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

201–210 of 713 posts

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

#201

Post by inconceivable »

uoaei wrote: post #200
inconceivable wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's about the equivalent of calling someone 'asiatic', a term used for animal species lmao. of course you probably don't give a shit, and neither do we really care about calling you names either.

There's a difference between using an inappropriate word but describing the same phenomenon, and treating an ethnicity as synonymous with "poor".

mexican isn't an ethnicity. it's a nationality. there are native american mexicans and the whitest of white european mexicans as well as "asiatic" (lmao lol) mexicans.

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

#202

Post by b112 »

dasudasu wrote: post #127
b112 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then try walking in a new neighbourhood with barely any shade. It is awful. Love how south-centric this statement is. In Northern countries, that's true for a month typically, otherwise "oh god please I hope the sun will shine on me". In December, I see 4 hours of sun, where the light gets above tree tops. And that's in Southern Canada! Not a hatred of trees, but a dislike of shade trees. edit: until I visited Texas,…

Southern Canada is at the same latitude as Spain. Sunlight isn’t that bad even in December.

I love north of Ottawa. That's still southern Canada.

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

#203

Post by croisillon »

whimsicalism wrote: post #151
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

in my local facebook bike-to-work group i often comment about Schrödinger's cyclist: "too poor to have a car" according to some haters, and at the same time "too rich to be in a hurry" (because motorists have a real job they're driving to) according to others

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

#204

Post by city41 »

barney54 wrote: post #179
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.

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.

Curious what would be a good bus system? I've only ever lived in the US and can honestly say I've never seen one.

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

#205

Post by Aerbil313 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #178
renlo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where I live e-bikes haven't caught up yet. I need to be mindful of that people get scared of me biking fast close to them on the sidewalk, even though I'm experienced and know that there's no danger. A bike without motors is enough steerable that it doesn't pose any real danger for anyone imho.

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

#207

Post by uoaei »

jeffrallen wrote: post #80

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.

It's as easy as bending and cutting some sheet metal into shrouds so the light doesn't enter residential windows.

My place has this problem and I'm not sure why it does. The solution seems so cheap and obvious to me. Just shape the shroud so the beam only shines downward.

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

#208

Post by inamberclad »

whimsicalism wrote: post #151
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

Out in the (poorer) suburbs, the only adults who bike are those who can't afford a car, or have had their license revoked.

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

#209

Post by coldtea »

selimthegrim wrote: post #182
RealityVoid wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one time I had visited and hadto travel longer distance in the US I took a greyhound and boy, it was a interesting experience. Back home, going by bus was the norm but in the US it's... Really different.

Greyhound is owned by German Flixbus.

That's just ownership though. The conditions, culture, and experience and nothing like in Germany.

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

#210

Post by pdonis »

lozenge wrote: post #198
pdonis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It turns out that offering urban-level services at suburban density isn't sustainable. What do you mean by "urban-level services"? If you mean urban-style mass transit, then yes, I agree--and I don't want such services in the suburbs. If I'm going to live in the suburbs, I'm going to own a car and that's how I'm going to expect to get around in the suburbs. If I wanted to live in a place where I could walk or use m…

They mean water, sewage, roads, pavements, street lighting. See link.

I pay for those with property taxes. Plus a portion of the purchase price of a house is the developer recovering these infrastructure costs when a neighborhood is built.
Post reply on HN