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

71–80 of 713 posts

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

#71

Post by eastbound »

davidktr wrote: post #37
OO000oo wrote: post #2

The same can be said for virtually any societal change. Want people to proactively fight climate change? It turns out guilting people doesn't work, but give them a dignified existence and they will immediately care about the world they live in.

Is that so? The most dignified, people with the most money, are also causing the most desctruction. I find it odd to say people are fighting climate change if they actively contribute to climate's destruction. Doing it for a short time with a clearly stated end date would be one thing. However, almost nobody emits less than the crucial threshold of 2 t CO2/year. At some point you have to admit that if you aren't doin…

Yes. I pollute because I’m a leftover. Give me a wife, children and love and I’ll care for others. Such things as people being scorned do exist.

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

#72

Post by adra »

OO000oo wrote: post #2

The same can be said for virtually any societal change. Want people to proactively fight climate change? It turns out guilting people doesn't work, but give them a dignified existence and they will immediately care about the world they live in.

Nah, with people who can produce 10's-100's more pollution per person than others, making an individual choice to do better makes little difference.

Certainly learning to make small choices in the right direction (stop denying local net zero energy projects, switch away from heavy fossil fuel consumption vehicles, etc) are important individual contributions, but ultimately nothings going to get done en mass until nations start bullying each other into compliance.

South Africa is a generally developed nation and its entire energy grid are almost entirely coal. The US is pretty hard on global carbon energy initiatives because they're now a net positive oil and gas producer? Lower priced net zero tech will certainly steer the narrative as time goes on, but will it be fast enough to kill greedy self-interest in the status quo..

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

#73

Post by PaulHoule »

goda90 wrote: post #36
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even a lot of the anti-cycling stance comes down to, “What am I, poor?” I agree with the overall point that people don't want to cycle because the experience sucks, but your description feels like an unnecessarily inflammatory way to say "people are willing to pay for a more pleasant experience". Nobody says "a lot of the anti-cheap laptop stance comes down to, "what am I, poor?".

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

There is this story that nobody takes the bus in L.A. but when I go there and ride the bus the bus is always full. It is not bad at all to ride the bus from Beverly Hills to Hollywood but the bus does not stop at Rodeo Drive, you have to pick it up on the next street over.

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

#74

Post by bryanlarsen »

mikenew wrote: post #53
arrowsmith wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I'm in a new city I love to go for an aimless walk with no destination in mind just to get lost, get a feel for the place and see what I discover. Then I visited the US and quickly realised that this is a terrible idea in pretty much any American city.

There are a few exceptions but yeah, it's bad. I remember visiting Houston and asking the hotel receptionist which way to walk to get to some restaurants a half mile away, and it was clear that no one had ever asked that before. And sure enough it was a terrible experience.

I don't think it's possible to make Houston pleasant for walking outside, it's too hot and humid. Houston uses the same solution to avoid the weather that Toronto does -- tunnels connecting buildings. You can walk for 6 miles underground in Houston.

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

#75

Post by JDEW »

pharmakom wrote: post #48
closeparen wrote: post #3

This lens is underutilized in the discourse, but people feel it acutely. Even a lot of the anti-cycling stance comes down to, “What am I, poor?” When you are using transportation infrastructure that’s designed with contempt for you, you know, and you don’t want to be there. See also: rail slow zones, buses that shimmy and rattle violently on imperfect pavement, how Muni trains close their doors and pull one foot out…

A great post. My only nitpick is that Amsterdam isn’t a particularly good example of active travel in NL.

Why not? I’ve lived there for years, and although it’s not perfect, I think it’s very easy to get around both walking and cycling.

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

#76

Post by dghlsakjg »

arrowsmith wrote: post #29
mikenew wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has not been my experience. I'm lucky to live in a very walkable part of a very walkable city, and almost every time someone comes to visit I find they've disappeared within 24 hours to "explore the area". These are people who virtually never walk anywhere unless they have to, but you put them in the right environment and they almost can't help it.

When I'm in a new city I love to go for an aimless walk with no destination in mind just to get lost, get a feel for the place and see what I discover. Then I visited the US and quickly realised that this is a terrible idea in pretty much any American city.

Some American cities? Yes. Any American city? no.

Leaving out the obvious cities (NY, Boston, DC Mall), I can think of half a dozen cities off the top of my head that have great walkability: Denver, Boulder, Portland, OR, Seattle, Chicago, Portland, ME, etc. I have wandered for hours in all those cities.

American cities have a higher proportion of unwalkable areas, but unwalkable areas exist in every city. I suspect that what is happening is that you are staying in areas of the city that aren't very walkable.

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

#77

Post by User23 »

JDEW wrote: post #75
pharmakom wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A great post. My only nitpick is that Amsterdam isn’t a particularly good example of active travel in NL.

Why not? I’ve lived there for years, and although it’s not perfect, I think it’s very easy to get around both walking and cycling.

Maastricht, to give one example, is considerably nicer for walking and cycling. Remember GP isn't saying it's absolutely bad for walking and cycling, just that Amsterdam isn't great by NL standards. And it's not.

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

#78

Post by TulliusCicero »

OfSanguineFire wrote: post #70
TulliusCicero wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah, and they suck there too. In Munich, there's a lot of protected bike lanes, but also some painted ones (especially closer to the city center) and the painted ones sucked. No way would I ever bike with a six year old on those, like I did on the protected lanes.

Would a child or elderly person feel comfortable on such a lane? Generally, no. They're not accessible, and generally a waste of space.

It's largely municipalities cheaping out on infrastructure, because outside of, say, the Netherlands, biking is a second class citizen at best, and often more like third class.

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

#79

Post by dahfizz »

Guvante wrote: post #33
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even a lot of the anti-cycling stance comes down to, “What am I, poor?” I agree with the overall point that people don't want to cycle because the experience sucks, but your description feels like an unnecessarily inflammatory way to say "people are willing to pay for a more pleasant experience". Nobody says "a lot of the anti-cheap laptop stance comes down to, "what am I, poor?".

Nothing about the post you responded to says "people are willing to pay for a more pleasant experience". The closest is "people aren't willing to pay to improve an unpleasant experience" which isn't related to purchasing a laptop in anyway.

OP's whole point is that paying for a car is a much more dignified and enjoyable way to travel.

And then the tax base doesn't want to pay to improve public transit, because they already have a car.

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

#80

Post by jeffrallen »

I liked lots of this, but I really disagree with the night shot. What about the dignity of the people living along the bright (overly) lighted sidewalk, who lose their dark skies and dark bedrooms?

Street lights suck, and should be absolutely minimized, and turned off at 22h. If you feel intimidated by the dark, you can solve that for yourself: don't shine your fears into my windows.

Post reply on HN