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

If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

streets.mn

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 713 posts

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#61

Post by eddd-ddde »

vorpalhex wrote: post #47
moomoo11 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that be safer? I would rather the drunk driver hit the tree and deal with his/her consequences, than hit my house or my neighbors during our sleep.

You've discovered a core disagreement point in safety, "good for everyone" versus "good for the individual". Yes if I live near a road I want trees/big fence/whatever so drunks don't take out my house. Yet if everyone does that, the number of traffic fatalities increases. Of course it's a much harder stat to deliver who died and why versus just optimizing a single fatality count. This problem ruins a lot of really ni…

The nice thing is there's an even better way of decreasing crash fatalities. Just decrease the amount of driving.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#62

Post by OfSanguineFire »

I spent a few weeks recently cycling from LA to the Mexican border across non-coastal Southern California. Zero complaints about cycling in that part of the USA: I was pleased by how many hard shoulders had been turned into bike lanes, and drivers seemed courteous.

But man, was walking in towns a drag. If I left the bike safely at a hotel and wanted to stroll over to a restaurant or supermarket, every intersection was button-operated traffic lights where pedestrians wait ages for their turn to cross. Then, the pedestrian light flashes for almost too little time to cross the six or seven lanes of traffic. The sheer width of ordinary US roads must have a deterrent effect.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#63

Post by TulliusCicero »

voisin wrote: post #9

If we want a shift to walking, we need cities to plant around 100x the number of trees they have. Ever walk through an old, mature neighbourhood? Usually there are tons of people on the sidewalks, and a primary reason is that there are mature trees providing plenty of shade. Then try walking in a new neighbourhood with barely any shade. It is awful.

That would help, but there are plenty of walkable cities with not-great tree cover.

I don't think Barcelona or Tokyo are gonna win any awards for having lots of trees.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#64

Post by Mizoguchi »

A lot of improvement could be make by just enforcing the laws. Many cities across the US allow sidewalk parking for example. My neighbor has a Tesla Y and his charging station is literally on the sidewalk, he can afford the car but not a house with a garage.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#65

Post by rufus_foreman »

bluGill wrote: post #14
psunavy03 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I say this as someone who at 40 years old has never learned to drive and who has walked/bicycled/taken the bus virtually everywhere I’ve needed to go. I say this with no mockery or disrespect, just description . . . you are not normal. I mean in a statistical sense. Not only are you part of (maybe the last) generation who salivated over the thought of getting a driver's license at 16 and getting away from Mom and D…

Most people in the US live in an urban area, where urban solutions work. Only a small minority live in a rural area, though many living in suburbs like to pretend they are in a rural area.

>> Most people in the US live in an urban area, where urban solutions work

The word "urban" in the US means different things to different people and in different contexts.

For the US census bureau, you can find their up-to-date list of US urban areas at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g..., and it includes areas such as the New York City metro area, at a population of 19,426,449, and Munds Park, Arizona, at a population of 773, and 2,643 other urban areas in between.

By that definition of urban, most people in the US live in an urban area, but that does not mean that the same solutions work for all people in the US living in urban areas. Population densities of 600 people per square mile across a small area require different solutions than population densities of 6,000 people per square mile across a large area.

The wall map version of the list of census bureau urban areas is at https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/DC2020/UA20/UA_2020_WallMap....

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#66

Post by TulliusCicero »

OfSanguineFire wrote: post #62

I spent a few weeks recently cycling from LA to the Mexican border across non-coastal Southern California. Zero complaints about cycling in that part of the USA: I was pleased by how many hard shoulders had been turned into bike lanes, and drivers seemed courteous. But man, was walking in towns a drag. If I left the bike safely at a hotel and wanted to stroll over to a restaurant or supermarket, every intersection wa…

> I was pleased by how many hard shoulders had been turned into bike lanes, and drivers seemed courteous.

But how many are protected bike lanes, instead of just paint? Painted bike lanes are only helpful for relatively confident cyclists, and obviously do virtually nothing to actually protect people on bikes. Imagine if we started replacing sidewalks with painted walk lanes!

> The sheer width of US roads must have a deterrent effect.

Yup. In Munich, not only are roads generally not as wide, but if they're even sorta of wide, they get a pedestrian island or two.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#67

Post by thereare5lights »

xtracto wrote: post #58
goda90 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have literally seen people scoff at biking or riding the bus as something for poor people. It is a common sentiment.

Anecdote time. Ten years ago I (Mexican, living in Mexico, a bit "white-er" than the average Mexican skin color) worked for a Silicon Valley startup with HQs in Mountain View. One time I was visiting said HQ, I met several people, I got to talk with one of them (Chinese/Asiatic looking woman) about how I was moving while I was there, and where was I staying (she didn't know where I was from). At some point I told her…

What a weird thing for her to say given that Asian Americans use public transit in great numbers.

Then again, I've noticed that the ones with money are utterly alien to those of us that don't have it or grew up without it.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#68

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

grzm wrote: post #57
orangecat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The size of packaging and the quantities that people normally buy in are based on the idea that Americans take their car to the grocery store once a week and fill their trunk space with groceries. Yes. My grocery store often has sales where you have to buy 5 of a large and/or heavy product to get the discount. As a pedestrian I have to either forego the savings or have an awkward trip home.

In some countries it’s more common to have items delivered, which can work in cases like this.

Doesn't that just mean someone else is doing the driving?

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#69

Post by TulliusCicero »

paulcole wrote: post #4

The thing is we (as an American society) really don’t want a shift to walking. We like the idea of walking more but won’t actually do it. Instead we’ll make up a million excuses about why we just can’t walk. I say this as someone who at 40 years old has never learned to drive and who has walked/bicycled/taken the bus virtually everywhere I’ve needed to go. And I’ve lived in very rural and very suburban areas, as well…

> We like the idea of walking more but won’t actually do it.

Wrong.

The reason people don't walk is simply because walking mostly really sucks in like 95% of urban or suburban contexts in the states. Even crossing the street once can be a huge pain in the ass sometimes (e.g. strip mall to strip mall across two giant parking lots and an enormous stroad).

It is astoundingly rare to find an actual nice, not-tiny area to walk in, in terms of urban design and points of interest. To a lot of Americans, "has sidewalks" means an area is walkable, which is just...so, so very wrong.

I lived in Germany for five years, and during our annual summer trip back to the states, it was always so sad to see the pathetic state of walking and biking infrastructure everywhere we went. It's like we're not even trying...because, well, we're not. Walking here sucks because we choose to make it suck.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#70

Post by OfSanguineFire »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #66
OfSanguineFire wrote: post #62

I spent a few weeks recently cycling from LA to the Mexican border across non-coastal Southern California. Zero complaints about cycling in that part of the USA: I was pleased by how many hard shoulders had been turned into bike lanes, and drivers seemed courteous. But man, was walking in towns a drag. If I left the bike safely at a hotel and wanted to stroll over to a restaurant or supermarket, every intersection wa…

> I was pleased by how many hard shoulders had been turned into bike lanes, and drivers seemed courteous. But how many are protected bike lanes, instead of just paint? Painted bike lanes are only helpful for relatively confident cyclists, and obviously do virtually nothing to actually protect people on bikes. Imagine if we started replacing sidewalks with painted walk lanes! > The sheer width of US roads must have a…

Painted bike lanes of this sort are quite common in the EU (and even a step up from painted shared lanes), I can't regard the US ones I experienced as inferior. Moreover, because the roads are often as multi-lane and wide as I described, cyclists over in that painted lane might even feel well removed from the main flow of vehicles.
Post reply on HN