Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 451 posts

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#51

Post by unwrap »

methodover wrote: post #43

“Given New York’s lax enforcement record, the Freakonomics podcast described running over pedestrians there as “the perfect crime.”” I was driving in Oakland when the car in front of me didn’t slow down for a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The pedestrian disappeared in front of the car. I stopped my car, got out, found the struck young woman trembling and bleeding in the street. The speed limit was 30 miles per hour. I…

It's not always the drivers' fault, some pedestrians are just asking to be put in a coffin.

Where I live, most people jump on the road, jack-in-the-box-style. They don't wait for the cars to stop, they don't even bother to look around. They walk slowly, sometimes crossing the road at an angle (which takes a lot more time, obviously), even if it's a single physically fit individual blocking a busy 4-lane road. I'd say about 80-90% of pedestrians behave this way.

So, despite it not being a particularly big city, running over pedestrians is a daily occurrence.

I am a pedestrian myself, mind you. I don't even have a driver's license.

Is the situation better in the US?

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#52

Post by Tade0 »

achow wrote: post #23
Tade0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. These sources generate rather large particles (PM10) which, as opposed to PM2.5, don't get to the bloodstream through the lungs.

From the research paper cited by the article: PM2.5 emissions were only 1-3% lower for EVs compared to modern ICEVs. Therefore, it could be concluded that the increased popularity of electric vehicles will likely not have a great effect on PM levels. Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic. These proportions will continue to increase as exhaust standards impr…

Here's what I find suspicious about this study: resuspension being counted as an emission.

It's said that cars "produce" PMs this way even though they don't per se.

What I'm getting at is that if we reduced the amount of particulates added to the system, then surely there would be less to resuspend?

Unless there's some other, non-car related source of these. If so, why not address it instead?

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#53

Post by joking »

tomohawk wrote: post #49
dalbasal wrote: post #12

Another way of stating this could be "transport is a policy question." How cities are built and what transport infrastructure they're built around. Im fairly sympathetic to the overall aims of this article. I think a transport system more similar to those in the Netherlands makes for better urban landscapes. But... this habitual style of treating everything as a conspiracy, built around a personified enemy ("They gav…

No conspiracy required when a lot of people are acting according to a common view. People see the real advantages of owning a car and the freedom it brings, and that activity builds industries and has an impact on policies. Of course, GM really did conspire to put the trolleys out of business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... However, this is the kind of thing organizations (companies,…

maybe the trolleys where substituted by the coaches because there were more cheap to use, you don't have to create a network of cables overhead, and with cheap gas there where no need to electrify the public transport.

The coaches have the benefit to be able to go anywhere and modify your routes as suits you, while the trolleys need a fixed infrastructure. Both have their own pros and cons, so i don't see the need for a conspiracy.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#54

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

unwrap wrote: post #51
methodover wrote: post #43

“Given New York’s lax enforcement record, the Freakonomics podcast described running over pedestrians there as “the perfect crime.”” I was driving in Oakland when the car in front of me didn’t slow down for a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The pedestrian disappeared in front of the car. I stopped my car, got out, found the struck young woman trembling and bleeding in the street. The speed limit was 30 miles per hour. I…

It's not always the drivers' fault, some pedestrians are just asking to be put in a coffin. Where I live, most people jump on the road, jack-in-the-box-style. They don't wait for the cars to stop, they don't even bother to look around. They walk slowly, sometimes crossing the road at an angle (which takes a lot more time, obviously), even if it's a single physically fit individual blocking a busy 4-lane road. I'd say…

Based off your parent poster's description of the situation, it sounds as if the pedestrian had the right of way.

However, if the driver was half their age, all else equal, would we say the DMV should assess if they're competent to drive? The primary cause of the accident could be independent of age.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#55

Post by piyush_soni »

unwrap wrote: post #51
methodover wrote: post #43

“Given New York’s lax enforcement record, the Freakonomics podcast described running over pedestrians there as “the perfect crime.”” I was driving in Oakland when the car in front of me didn’t slow down for a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The pedestrian disappeared in front of the car. I stopped my car, got out, found the struck young woman trembling and bleeding in the street. The speed limit was 30 miles per hour. I…

It's not always the drivers' fault, some pedestrians are just asking to be put in a coffin. Where I live, most people jump on the road, jack-in-the-box-style. They don't wait for the cars to stop, they don't even bother to look around. They walk slowly, sometimes crossing the road at an angle (which takes a lot more time, obviously), even if it's a single physically fit individual blocking a busy 4-lane road. I'd say…

Yes, it's a little bit better in US than in some other countries. On the whole (especially in smaller cities where people have 'time'), people generally stop cars for pedestrians, slow down near intersections and zebra-crossings etc. (Can't say the same about bigger cities like Boston/Chicago etc. however)

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#56

Post by Lio »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #40

> traffic violence > automobile supremacy The language of this article just makes me cringe. Other than that, it's really quite reasonable though.

It sounds shocking if you only travel in car as it doesn't affect you as much but if you ride a bike it's a fact of life in many areas.

For example if you wear lycra, you will probably find that a percentage of people will regularly try to "punish" you because they think you "look funny".

The mildest form of punishment will be them driving as close to you as they dare. That could be 50mph 12"s away. That's like standing on the other side of the do not cross line in the subway as a train comes past.

That's my anecdotal experience but a quick search Youtube will turn up many examples of this. Action camera manufacturers specifically design products to document this.

Worse though, you'll probably eventually have someone be more directly aggressive to you. Maybe throwing something at you or trying to drive you off the road.

In that context I think that the phrase traffic violence is fitting. If someone is using a vehicle as a weapon what else would you call it?

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#57

Post by majewsky »

joking wrote: post #53
tomohawk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No conspiracy required when a lot of people are acting according to a common view. People see the real advantages of owning a car and the freedom it brings, and that activity builds industries and has an impact on policies. Of course, GM really did conspire to put the trolleys out of business. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... However, this is the kind of thing organizations (companies,…

maybe the trolleys where substituted by the coaches because there were more cheap to use, you don't have to create a network of cables overhead, and with cheap gas there where no need to electrify the public transport. The coaches have the benefit to be able to go anywhere and modify your routes as suits you, while the trolleys need a fixed infrastructure. Both have their own pros and cons, so i don't see the need fo…

As a rough estimate, a streetcar line is more efficient than a bus line above 40,000 passengers per day. My city (Dresden, Germany) has a bus line with 70,000 passengers per day, and you can really see it cracking at the seams. During rush hour, busses run every 3 minutes, and that interval cannot be increased any further because the busses would start blocking each other, thus backing up from the bus stop into the road and creating additional congestion.

The only thing the city can do (and that's what they're working on) is to upgrade from bus to streetcar. Dresden has some of the longest trams in the world, at 45 meters (50 yards), and these carry 3-4 bus loads at once.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#58

Post by anonymou2 »

LeonidasXIV wrote: post #38
fergie wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European I was really surprised at how cycle-friendly San Francisco and Palo Alto (especially Stanford campus) are- its much better than you might expect. Room for improvement, but no worse than many cities over here.

As a resident of Copenhagen this was not really my impression. Yes, Palo Alto is cycleable, kinda in the same way any small town in the world is cycleable - low amount of traffic and comparatively wide streets. San Francisco is cycleable because it is 7x7 miles large so not that much space to sprawl but cycling infrastructure is basically completely absent. What surprised me though is how overall passable public tran…

they have the best cycling infrastructure, they are called roads.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#59

Post by DrScump »

bsimpson wrote: post #19
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment makes me think of the premise behind Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Judge Doom: Several months ago I had the good providence to stumble upon this plan of the city council's. A construction plan of epic proportions. They're calling it a freeway. Eddie Valiant: Freeway? What the hell's a freeway? Judge Doom: Eight lanes of shimmering cement running from here to Pasadena. Smooth, safe, fast. Traffic jams will be…

Today, San Francisco only has trains along Market Street, fingering out into a half dozen neighborhoods. Most of the city is served by buses. Originally, many of those buses were, in fact, trains: > ...as SF's rail network was removed or replaced with bus lines in the mid-century, it went from 16 rail lines to five... The reason we still have the trains we do is because they were the lines that used tunnels, so they…

  Today, San Francisco only has trains along Market Street
Um, Caltrain? BART? Fixed rail Muni, including the 3rd Street line all the way to Bayview?

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#60

Post by nmeofthestate »

Lio wrote: post #56
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #40

> traffic violence > automobile supremacy The language of this article just makes me cringe. Other than that, it's really quite reasonable though.

It sounds shocking if you only travel in car as it doesn't affect you as much but if you ride a bike it's a fact of life in many areas. For example if you wear lycra, you will probably find that a percentage of people will regularly try to "punish" you because they think you "look funny". The mildest form of punishment will be them driving as close to you as they dare. That could be 50mph 12"s away. That's like stand…

I've cycled for decades and never had such an incident of aggression from drivers. Maybe it depends on some other factors in addition to the drivers.
Post reply on HN