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

261–270 of 713 posts

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

#261

Post by 7speter »

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.

I don’t see too many cars mounting sidewalks as I do bikes and scooters do (daily occurrence, not to mention 220+ pound guys who ride around on cheap underpowered scooters in the street), but yeah anecdotal data.

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

#262

Post by cscurmudgeon »

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…

Ah, let us look at the data. In reality, only rich (and white) folks can afford to live in areas that are not car-dependent.

https://granfondodailynews.com/2020/01/17/is-north-american-...

> From 2001 to 2017 the number of people cycling increased the fastest among high income, highly educated, employed, white men between the ages 25 and 44.

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

#263

Post by cscurmudgeon »

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

Thank you! OP's view is a naive outsider's view. Anyone who actually lives in the US knows you need to be rich enough to not be car dependent.

https://grist.org/cities/black-chicago-biking-disparities-in...

In reality, only rich (and white) folks can afford to live in areas that are not car-dependent.

https://granfondodailynews.com/2020/01/17/is-north-american-... > From 2001 to 2017 the number of people cycling increased the fastest among high income, highly educated, employed, white men between the ages 25 and 44.

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

#264

Post by mixmastamyk »

angusturner wrote: post #222

I’m an Aussie, and after living 3 months in LA I think it was the most poorly designed city I’ve ever been to for this exact reason - I felt unable to walk practically anywhere! It felt like my options were drive or taxi. And we know what LA traffic is like. I can’t speak to other US cities, and it is possible that certain areas of LA are less terrible than where I stayed. (But I will say, I was in quite an affluent…

Santa Monica, Hollywood, Burbank, Los Feliz, Downtown, Pasadena, Long Beach, are all rather walkable.

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

#265

Post by DangitBobby »

ben_w wrote: post #218
mm007emko wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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).

After 9 or 10 PM that's exactly how it is here in TN, USA. Dine in is closed and the drive through won't take you on foot or on a bike. I think most franchises have a blanket policy against serving people without a car to intentionally exclude... Certain People.

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

#266

Post by fnimick »

whimsicalism wrote: post #260
fnimick wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor people living in Boston live in Roxbury and Dorchester. Coincidentally, these are the areas with by far the worst car dependency and worst public transit in the city.

I've worked with impoverished Cape Verdean populations in specifically those neighborhoods and lots if not most do not have a car.

Apologies, I was basing my take there on having biked through most neighborhoods and witnessing the worst traffic by far in those areas, so it certainly feels as though the car density is the highest. (It's also the only place I've ever been hit on a bicycle, and then had someone behind me get mad for being in the way while I was picking myself back up)

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

#267

Post by whimsicalism »

jodrellblank wrote: post #214
roboror wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

But bikers are not a large reason people aren't pedestrians.

I agree that a certain level of abstraction 'feel' is important, but we shouldn't legislate by 'feel' about how people 'feel' about bikes, that is one level of 'feel' too many.

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

#268

Post by notquitehuman »

jrockway wrote: post #31
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…

As someone else who is not normal, I have to say I'm a little tired of having my taxes subsidize the roads and sewers for someone who lives in the middle of nowhere and commutes 40 miles each way by car. "But my kids NEED a backyard!" Fair enough, but afford it on your own without a handout from the government.

I wouldn’t mind the wealth transfer if the client jurisdictions’ representatives didn’t meddle in their patron jurisdictions’ local politics. But I suppose it leaves them more to expropriate.

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

#269

Post by 7speter »

whimsicalism wrote: post #177
wantoncl wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The stats dont record whose at fault in NYC, nor do they record when car drivers and pedestrians have to avoid dangerous situations caused by bikers and people on scooters.

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

#270

Post by whimsicalism »

fnimick wrote: post #266
whimsicalism wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked with impoverished Cape Verdean populations in specifically those neighborhoods and lots if not most do not have a car.

Apologies, I was basing my take there on having biked through most neighborhoods and witnessing the worst traffic by far in those areas, so it certainly feels as though the car density is the highest. (It's also the only place I've ever been hit on a bicycle, and then had someone behind me get mad for being in the way while I was picking myself back up)

That sounds awful. Impoverished areas are well known for lacking traffic calming measures leading to higher pedestrian and bike accident, this is certainly true in my home city of DC.

On the flip side, Boston is the only city where I've ever hit a car with my bike.

Post reply on HN