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

#311

Post by alistairSH » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

C1sc0cat wrote: post #35

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…

Totally agree and totally ignores the fact that people like the flexibility and freedom (in fact as well as psychologically) Unfortuetly this area and "green" in general does I am afraid does tend to attract "hobbyist" / "crank" activists. (I am using these terms in the political sense and not dising peoples hobbys Eg the green movement needs to concentrate on the present problem (runaway global heating) and not on p…

people like the flexibility and freedom

What freedom and flexibility? Being forced to drive everywhere is not flexibility. Being forced to subsidize massive parking lots and highways is not freedom.

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

#312

Post by burlesona » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

tmux314 wrote: post #298

There is no doubt that we are over-reliant on cars. We (Americans) spent the last century towards developing automobile infrastructure. Now with global warming, it will take many more years to undo the damage. We can agree over that. But focusing the blame on car companies and the wealthy one-percenters is historical revisionism. It undercuts the fact that these policies were eagerly supported by lower-middle class a…

There’s actually a dichotomy:

Car support was pretty ubiquitous in rural areas where you really needed a horse to get around anyway and it really did radically improve life to get a car.

But car support in cities was quite tepid before the late 20’s, and a significant concerted effort of government and industry together ramrodded them in and sold it through a long propaganda campaign that eventually was accepted.

There’s a book about this early history called Fighting Traffic, by Peter Norton. The US came fairly close to banning cars in a number of cities, and to requiring mechanical governors to a 20mph limit in many others. A bunch of places installed memorials and monuments to “all the children slain by drivers” and so on.

It’s really interesting history that the auto lobby has worked hard to obscure.

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

#313

Post by mac01021 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #258

myspy wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a reason why cars have to vanish from cities.

Then cities have to radically change. I don't know how people can ever commute from the current urban sprawl to their place of work without them. Cities would need to build massive bus and rail infrastructures at the cost of billions or similar amounts are going to have to be spent to increase densification. I chose where to live because of a desire to be able to commute easily - the bus is 10 minutes, walking is abo…

I'm not sure how much ifrastructure is really needed most places.

Could we just use existing roads, and try to replace every 30 cars on the road with a bus?

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

#314

Post by francisofascii » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

scarejunba wrote: post #44

megablast wrote: post #22

Imagine if someone invented cars today? Hey everyone, we want to make you use this killing machine, that kills a million people every year around the world directly, many more indirectly. We just need to clear out the parks currently around your houses to turn into horrible bleak roads, so they can bring the pollution directly to your door.

But in exchange you get to go anywhere in America. You aunt in San Jose you haven't seen in months because it's a day's horse-ride. Well you can pop over for lunch, and be home for dinner. You can go see Yosemite and Tahoe in the same day. Your groceries will be 10 mins away. No. If someone invented cars today, he'd be considered a hero. We'd talk about him in history books.

If we had an adequate bus system, I think you could still visit Yosemite and Tahoe in the same day.

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

#315

Post by mac01021 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #307

jdavis703 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had three jobs where I commuted from 10-30 miles over public transit. All those long commutes were either suburb to suburb or from city to suburb via reverse commute. There’s no need to drive a car if you’re commuting to a fixed location and you live in the burbs or the city.

What were your long commutes? 1-2 hours? Why would people accept that when a car can do that in a quarter the time?

They will if car taxes increase.

And if ridership increases enough, then bus commute times will be reduced a great deal.

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

#316

Post by alistairSH » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #287

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…

That's because you don't live in a country as big as the US is and don't need to move around like we do in the US. I am from Denmark who also have plenty of bikes and it's a thing. The reality is however that thats fine as long as you live in the cities, it's not way to get around if you live in the suburbs and have to drive 30 miles to work and take care of your picking up the kids and drive 20 miles to the nearest…

Of course you can. That's pretty much the whole point of the article. You live in a suburb and have to drive 30 minutes because America decided decades ago that sprawl was preferable to dense urban cores. American decided 3000sqft McMansions on 1/2 acre lots was preferable to 1000sqft flats in the city. And that spending billions on road infrastructure and subsidized parking was a fair trade-off for that personal space.

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

#317

Post by delfinom » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #232

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…

As a pedestrian (or cyclist), you should always give way to cars, even being prepared to jump out of the way when you have the right-of-way. Unless the driver is intoxicated, they get inconvenienced with higher insurance premiums for a little while at worst, while you get stuck with life long injuries and pain at worst.

Actually higher insurance premiums stick around alot longer these days or indefinitely. Costs of everything has gone up.

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

#318

Post by delfinom » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:39 PM UTC

lukeqsee wrote: post #85

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what!? In Europe if you strike a pedestrian on the crosswalk you'll definitely loose your license and be looking at manslaughter charges too while your insurance company will murder you after paying the victim's medical/disability/court bills.

In Europe, if you strike a pedestrian outside a crosswalk, the same might happen to you depending on the jurisdiction. Pedestrians create their own right of way, practically speaking (if not judicially). :-)

Hah, nearly obliterated some teenager that decided to cross in the middle of the street and in front of a large truck. The light was green and my lane completely empty and it was a 55 mph road and I didn't have a need to slowdown. Until she darted out from in front of the truck and nearly died, there was no way to see her early because of the truck AND no way to expect someone would be so retarded on a 55 mph road NOT to use the crosswalks.

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

#319

Post by kindatrue » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #211

mkagenius wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In India if you strike a pedestrian anywhere, you can yell at him for being a nuisance and be on your way. Pedestrians have 0 value in terms of life in India.

Aren't there some videos of some drivers in China doing reverse to make sure the person they hit is dead to not having to cover medical bills? People can do horrible things once money get involved.

There was an article a while back (I can't find) where a US police department joked about the same to save the city money.

There was an article a while back (I can't find) where San Francisco's transit agency (SFMTA) joked about the same to save the city money.

It probably makes sense... a fatality pay out is $2M (using FAA standards). Long term medical care in the US? Easily over that...

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

#320

Post by em-bee » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:41 PM UTC

Xavdidtheshadow wrote: post #284

em-bee wrote: post #30

living in a big city in europe i was able to live without a car easily, but when i got a job in the US i fully expected that i'd have to learn to drive and get a car to get around. BUT, i managed to get an apartment 10 minutes walking from the office. this was in san diego, of all places, a city which is very spread out. a few months later i moved in with friends and we found a place far north. most of my roommates h…

While you could get between pre-selected points reliably (home and work), how was your experience living in LA carless when it came to going anywhere outside walking distance? The sprawl is massive and the busses/trains only go so far

if i wanted to go somewhere i planned ahead (most of the time). LA wasn't half bad in that regard. it has busses going on all major streets east-west and north-south. for many places i wanted to go to, a single transfer was enough. for example: go east first to the street that you want to reach, then transfer and go south.

i don't remember ever to having had to take a taxi. i got a few rides, but then it was friends who went to the same place anyways (like a linux user group meetup)