Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by briandear » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

consp wrote: post #247

patriot1911 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was 16 at the time. I.e. you weren't driving a car and you were underage. I'm not saying that the legal system in The Netherlands is unreasonable or anything, but I feel like your case doesn't really represent the kind of case people are thinking of in this thread.

Why you are being downvoted is strange to me as it is a valid point to make. Low velocity hits with a pedestrian and a bike or moped without serious injuries are not something to give heavy fines to or involve the legal system as basic injuries are covered by general insurance and in this case the pedestrian was at least partially at fault. And otherwise the cost to society would be bigger than the medical and admini…

So if someone hits someone in a car and they are just minor injuries we should’t involve the legal system? The method of injury ought not matter: car, bike, scooter, whatever — breaking road laws should be enforced and injuries should result in further charges.

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

#262

Post by adrianN » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #177

tremon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as a Dutchman, I experience much more flexibility and freedom riding a bike than my car. That's probably a consequence of both the overcrowding of our roads, and the density of our infrastructure -- I rarely have to drive more than 15 minutes to reach any kind of shop, and by bike I can take shortcuts that my car can't follow, especially in inner cities. Ultimately, my car has been relegated to recreational…

Also a practical consequences of urban "design." In Amsterdam, Rotterdam or den haag, a 5km radius is a large area that captures a large chunk of the city. In Houston or LA, a 5km radius is a very small area.

I felt the same way on my bike in Tokyo.

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

#263

Post by cannabis_sam » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

The whole fucking world is subsidizing this garbage by not charging people for the externalities their lifestyle incurs upon the world.

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

#264

Post by lostjohnny » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

jejones3141 wrote: post #237

lostjohnny wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of your argument is about motorized vehicles, not bicycles They are the same thing. Bicycles have wheels, they should be on the streets. > Cities with lots of steps or staircases are only accessible for pedestrians, but no one else. And that's good! BTW, you can walk the bike. Just like you do when you have to jump on a train or take the subway. If you're talking about accessibility in general, that's a whole…

>> Cities with lots of steps or staircases are only accessible for pedestrians, but no one else. > And that's good! Even for people with difficulty walking or in wheelchairs?

> Even for people with difficulty walking or in wheelchairs?

What part of "if we are talking about accessibility in general that a whole different problem"?

walkable means walkable, not staircaseable.

Stop bikeshedding.

Are streets or bike lanes the right solution for wheelchairs?

I seriously doubt that...

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

#265

Post by superseeplus » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

coredog64 wrote: post #133

> Those who walk or bike to work receive no commuter tax benefit False. It’s possible to pay for mass transit with pretax dollars.

You can pay for transit with pretax dollars but not for biking. There used to be a $20 per month commuter benefit but it was killed as part of the Republican tax overhaul. Even before it was killed, you couldn’t use both the bicycling and transit benefit if for example you rode to a park and ride transit stop. You can take advantage of both the parking and transit benefit if you drive to a transit stop.

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

#266

Post by guitarbill » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 2:37 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #217

wycy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like absolute common sense that as abilities degrade as you age you should have to retest for drivers licenses periodically. Perhaps with greatly increasing periodicity with increasing age. However, any politician who proposed or approved such an idea would be immediately voted out of office, because old people are very reliable voters. So it's not going to happen.

There's no way to pass such a law without it seeming agist - because it would be. It seems to me, probably naively, that the easiest way around this would be to require yearly tests for everyone . You're driving a huge honking piece of metal at 60+ miles an hour down the street; a yearly verification of your ability to do so doesn't seem excessive.

And yet we don't let people drive or drink alcohol until a certain, arbitrary age...

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

#267

Post by gavia1 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 2:38 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #251

gavia1 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "full control"? The average driver does not have the experience nor the training to maintain full control at all times. For example, consider a situation where the driver has to correct understeer, or lift-off oversteer, both relatively easy to achieve in cold, wet conditions.

You're never supposed to operate your vehicle outside of your comfort zone where you know you'll be able to react correctly and optimally. If the conditions are sub-optimal and you think you might not be able to handle your car correctly in case of emergency you should drive slower or not drive at all. I won't pretend that I've always been a perfect driver, quite far from it actually, but I don't think the law should…

I agree, but it's largely academic in the real world. People drive to work in bad conditions because they fear if they don't they'll lose their job. People drive in bad conditions because someone they know has fallen ill and they need to get to the hospital.

Most people drive to their limits, or their comfort. Some people do stupid things and drive beyond what is safe, but dependent on where you live this may or may not be in the minority.

What fascinates me is that we are not giving drivers the skills they need to be able to avoid accidents should the worst happen. Instead we say you shouldn't drive at speed X or in condition Y.

My argument is that we should be teaching drivers these skills not only so they can correct their mistakes, because at the end of the day we are all human and make mistakes, but if we also show drivers how easy it is to lose control of a vehicle they may just respect the road a little more than they do already.

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

#268

Post by briandear » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 2:39 PM UTC

desas wrote: post #173

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most of the US if you lose your ability to drive you lose your ability to be a functional member of society and outside a few cities with good public transit even the poor drive. Europe has good public transit and their regulations increase the cost of driving to the point where mostly only the middle and upper classes do it. Losing your license in Europe is not as big a deal as losing it in the US.

You can't generalise Europe like that. Most people from a working household in the UK (outside of London drive). From supermarket workers to executives. Approximately every rural part of the UK has public transport but it's unsurprising if it is infrequent and doesn't get you to a population centre in time to work.

And in France outside of Paris most people drive. It would be impossible to live in the countryside without a car. Even within larger towns, the big supermarkets are outside of the city center.

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

#269

Post by caconym_ » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #245

caconym_ wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live there is not a signal at every intersection. In some places there are not even any marked crosswalks anywhere nearby. However, every intersection that's not signaled/marked has implicit "unmarked crosswalks" and according to the law drivers must stop for pedestrians in these crosswalks. The vast majority of drivers seem to be ignorant of this law, or they just don't care. Enforcement is nonexistent. When…

>Maybe fancy urban planning can help, but it's a band-aid on a deeper problem, at least where I live: drivers are ignorant and have bad attitudes not suited for the responsibility of operating motor vehicles. Which is more likely? a) everyone is irresponsible b) your definition of "responsible" is not in line with everyone else's

Given my observations of how frequently and flagrantly (and objectively) drivers (and other road users) break laws put in place to keep all the users of our public infrastructure (including themselves) safe, I'll have to go with a). If your definition of being responsible explicitly allows for breaking such laws, you may want to re-evaluate it.

I'm not interested in hearing the word "anecdotal", either. Check out DUI statistics if you want bite-size proof that vast swaths of the population are fundamentally unfit to be driving, or show me data to back up your own point that the roads are not full of irresponsible drivers.

Oh, here's another good one: "In 2017 alone, 3,166 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers." (from NHTSA: https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving)

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

#270

Post by briandear » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 2:42 PM UTC

pavel_lishin wrote: post #217

wycy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like absolute common sense that as abilities degrade as you age you should have to retest for drivers licenses periodically. Perhaps with greatly increasing periodicity with increasing age. However, any politician who proposed or approved such an idea would be immediately voted out of office, because old people are very reliable voters. So it's not going to happen.

There's no way to pass such a law without it seeming agist - because it would be. It seems to me, probably naively, that the easiest way around this would be to require yearly tests for everyone . You're driving a huge honking piece of metal at 60+ miles an hour down the street; a yearly verification of your ability to do so doesn't seem excessive.

I think every two years would work, just like the FAA requires Flight Reviews every two years. For those driving bigger vehicles like commercial trucks, they can have an annual “proficiency check.” If getting a car license were more like getting a pilot license, we’d all be a lot safer.