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

151–160 of 713 posts

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

#151

Post by whimsicalism »

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…

> 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.

I grew up in close contact with a large urban poor population and I think the view of bikes was the exact opposite of this. Biking in the city is considered the purview of affluent white people

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

#152

Post by rz2k »

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…

I have a pretty strong anti-cycling stance, because I watched my New York neighborhood that was a pedestrian paradise significantly degraded by bike lanes. The balance of walking, subways, busses, taxis and delivery trucks had worked pretty well. Bicyclists introduced the concept of failing to yield, then acting indignant and entitled.

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

#154

Post by smodo »

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.

From an American perspective it could be. Amsterdam is the largest city in our country and it still pulls together walking, cycling and public transport in a way that doesn’t suck. Of course smaller towns have it easier in some ways because of the way Dutch towns are historically configured. What makes the large cities interesting is that they are somewhat metropolitan and still have the Dutch vibe.

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

#155

Post by paulcole »

psunavy03 wrote: post #6
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…

> 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…

> for the vast majority of Americans, this is a totally unrealistic ask for day-to-day life. Either because of urban design or else living somewhere rural enough where it's infeasible.

They can convince themselves it’s infeasible, but it is very feasible. It’s just a matter of wanting it. I wanted it enough to make it work. They don’t.

That’s 100% fine — I lie to myself about plenty of stuff to get through my day. Everybody does.

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

#156

Post by whimsicalism »

rz2k wrote: post #152
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…

I have a pretty strong anti-cycling stance, because I watched my New York neighborhood that was a pedestrian paradise significantly degraded by bike lanes. The balance of walking, subways, busses, taxis and delivery trucks had worked pretty well. Bicyclists introduced the concept of failing to yield, then acting indignant and entitled.

Failing to yield to pedestrians where?

e: Actually, not going to get into it but c'mon - cars kill pedestrians in a way that bikes rarely do and removing the cars from your NY neighborhood would have an obviously better impact on pedestrians compared to the bikes.

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

#157

Post by TulliusCicero »

paulcole wrote: post #146
TulliusCicero wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

People can still do things that suck if they want to do those things enough. If you want to walk and have two legs that work, don’t whine about wishing walking didn’t suck. Get out and walk.

> People can still do things that suck if they want to do those things enough.

Yes, but why would they when a thing is painful and unpleasant? There's other ways to get around or get exercise, people will default to things that are nice and convenient.

> If you want to walk and have two legs that work, don’t whine about wishing walking didn’t suck. Get out and walk.

Incredibly nonsensical dismissal. Let's see how silly your reasoning is:

"Americans just don't wanna walk, no matter what."

"People don't do X because it sucks, if it didn't suck more people would do it."

"Doesn't matter, suck it up and do it anyway loser"

Wow, we sure learned a lot there. Do you teach gym class maybe?

We're talking about a systemic problem. Insulting people isn't gonna get the population to walk more, shockingly enough.

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

#158

Post by patothon »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #109
wnc3141 wrote: post #96

I think what's being noticed here, as in many urbanist conversations, is that our urban conditions are primarily reflective of the vastly unequal socio-economic structure we have at large. In places where the working poor are the most disadvantaged, there also tends to be the highest auto dependency. (Think American South, Panama City, Panama etc) To Soap box for a moment, almost all of our problems are reflective of…

Don't agree with this at all. On one hand, it's kind of a tautology - sure, if you're in a city that is very car-dependent, it's a disadvantage to the working poor because owning a car costs money. But in the US there are also (usually older) cities with relatively great public transportation that are more walkable that also have enormous amounts of wealth inequality. Doesn't really have anything to do with inequalit…

Poor people can’t live in the places you’re describing so they’re going out of the public transit coverage

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

#159

Post by TulliusCicero »

Silhouette wrote: post #119
TulliusCicero wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given the conditions around the Mediterranean in recent weeks I'm not sure citing Barcelona as an example of why cities don't need trees to be walkable will be a convincing argument. Barcelona is a great place but it's also horrible to walk around at lunchtime on a hot summer day.

And yet, there's way more walking going on there on average than in typical US cities. That's my point.

Just like snow can be an impediment for biking, and yet Oulu Finland has way more biking than US cities with much milder climates.

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

#160

Post by TulliusCicero »

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…

> Yet if everyone does that, the number of traffic fatalities increases.

But without trees they might run into someone walking or on their porch/front yard.

Post reply on HN