I am not a lawyer, but that does not seem like a law that could pass a constitutional test. You can say you have to be in a car to be on a freeway for safety reasons, but you can't ban people from being in a place because they are not in a car because you don't like the people who aren't in cars. From reading the article the intent seems to be that you suspect people who aren't in cars.

> I am not a lawyer, but that does not seem like a law that could pass a constitutional test.

Nor am I, but a constitutional test used to cost about $250,000 or so over a decade ago (does inflation affect these things?). For someone who can't afford a car, that's a tough bill to eat.

As someone who has litigated a ton of constitutional challenges, you can definitely do it without representation if you want. I would think pretty much anyone on HN is educated enough to figure it out. (Attorney fees being your biggest cost; costs you'd have to swallow are deposition fees and filing fees if you're not indigent).

[Usually you can make two separate attacks on these kinds of constitutional cases since most states have their own constitutions that are practically identical to the federal one, so you can sue in both state and federal court separately if you want two tries at it -- this is good if you screw it up the first time and want to use the arguments the defendant fired at you in the first case to bolster your retry]

With representation though, I have a current case I finally settled today with the government and my legal counsel ran up a bill that was north of $500K for a very simple constitutional case. His firm swallowed it because it was part of their yearly pro bono requirements.

This guy is a convicted sex offender and a pedo on top of being a liar.

https://patch.com/illinois/plainfield/no-deal-yet-for-brit-c...

https://www.shawlocal.com/2019/09/04/inmate-sues-because-he-...

https://casetext.com/case/bocock-v-dart

https://isp.illinois.gov/Sor/Details/X23A0424

qingcharles = Charles Bocock

Right, and you couldn't carry dozens of illegal weapons or 1000 pounds of cocaine by foot. It's car drivers that should be the suspects here.

Not with that attitude!

Bus riding I can sort of understand, that tends to be the case everywhere outside of manor metros IME (and not without a certain amount of truth to it) - but to think of walking or cycling like that seems really sad, what a way to live, shielded from the natural environment, shuffling from one air conditioned box to the next.

I'm not going to blame anyone in Houston for wanting to move from one air conditioned box to the next :p.

Sure but if you decide that's not a way you want to live then you also don't want to live somewhere where it's uncomfortable for you otherwise.

(And while I'm here 'manor' in GP was a typo for 'major', in case that's not clear to anyone.)

> if you decide that's not a way you want to live then you also don't want to live somewhere where it's uncomfortable for you otherwise.

well, our living choices aren't necessarily choices these days. Nor comfortable. More like compromises for suvival. Already had more than a few friends priced out of California and needing to move out of the state in its entirety.

Of course; it's for that reason that I said 'you don't want to live' rather than 'you don't live'.

Walking / using public transportation is associated with low status when it is done for cost savings reasons. When it’s done for convenience it doesn’t convey much.

Using a bus in a ski resort is higher status than a car in a large city.

Yeah I live in the Boston area. All the neighborhoods that have easy access to public transit or are walkable neighborhoods are very desirable and expensive.

That law sounds illegal.