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

Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

virginiamercury.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–459 of 459 posts

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#451

Post by loeg »

owowow wrote: post #374
RandallBrown wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle. I have 3 major grocery stores (Safeway, QFC, Target) within 15 minutes walking from me. And at least 20 bars and restaurants within the same distance. Public transportation to downtown takes about 35 minutes, which isn't great , but it's okay. Uber works well if you need to be faster.

Ballard is pretty isolated, constrained by the Ballard Bridge or going over to Fremont to get to Downtown. Bike access is poor, either risking death on the sidewalks of the Ballard Bridge, taking the lane on the bridge or doing a large detour to Fremont. Wedgewood, Fremont, Queen Anne & Freelard all successfully resisted the mass redevelopment that Ballard has seen, compared to 15 years ago Ballard looks completely d…

I'm also in Ballard and tend to agree about it being isolated. Also, there are a lot of Ballard drivers that hate cyclists — that first/last mile to access the Burke is by far the most dangerous. I get some anti-cyclist vitriol, honking, or aggressive passing almost every time I ride. And I am fast enough to keep up with the speed of traffic! Some drivers just see bikes and think "I should be in front."

I really don't mind the short jaunt to the Fremont bridge, but it does add some extra travel time. Never ride on the Ballard bridge; it just doesn't have anywhere for bikes to be. The sidewalks are too narrow and unprotected from traffic, and the primary traffic lanes are going 40+ mph. That whole thing needs to be replaced for the 21st century, although there may be some resistance as it's a nationally registered "historic place."

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#452

Post by loeg »

RandallBrown wrote: post #436
owowow wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ballard is pretty isolated, constrained by the Ballard Bridge or going over to Fremont to get to Downtown. Bike access is poor, either risking death on the sidewalks of the Ballard Bridge, taking the lane on the bridge or doing a large detour to Fremont. Wedgewood, Fremont, Queen Anne & Freelard all successfully resisted the mass redevelopment that Ballard has seen, compared to 15 years ago Ballard looks completely d…

Not too surprising you guessed it was Ballard. Depending on where you live and where you're going, crossing the locks is a great way to bike downtown. Also sometimes the Fremont bridge route is going to be shorter. I hate riding my bike over the Ballard bridge, but I'm not sure I'd call riding on it "risking death". Bike access within Ballard is pretty great since the hills are a bit more manageable than in other par…

The Locks aren't great because cyclists must dismount for the entire length of the federal facility. This is a nuisance for platform pedals and conventional shoes and obnoxious for clipless pedals and cleated shoes.

I would highly encourage avoiding the Ballard Bridge. IMO it's very dangerous.

Walkability in Ballard is pretty good. We're within 15 minutes walking distance of QFC and the bar/restaurant area south of Market. That said, I prefer to drive to the grocery store so I can go infrequently and buy more at once.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#453

Post by Jommi »

RobRivera wrote: post #450
Jommi wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how you can be so oblivious, but maybe you really just don't get it. Let me spell it out for you: Suburbia means that every trip out of the house will require a car. This is a not a living style that we can afford for everyone. Great that you enjoy it, but enabling it for everyone is simply unsustainable. Right now you are offloading it's cost externalities elsewhere: Cost on Your Health: More driv…

You make many terrible lifestyle assumptions and its insulting to me to call me 'oblivious' and frankly, it is unnecessary and below this forum. More driving does not exclude a healthy walking routine. More driving != equal more net green house gases. Yes the ICE generates greenhouse gases, but check out the carbon footprint of a battery supply chain for an EV sometime, or that of the MTA, MBTA, logistical supply cha…

We are not talking about your lifestyle. We are discussing effect of urban sprawl on the population and on the world. I was just so surprised that somebody on this forum could be able to miss the point so entirely, and be so ready to fight for whats clearly an indefensible position.

Walking More driving means your natural walking related to commute and errands goes to 0. There is a reason american states have a huge obesity problem compared to lots of european countries.

Cars Are you seriously comparing the carbon footprints of a personal car compared to the metro?

More driving means more green house gases. This is not about what vehicle you use, it's about the fact that urban sprawl requires a vehicle for even the most basic errands. This is unsustainable.

Not to mention do realize people can live in cities where they walk to work, walk to the grocery store, walk to gym, and walk to a restaurant?

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#454

Post by bigcorp-slave »

dang wrote: post #330
bigcorp-slave wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree that this is flamebait. A significant fraction of the Bay Area seems ok with decriminalization of street crime including shoplifting. There are many stories of businesses like Walgreens closing due to the impact of constantly theft in San Francisco. Seems like a relevant sub thread.

It was pretty clearly flamebait—your own comments in response to it began with "Oh please" and "Christ, why?" respectively. I get that the topic is relevant to you and you want to argue the point, but that's a different question.

Ok, point well taken. Thanks for all the work you do keeping the site civil and high quality.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#455

Post by jjav »

Jommi wrote: post #445
RobRivera wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your implication is that suburbia is a blite on mine and the globe's health.... [C I T A T I O N N E E D E D] I enjoy an hours walk with the dog daily, solid lifting program, about 20 miles a week of cardio, and a vegan diet. Doctor thinks I'm the picture of health.

I don't understand how you can be so oblivious, but maybe you really just don't get it. Let me spell it out for you: Suburbia means that every trip out of the house will require a car. This is a not a living style that we can afford for everyone. Great that you enjoy it, but enabling it for everyone is simply unsustainable. Right now you are offloading it's cost externalities elsewhere: Cost on Your Health: More driv…

> Suburbia means that every trip out of the house will require a car.

That is quite a generalization. Some suburbs can be like that, with houses for miles on end and nothing else. That seems like the exception though.

Plenty of suburban neighborhoods have walkable commerce nearby. I have never lived in a city. And yet, I've never lived in a place where I couldn't walk to at least a supermarket. Currently I live in very suburban (borderline rural, really) area and nearly everything I could need is within a 15 minute walk (multiple supermarkets & pharmacies, hardware store, clothing, restaurants, movies, medical, etc.)

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#456

Post by Jommi »

jjav wrote: post #455
Jommi wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how you can be so oblivious, but maybe you really just don't get it. Let me spell it out for you: Suburbia means that every trip out of the house will require a car. This is a not a living style that we can afford for everyone. Great that you enjoy it, but enabling it for everyone is simply unsustainable. Right now you are offloading it's cost externalities elsewhere: Cost on Your Health: More driv…

> Suburbia means that every trip out of the house will require a car. That is quite a generalization. Some suburbs can be like that, with houses for miles on end and nothing else. That seems like the exception though. Plenty of suburban neighborhoods have walkable commerce nearby. I have never lived in a city. And yet, I've never lived in a place where I couldn't walk to at least a supermarket. Currently I live in ve…

Its not a generalization. This is what suburb sprawl means: https://www.treehugger.com/understanding-suburban-sprawl-409...

The no.1 factor is single-use zoning. This means people live in a certain zone, and commerce happens in another zone. No amount of personal anecdotes will affect this fact.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#457

Post by RobRivera »

Jommi wrote: post #453
RobRivera wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make many terrible lifestyle assumptions and its insulting to me to call me 'oblivious' and frankly, it is unnecessary and below this forum. More driving does not exclude a healthy walking routine. More driving != equal more net green house gases. Yes the ICE generates greenhouse gases, but check out the carbon footprint of a battery supply chain for an EV sometime, or that of the MTA, MBTA, logistical supply cha…

We are not talking about your lifestyle. We are discussing effect of urban sprawl on the population and on the world. I was just so surprised that somebody on this forum could be able to miss the point so entirely, and be so ready to fight for whats clearly an indefensible position. Walking More driving means your natural walking related to commute and errands goes to 0. There is a reason american states have a huge…

>be so ready to fight for whats clearly an indefensible position

I really fail to see this as a reasonable expectation of dialogue and exchange of ideas if you're so cemented in your views.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#458

Post by jjav »

Jommi wrote: post #456
jjav wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suburbia means that every trip out of the house will require a car. That is quite a generalization. Some suburbs can be like that, with houses for miles on end and nothing else. That seems like the exception though. Plenty of suburban neighborhoods have walkable commerce nearby. I have never lived in a city. And yet, I've never lived in a place where I couldn't walk to at least a supermarket. Currently I live in ve…

Its not a generalization. This is what suburb sprawl means: https://www.treehugger.com/understanding-suburban-sprawl-409... The no.1 factor is single-use zoning. This means people live in a certain zone, and commerce happens in another zone. No amount of personal anecdotes will affect this fact.

It is a generalization to assert "Suburbia means that every trip out of the house will require a car", when it is easy to show there are counterexamples where this is not true.

One could say "There are suburban areas where every trip requires a car" and that's a true statement. The generalization is not a true statement.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#459

Post by mbar84 »

I remember a work colleague from Canada asking if it was OK that we were walking across a busy street in Frankfurt Germany. I was a bit confused, but said that, Yes it's OK to walk across the street. In retrospect I might have added, you also don't have to ask anybody if it's OK to go to the bathroom. North America is a strange place.
Post reply on HN