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

#381

Post by 8note » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #117

nerdponx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying we should never think in abstractions... but there is a formulaic pattern here that's old, paranoid and harmful. Except these conspiracies were (and are) generally real, and their effects are real. The pattern isn't journalistic, it's historical.

It's both historical & journalistic. Capitalism, corporatism, empire, patriarchy, globalism public choice, regulatory capture... these do all relate to reality, but they are not reality themselves. They are abstractions. A potentially useful way of seeing a broad picture, but also hazardous. Spending too many brain cycles in these abstractions makes us formulaic. We no longer see unique & specific examples, just unin…

yeah, it's like np problems. Nobody needs to talk about the travellingn salesman, and it's harmful to even say it's an no problem, since we already have SAT solvers, and that's all we need to understand that np problems are hard to solve.

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

#382

Post by agumonkey » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #380

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…

Having grown up without a car in a country with good public transport, I never had trouble vacationing to beaches and parks, visiting faraway families, or pursuing work in faraway places (well that last point didn’t apply to me, but certainly did apply to e.g. my parents). Now, having lived in the U.S. for many years, I still hate driving, but I’m basically crippled if I don’t drive.

"Modern" times attracted people into wanting faster for less. You can do a lot without cars, but you have to unplug your soul from not walking.

Also society shifted, cars meant larger but further shopping centers, and job areas.

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

#383

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

magduf wrote: post #365

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're right - but to say it's simple is ridiculous. That will take the entire city being willing to be displaced for years - millions of people without homes - what does the political will for that look like?

Well you don't need to do it all at once, and you don't really need to bulldoze every building and road. It would be more realistic to just "upzone" as the other commenter said, and stop accommodating car transport so much and start aggressively redeveloping after adding public transit infrastructure (which would be a lot cheaper and easier if you bulldoze along the routes so you can do cut-and-cover instead of diggi…

While you do that in the core, the outside of the city still grows, and that's all car based - there's no way around a city expanding and not building it for cars, unless you get the bus infrastructure out there before the people show up, which would appear to be a monumental waste when every city in the world's focus seems to be cutting taxes.

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

#384

Post by u801e » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #326

u801e wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also to invest in things like [...] protected bike paths for ebikes & trikes These lead to significant problems at intersections. It's best to keep vehicles of all types on roads where they obey the same set of rules.

Those lead to problems at poorly-designed intersections. I would prefer the answer be to design them correctly, making sure that some users aren't neglected.

The problem is that putting cyclists moving at 10 to 15 mph (14 to 22 feet per second) at the pedestrian position results in situations where neither the cyclist or the motorist see each other until the last second and that results in a collision. This isn't as much of an issue for pedestrians because they're moving slower 3 to 6 mph (4 to 8 feet per second). Also, pedestrians are able to stop much faster than a cyclist.

Second, these intersections place a much higher burden on cyclists. That is, they have to check for traffic coming from behind to see if they're going to make a right turn and avoid getting hit. They have to watch for traffic coming from the side to make sure they don't get hit. And they have to watch for left turning traffic far to the left to make sure they don't get hit.

If they're riding in the standard road position (center of the lane) instead, then it's much easier to see traffic and it's easier for traffic to see them as they approach an intersection.

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

#385

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #345

ThomPete wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No "America" didn't decide that. The geography of America dictated how America evolved to become a car preferring nation of sprawling cities. The car is the perfect combination of flexibility, scale, speed, utility and so on. Sprawls are a byproduct of what the car made possible, they where not created to promote the car they where created because the car made it possible and gave a number of benefits for the individ…

Yes, and we turned around and codified all of that so we can't easily do anything different. For example, as noted in the article, developers are REQUIRED to supply parking in most locations. Looking out my office window, there's a sea of surface parking. If that was legally mandated, the developer could in-fill with mixed-use and some of us could live literally right next door. Instead, the closest I can get to work…

They are required BECAUSE cars are base for the sprawl.

Again even in Denmark and other places that are extremely pro-public-transportation and anti-car, cars are still used by the majority of people because its the base means of transportation which provides the most benefits when you boil it down.

Forcing people to live in big cities with public transportation makes no sense on a continent like America.

Public transportation is only good for very dense areas and becomes extremely expensive once you need to cover less dense areas. This is true even in countries like Denmark which are geographically pretty small.

Denser cities mean more expensive real-estate which means less money for yourself and your family.

The sprawls and laws came after the cars, not the other way around.

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

#386

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:08 PM UTC

the_gastropod wrote: post #376

ThomPete wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you would have that problem, it would just be even harder to get around and to get things around or to go anywhere. The reason why people choose to live further out is among other things to get more nature for their children, it is to get cheaper houses, it used to be safer etc.

You're ignoring the other side of the equation: the convenience of also being able to get food, medical care, entertainment, mail, etc. It's affordable and possible to live in suburban / rural locations because the automobile made it easy. Otherwise, these people would need to be significantly more self-reliant.

Yes agree. That's the whole point.

The car took over because the car was the optimal vehicle compared to the alternatives not because of some law which is easy to show since it's the same in other countries like Denmark where the opposite was the case and yet cars are still hugely popular.

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

#387

Post by KozmoNau7 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:12 PM UTC

I'm vacationing Ireland at the moment, and it really hits me how car-centric it is, and I found the Scottish Highlands be very similar. Quite narrow roads, with hedges or stone fences and very little space for a pedestrian or cyclist.

Southern Germany too, although at least they usually don't put hedges/fences right up to the edge of the road.

I would hate to walk or bike on those roads, despite the beautiful landscapes on display.

Initially I thought there was a pressing need to widen the roads, but then I realized that the real problem is the size of modern cars and how fast most people drive.

While car ownership and driving is currently vital to a lot of rural communities, we need to reclaim the roads for shared usage, and break the imagined car/driver ownership and privilege over them.

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

#388

Post by II2II » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

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,…

> The next thing should preserve the immense freedom and flexibility that cars brought.

Did the car bring freedom? A car is expensive for people to purchase, maintain, and operate. In many regions individuals are also compelled to purchase insurance because they are dangerous. They also drive up the cost of living since the expensive infrastructure must be paid through taxation, construction is more expensive because a certain amount of space must be allocated to parking, land is more expensive since infrastructure reduces the supply. The cost of cars pretty much dictates a particular way of living, even before factors such as urban sprawl are even considered.

Perhaps there were elements of freedom and flexibility when the automobile first gained traction, but the social geography mutated. Workplaces became more centralized, then decentralized, as the automobile facilitated large and dedicated zoning regulations. The shifting of workplaces necessitated the shifting of shopping and recreation, typically following patterns of consolidation in a spatial and business sense. With cities no longer being walkable, there were fewer reasons for housing to stay put. It too drifted outwards, often with little consideration to schools and medical care. The end result is that people are often stuck owning a vehicle or making very serious compromises to live without one.

I didn't mean to paint such a bleak picture, and it is likely more harsh than it rightfully deserves to be, but the reality is that the family car (and, later, personal car) ended up being more of a trade-off than a liberator. It is difficult to deny that more is within reach because of it, yet it is also undeniable that less is within immediate reach.

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

#389

Post by Broken_Hippo » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

patriot1911 wrote: post #248

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it always been that age? We do not know how old the poster is, nor whether or not he had a regular lisence or a permit.

It hasn't been less than 18 since 1934, if not further back. Since last year it's possible to get a provisional license at the age of 17 (no earlier).

Ah, ok. I truly didn't know.

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

#390

Post by stellar678 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 6:20 PM UTC

nmeofthestate wrote: post #46

stellar678 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in a small town of 100,000 people, that means 11 of your neighbors will be killed by drivers crashing their cars every year. And that doesn’t account for the deaths and health costs caused by road pollution, by inactive lifestyles forced on communities due to car-centered infrastructure, etc... Given the car-oriented status quo, perhaps it’s true that cars give owners tremendous freedom and agency (at the…

I live in a small city of about 400,000 and only have about 10 neighbours. I guess Americans are just friendlier.

I also live in a city of about 400,000 - and I have thousands of neighbors. Of course I don't know them all personally - I am familiar with different groups, communities, leaders, families. I know about what's important to them, what their goals are, what they are up to in our shared community. I care about them. Do you care about the health and wellbeing of people who are not your 10 immediate neighbors?