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

211–220 of 713 posts

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

#211

Post by cstejerean »

degrews wrote: post #106

I moved from Spain to the US, and I often find myself trying to explain to people back home just how miserable and even humiliating the pedestrian experience is here. Here are some other examples of things that I think contribute to the hostile walking experience in the US: * Cars parked in short driveways often extend all the way across the sidewalk. Even if you can easily step off onto the road to walk around them…

The first one doesn't seem unique to the US.

I just spent the last 2 months i Europe and on many side streets there is no place to safely stop a car which means pulling into the sidewalk is the only option. So I frequently had to step into the street to walk around a stopped delivery van or similar.

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

#212

Post by MarceColl »

joshuahaglund wrote: post #163
OfSanguineFire wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprised to hear the bus is always full. I took the Metrolink train from Union Station to San Bernardino recently, during an hour when people ought to be going home from work, and it was spookily empty. The one single other passenger in sight told me it was usually so empty. I thought of how crazy it was to offer this huge rail infrastructure - which really did seem cheap and convenient - for so few people to use.

That line had over 10k daily riders in 2019, before people stopped commuting to office jobs and it dropped to about 1500. https://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/about/agency/facts-... It's still less than half its previous average at 4700 daily riders now. https://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/about/agency/facts-...

that is honestly very little, barcelona is a lot less populated (1.5M) and even during non-tourist season we get 2 million riders per day (not deduped and people coming from nearby areas). I dont have stats of any particular line, but dividing that between the approx number of routes gives you about 50k riders per line. Some routes will have less, some routes will have way more (particularly subway lines)

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

#213

Post by yellowapple »

roboror wrote: post #194
JackFr wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

>As a pedestrian in NYC I feel far more endangered by bikes than I do by automobiles. This is why legislating by "feelings" is a bad idea. Automobiles are a far larger and more lethal risk.

And that risk is mitigated by traffic rules, separation of pedestrian v. vehicular traffic, etc. That goes out the window when you have a category of vehicles that routinely ignores those mitigations.

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

#214

Post by jodrellblank »

roboror wrote: post #194
JackFr wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

>As a pedestrian in NYC I feel far more endangered by bikes than I do by automobiles. This is why legislating by "feelings" is a bad idea. Automobiles are a far larger and more lethal risk.

That isn't why it's a bad idea at all; people don't walk and instead drive because walking "feels" unsafe. Legislate changes to make walking "feel" safer and people will walk instead of drive, and then will be safer because the changes will be things like separated walkways from cars, more guarded pedestrian crossings, road design which slows traffic, and more people walking will mean fewer cars on the road.

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

#215

Post by coldtea »

inconceivable wrote: post #143
xtracto wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Asiatic just means "from asia". It's used for all kinds of things Asian, including animal, plants, artifacts, geography, climate, and peoples.

It's gone out of favor in the US (because people like to change every term with newer versions) but it's still a word just meaning "being from asia".

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

#216

Post by psunavy03 »

evandale wrote: post #91
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…

You really don't need a car. Bikes are awesome. You can ride them with backpacks. Friends have trucks. Money pays for delivery. Source: a normal 38 year old that never had a license

[flagged]

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

#217

Post by coldtea »

inconceivable wrote: post #201
uoaei wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>mexican isn't an ethnicity. it's a nationality

It's both, but as an ethnicity it's subdivided in several cases based on their origin (e.g. "white mexican").

But can also be seen as the future/aspiring all-encompassing Mexican ethnicity through the inter-mixing (cultural and genetical) going on for centuries...

(It's not like "Spanish" in Spain are some pure ethnicity that always existed either, it's one that emerged by combination of several ethnicities).

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

#218

Post by ben_w »

mm007emko wrote: post #188
degrews wrote: post #106

I moved from Spain to the US, and I often find myself trying to explain to people back home just how miserable and even humiliating the pedestrian experience is here. Here are some other examples of things that I think contribute to the hostile walking experience in the US: * Cars parked in short driveways often extend all the way across the sidewalk. Even if you can easily step off onto the road to walk around them…

"Often refuse to serve you" means that they sometimes do? I tried to go through a drive-thru on a bicycle in Czechia and they told me to fuck off.

Was drive-thru the only late night food option in that bit of Czechia? That felt like the pertinent part, not being able to get any in some places.

(Here in Berlin I have to plan around Sunday trading rules in a way I didn't back in the UK, but we have Spätis, so there are options).

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

#219

Post by lionkor »

smodo wrote: post #154
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.

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.

Driving in Amsterdam sucks, parking costs you your leg per five minutes, bikes are very agressive, pedestrians fill the roads because there is more tourism than the city was designed for.

Its one of the worst places in NL I've been, from a driving perspective.

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

#220

Post by piva00 »

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.

You aren't anti-cycling, you are anti-uneducated assholes.
Post reply on HN