Speaking of nanny state travel travails (and something worse than bureaucratized attack toilets), the New Jersey Star Ledger's Paul Mulshine devotes his column today to the bureaucratic detention of passengers during last week's power outage (discussed infra). Interviewing passenger Liz Anklow and Doug Bowen of the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers, Mr. Mulshine explores the issue of why so many people shy away from public transit:

And then there is mass transit. It sounds nice in theory, but every time I ponder getting out of my car and onto an NJ Transit train, I think of incidents such as last week's power outage. The outage itself was the fault of Amtrak, not NJ Transit. But one incident that was reported by the Reuters news service was typical of the attitude that makes many people shy away from public transit.

As for NJ Transit, this incident, trivial though it may be, encapsulates everything I dislike about public transit. Doug Bowen agrees with me.

"Ah, don't you love customer service?" said Bowen, the head of the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers. "One wonders why public transportation prompts that sort of thing. If people want to leave the train, they should be allowed to."

NJ Transit spokesman Dan Stessel disagreed. Stessel said it was essential to keep passengers on the train, which was stranded a short distance from the Secaucus station.

"I certainly can see where it would be frustrating to passengers seeing the station literally yards away," said Stessel. But there were a number of hazards, including the possible arrival of a rescue train and the threat of tripping over the tracks, Stessel said.

Among the thousands of passengers trapped in stuck trains was Liz Anklow, a public relations executive. She boarded a train in South Orange for her daily commute to Manhattan. The train made it a short distance past the Secaucus station before the electricity went out. For the first hour or so, the cars got warmer and warmer in the absence of air conditioning. Then the authorities announced they were going to open the doors to let in some fresh air.

Anklow was, coincidentally enough, talking on her cell phone with a Reuters reporter when, as she put it, "A very imposing New Jersey trooper just walked through the train and said if one person leaves the train you will be arrested and taken to jail."

Though such a threat seems excessive to me, Anklow told me she was only mildly upset by it.

"I appreciated that they opened the doors, but I was a little put off by the trooper," said Anklow. "I'm used to the subway, where you're stuck for hours and they don't give you any information at all."

Anklow only recently escaped New York City for the suburban splendors of New Jersey. Part of her job is doing public relations for the Heartland brewpub in Midtown Manhattan. I just thought I'd throw that in as an example of a business that provides excellent customer service as well as first-rate ale, if my visits are any indication.

It would not surprise me in the least if many passengers on that train would have enjoyed seeing a defiant passenger arrested for leaving the train. (I paid the bully my lunch money; why shouldn't you?)

What were these paying customers -- trapped for hours in full view of a station -- being protected from?

From a "rescue train"?

From "the threat of tripping over the tracks"????

It would be funny if I didn't know they were serious.

If a bus or a taxi broke down and the driver refused to allow passengers to leave because a tow truck might arrive, or they might trip over the curb, would people behave the same way? I don't think so -- and not because of any substantial difference in the danger, but because the herd mentality would not be activated. The natural tendency of individual self-reliance and self-sufficiency would prevail. While there's nothing logical about it, once people herd themselves onto trains this natural tendency seems to be deactivated. They simply resign themselves to following orders, no matter how unreasonable or unnatural -- (and they have little sympathy for those who don't.)

Sheesh.

Well, at least these are safety nannies, and their goal is only to help us!

(But imagine what a malevolent bureaucracy might do if they controlled trains...)

AFTERTHOUGHT: I do not mean to attack the many good people who want an orderly and civilized society, and I recognize that I may be coming off as anarchistic. In general, I do not fault the philosophy of "I PLAY BY THE RULES, AND I HATE PEOPLE WHO DON'T!" -- because it is grounded in fairness and common sense.

But what happens when people make rules that are not right, and that they have no right to make? Doesn't authority have to be earned? How is the American notion of "consent of the governed" to be weighed against unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy?