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

171–180 of 713 posts

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

#171

Post by rufus_foreman »

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #86
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?".

There's an ad in rotation right now on a popular local radio station where the whole bit is that character A's car isn't working, and character B talks about the great deals at a specific car dealership. "Don't walk," he exclaims and he shares the gospel of car ownership. Literally, the whole framing is that walking sucks and is embarrassing :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmXn01PbAss

Hey! Don't settle for walking.

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

#172

Post by JackFr »

whimsicalism wrote: post #156
rz2k wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cyclists in NYC are positive menace. They don’t need to be but they choose go the wrong way down one way streets, routinely ignore all traffic signals, ride on busy sidewalks and eschew bike lanes to weave in and out of heavy traffic. Well under 50% wear helmets.

As a pedestrian in NYC I feel far more endangered by bikes than I do by automobiles. There is room for cyclists, but there has got to be some compliance with rules.

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

#173

Post by TulliusCicero »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #76
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.

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…

> 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.

I don't think any of these cities have great walkability. They have acceptable walkability in certain areas, but great? Not even close.

A lot of Americans just have really low standards for what they consider walkable. Even in the core of larger US cities, walkability is often worse in practice than random little villages in, say, Germany.

Like, I live in the Seattle area now, and when I head to the denser areas, walking is okay, sure, but it's not especially pleasant the way it is in Munich. Walking in Munich was just nice, compared to a city like Seattle there's just typically wider sidewalks, more 'pedestrian plaza' type areas, more buffer between walking areas and cars, fewer cars, slower moving cars, roads are narrower and easier to cross, more pedestrian islands, more walk/bike cut throughs, fewer pedestrian 'beg buttons', the list goes on and on.

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

#174

Post by wantoncl »

whimsicalism wrote: post #156
rz2k wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NYC bike messengers. And rollerbladers. Not sure how it is now, but in the late 90's they were exactly as the other poster described. Fail to yield, swerving in front of buses and flipping off the drivers if they honked. Utter contempt for everyone else. I was in far more danger of getting injured by them than any vehicle, and this was Manhattan traffic.

Plenty of stories of grandmas getting knocked down by rollers and bikers in Central Park back then too.

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

#175

Post by mlinksva »

voisin wrote: post #144
mlinksva wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like mature trees and love walking among them (e.g., downtown Sacramento). In 99% of the US more trees would be better (and I try to contribute by planting an acorn or other tree seed when I spy a place a sapling might not get mowed, wherever I go). But I still consider more trees a distant second to buildings closer together, without room for trees (or, as typical, empty space or junk). If there's room for many ma…

You can have buildings close together but have wider pedestrian paths with densely planted trees in front of the buildings. That’s the ideal.

You can, and that's better than 99% of places, but my ideal is denser still.

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

#176

Post by digdugdirk »

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…

"Muni trains close their doors and pull one foot out of the station just to wait at a red light"

What is the reason for this? I see it all the time in metro areas, and it always blows my mind that traffic lights aren't synced with the tram schedules.

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

#177

Post by whimsicalism »

wantoncl wrote: post #174
whimsicalism wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NYC bike messengers. And rollerbladers. Not sure how it is now, but in the late 90's they were exactly as the other poster described. Fail to yield, swerving in front of buses and flipping off the drivers if they honked. Utter contempt for everyone else. I was in far more danger of getting injured by them than any vehicle, and this was Manhattan traffic. Plenty of stories of grandmas getting knocked down by rollers a…

> I was in far more danger of getting injured by them than any vehicle, and this was Manhattan traffic.

Sorry but the stats just don't bear this out.

I've lived in dense cities my entire life. Stories, anecdotes, etc. do not reflect the reality of what is more likely to cause you harm.

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

#178

Post by whimsicalism »

renlo wrote: post #169
whimsicalism wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a New Yorker, with cars on the road I have a reasonable expectation of where they might be coming from or what direction they're headed (ie, they're following traffic laws). With bikes, they can (and do!) come from any direction, on the sidewalk, riding the wrong way on the road, wrong way in the bike lanes, etc. These bikes could be considered as motorcycles (ebike designation is a legal one), they often go 20mph…

I think with e-bikes we've entered a new equilibrium that will take some time to shake out. It used to be that the fastest bikers on the road were usually the most experienced, this is no longer the case and as a street biker I have noticed it causing more danger.

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

#179

Post by barney54 »

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.

One problem in the United States is that transportation planners apparently think that buses are for the poor and people won’t ride them. Instead they want to build expensive light rail or subway when a good bus system would be much better, flexible, and affordable.

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

#180

Post by pclmulqdq »

whimsicalism wrote: post #156
rz2k wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think you've been to NYC in the last 5 years or so if you think that bikers aren't routinely failing to yield to pedestrians. The worst and most dangerous culprits are the people whizzing around on e-bikes with a complete disregard for pedestrian safety or traffic laws.

The drivers in NYC are comparatively safe. They drive relatively slowly (compared to other parts of the country), pay attention to pedestrians, and obey traffic lights and signs.

Post reply on HN