bus driver's actions, and am glad they were reported to the T. Reading a paper while driving is unsafe and inexcuseable for anybody to do. However, to argue that such action constitutes vital breaking news that the world needs to know about immediately is a stretch - especially as NO CRASH occurred as a result (i.e. no harm -no foul).
My objection with this story is with the fact that the person who shot the photograph decided to force the T to respond to the issue by presenting it in the media (which has NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER over the matter) before the T has even had a chance to investigate the claim on their own. This so reeks of "I don't like the T, so I'll embarrass them as much as possible by sending this photo to Channel 4". And the actions of one, however inappropriate they may be, are not automatically representative of typical actions of a larger group.
But we all know how infallible and objective the media can be, especially when they get 'hot crucial breaking news tips" like cellphone photos of bus drivers. Oh that's right, they have NO interest in reporting important news, they just want to sell ad time and space.
And, in fairness, if Channel 4 was getting multiple reports of this type of behavior happening and sent their own reporters undercover onto buses and trains to VERIFY this was rampant for themselves, that would be different.
I would, but I'm having trouble staying awake today
You're right-- the media does not have any authority-- sorry, AUTHORITY-- on this. (Note: Putting your key words in all caps just paints you as an ass around these parts).
But you know what? The media's lack of "authority" isn't relevant here. Whatever you might think about their motivations, competence, etc., and I'm aware of just how many of them have suspect motives and are extremely incompetent, it's a person's RIGHT of FREE SPEECH to let the media know about these things. WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT! (SEE, I CAN SHOUT LIKE A FIVE-YEAR-OLD TOO!)
As for the T self-policing: Please. They've shown, again and again, a clear lack of interest in disciplining their own, and if the public has lost faith in them, then they public is free to take actions which are legal and protected-- such as taking a picture of someone doing something dangerous. Which the government already does; I'm guessing you prefer to keep it that way.
And really, the fact that this dimwit chose to read the paper even after all of the T operators who have been caught doing stuff like this indicates to me, if not to you, that maybe he's just not bright enough for the job. But I'm sure you'll just go on apologizing for him.
And oh yeah, your "IDEA" of having TV reporters go "undercover" to see if this is "rampant"-- wow. First of all, what constitutes "rampant"? And why would it need to be "rampant" for it to be a problem? In my mind, one is too many. And what fantasy world do you live in in which TV stations have the time and personnel to do a comprehensive survey of all T drivers, all the time? How many people do you think that would take? I'm sure channel 4 would love to hear your ideas about how they can do their jobs better.
I thought it was perfectly clear from my past two posts that
I do not condone, support, or apologize for the bus driver's actions. And I reiterate my earlier comment that I do not consider reading a paper while driving to be acceptable, no matter who does it.
I agree with you that sending a cell phone photo to Channel 4 is exercising free speech, just as much as taking the photo in the first place, and Channel 4's decision to run the story as a "breaking news top scandlous" story, are. I merely opined my disagreement with the person's decision to contact the media without first giving the T a chance to address the incident. As they say, 'hitting a gnat with a brick'.
As for my "idea" regarding how Channel 4 should have approached this issue, isn't that how true investigative reporting is supposed to be done? Oh that's right, today's media doesn't want to do any real work anymore.
So all you're saying is "give the T a chance"?
The T's incompetence and safety issues are not a "gnat," nor is it "arrogant" for someone to protect their own safety by alerting the media. As for the media not wanting to do "real work," ouch! I'm sure that'll sting them. My point wasn't to defend the competence/honesty of reporters, just that your suggestion wasn't even remotely feasible.
But on the bright side, you more or less limited your use of caps to the beginning of sentences. That or your caps lock key broke. Either way, mission accomplished!
I kind of understand what Roadman is saying...
I used to drive school buses for a school district in upstate New York. We got paid to drive kids to school, take 4 hours off and then go to the school and drive them home. We got to keep the buses inbetween rides and could drive the buses home and go eat or whatever within reason. Then I remember seeing a news story on the Boston Local News about SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS SLEEPING ON DUTY!!! and how someone caught bus drivers on camera sleeping on buses during school hours. I remember being pissed because I knew that the bus drivers were probably allowed to sleep or do whatever they wanted when they weren't getting paid to drive kids. I mean, the person making the tape could have just asked the bus company about it before going to the news. And the news station should have definitely asked the bus company before showing the guys face on television.
Sure, in some cases the news needs to be notified if there is someone abusing their power in a job where there might not be the proper oversight. But I also feel the news should be responsible and get the real story before they plaster some guys face and reputation all over the news without possibly knowing all the facts.
Apples and oranges
Not the same situation, not even close. Your logic here-- and I use the term very loosely-- seems to be: If, on any occasion, someone is wrongfully accused of anything by lazy or incompetent people, and damage results from that, then nobody, ever, never ever ever, ever gets to alert the media about anything else any of our noble public servants, no matter how stupid, dangerous, and illegal it might be. That about right?
Roadman said it.......
You have the right to do whatever you want. And I'm not talking about this bus drivers case specifically. I'm just saying in general it is sometimes irresponsible (more on the media side) to just post pictures without knowing all the facts.
Nope, he didn't say anyone had the right
He said that notifying the T-- as naive as that is-- was OK, sort of, but notifying the media was "arrogant," "unncessary," overkill, lead to overly-severe punishment (as if whatever the T doled out would be entirely and unquestionably appropriate and correct), that since there was no crash there was "No harm, no foul" (which is hilariously dumb-- if there was greater risk to passengers, that's a foul), and that the T's safety record is not a big deal.
Reread his comments. At no point-- none-- did Roadman say that anyone has a right to do anything aside from notifying the T and then standing by their decision. No, he went out of his way to criticize the person for reporting it, and questioning their motives-- oh yes, clearly, the person has it out for the T; why else would they complain?
Please re-read what I indicated in my follow-up post.
I agree ... that sending a cell phone photo to Channel 4 is exercising free speech, just as much as taking the photo in the first place, and Channel 4's decision to run the story as a "breaking news top scandlous" story, are. I merely opined my disagreement with the person's decision to contact the media without first giving the T a chance to address the incident.
And if you believe that the person's actions in sending the photo to the media, and Channel 4's decision to immediately post the photo on-line, were motivated purely by safety concerns, ask yourselves this question:
If it had been a driver of a UPS truck or a tractor trailer who was photographed reading a paper while behind the wheel (which has similar safety implications to others on the road as a bus driver's actions would), would the media respond in the same way and immediately post the photo without question? My guess is they wouldn't.
And my guess is...
...that there aren't dozens of people standing behind UPS drivers or truck drivers most of the time. Actually, there never are. How could you even bring those examples up for comparison? As for why the media would go nuts on a bus driver but not a UPS driver, let me spell it out for you: A bus driver is directly responsible for the safety of more people than UPS and truck drivers are. In terms of the amount of damage each vehicle can incur on other vehicles and people, sure, trucks as well as buses can do quite a bit of damage. But that's not the point: It's the amount of people IN THE VEHICLE. That's the same reason why the media gets up in arms about a jetliner pilots showing up for work drunk, but turns a blind eye when cab drivers do it. That and the fact that plane crashes make for better TV, but the main point, again, is the number of people involved. It's pretty simple, really, if you think about it.
As for their motivations, who cares if they weren't pure? I said nothing of the kind, just that the person was concerned for their safety. Maybe not only concerned for their safety, but what does it matter? Are your motivations for defending bus drivers entirely pure? Wait, don't answer that-- you probably think that they are. Assuming this person had devious motivations then, what were they? Money? The fame of being on the news for 3 seconds? Whoever it was isn't going to write a bestseller about it.
And as for rereading your comments, I never said that you said the person sending the photo wasn't free speech-- you just ridiculed and criticized them for doing so. Saying, "That asshole has a right to free speech, so let that asshole so whatever he wants" is still a bit "chilling," to use a term that comes up in this kind of discussion. You're standing up in public calling this person vindictive, motivated for evil reasons, overreacting, and unfair. Yes, you never said it wasn't their right-- nor did I say that you said that. What I said was that you ridiculed them for exercising that right, which is exactly what you did.
I will reread them......
At no point-- none-- did Roadman say that anyone has a right to do anything aside from notifying the T and then standing by their decision.
He said this:
I agree with you that sending a cell phone photo to Channel 4 is exercising free speech, just as much as taking the photo in the first place, and Channel 4's decision to run the story as a "breaking news top scandlous" story, are.
That is pretty clear to me.
Was the guy who snapped the
Was the guy who snapped the photos driving? Please say it was the passenger who was trying to take photos out the back window in traffic. One distracted bus driver is bad enough, but now we have one bus driver reading the paper, and one car driver snapping photos out the back window. D'OH!
Weaving, weaving, weaving
So much straw in that man...