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

421–430 of 713 posts

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

#421

Post by kaibee »

PaulHoule wrote: post #417
Gibbon1 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the more modes of transportation you mix together the worse the cognitive load on people. And it get rapidly worse the higher the density. Inside of a mall where there are only pedestrians is very safe. Freeways are fairly safe. Protected bike lanes are safe. Light rail is safe. Mix all of those on a strode, rail, buses, trucks, cars, bicycles, pedestrians, not safe.

I'd consider Amsterdam, where many kinds of transportation are carefully weaved together https://www.google.com/maps/place/Schiphol+Amsterdam+Airport... In that area you will find highways, surface streets, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, trams, commuter trains and other kinds of transportation in a way that comes across as elegant, at least to me.

I think they still keep them as fairly separate networks, even if they highly overlayed and so have many intersections.

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

#422

Post by burnished »

sershe wrote: post #396
tvaughan wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I often find myself trying to explain to people back home just how miserable and even humiliating the pedestrian experience is here. Same. I’ve lived in Los Ángeles and Amsterdam, and it is impossible to explain to my friends and family just how awful the quality of life is in LA precisely because of the difference in attitudes and priorities over cars. Perhaps some have “nicer” (aka bigger) houses in LA than they…

Subjectively worse, not objectively worse. I think driving is much more convenient and nice for most things I like to do. The only exceptions I can think of are if I were a kid in a car-centric area (strangely, the thinking in the US is usually reversed, kids supposedly need to be in the burbs), or if I was drunk. I don't often get drunk, so I'd prefer to drive for everything from minor groceries to outdoor activitie…

Normally I'd agree with your pedantry, but seriously have you been to LA? "Objective" feels like the right qualifier in this case

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

#423

Post by JackFr »

carlob wrote: post #324
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…

> Well under 50% wear helmets. > As a pedestrian in NYC I feel far more endangered by bikes than I do by automobiles. how do you make those two follow?

They don’t immediately.

One is not a consequence of the other. However, the first is an observation in support of the idea that in general many cyclists eschew rules including those that exist for their own safety.

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

#424

Post by sershe »

kaibee wrote: post #419
sershe wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find I'd much rather drive to the mountains, or a lake, or at least a nice big park, and recreate there. Walking to a store in Amsterdam or Munich or Vancouver or Moscow was neither much fun nor a lot of exercise.

> I find I'd much rather drive to the mountains, or a lake, or at least a nice big park, and recreate there. This is not a sustainable solution to population level health needs, even if maybe in your particular situation you do actually get enough vacation days and free time on weekends to be able to do this (I also doubt this).

Well, a more sustainable solution is everyone exercising at home whenever they want in the way they want, or going for a run around the block. Going to the store by car + going for a run, is still faster and more convenient than walking to the store (per unit of exercise - e.g. driving to the store 10 times and running 2 miles vs walking 0.2 miles to the store).

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

#425

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

fnimick wrote: post #318
grecy wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time a politician anywhere in the world suggests adding more freeways or more lanes to freeways, I think they should be forced to live in LA for a year and do a ~1 hour commute each way in traffic. They need to see first hand what happens when you just add more freeways and more lanes. It's not good.

I had a conversation recently with someone lamenting that we didn't have roads like LA here in Boston. Saying their ideal road was 3 lanes, plus a bike lane, plus a bus lane in each direction. Imagine being a pedestrian trying to cross that! I really don't understand someone who looks at that traffic disaster and wants to build the same thing here at home.

They're a car-centric person who wants the "nuisance" of bikes and busses out of their way while still pretending to have progressive values. People who only drive from garage to shopping center and back, never having to experience the dehumanizing impact of 6+ lanes affecting other transport modes.

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

#426

Post by fnimick »

pdonis wrote: post #384
fnimick wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's there, but here's more evidence and data to back up the assertion that suburbs are a net drain on city finances, with more cost than tax revenue from properties: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/4/16/where-did-the-...

This article isn't saying suburbs are a drain on cities. It's saying that cities have overextended themselves because of skewed incentives imposed on them by government policies (the main one being printing money to fund real estate development). The solution to that is not to abolish suburbs. It's for the government to stop imposing skewed incentives.

The article explicitly highlights modern car centric development as not paying for itself.

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

#427

Post by [deleted] »

ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote: post #286
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…

Tinted windows are such a pet peeve of mine. I get it in the tropics but in most of America the individual benefits of dark tint seem like they’d be outweighed by the collective good of better visibility through cars, enabling eye contact with drivers, etc. The SUV craze is really to blame - in general many US states don’t allow dark tint on traditional cars but do on SUVs. And since rear windows on vans and light tr…

[deleted]

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

#428

Post by brightlancer »

dymk wrote: post #331
vorpalhex wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure and we can fix computer security by confiscating all computers. Not much of a realistic fix, is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Mass transit will NOT reduce auto transit: any driver who chooses to take mass transit will be replaced by a new driver on the road.

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

#429

Post by xyzelement »

I didn't have a car between college and my late 30s. I thought I was a pro-walking chauvinist but turns out I was just a single guy living in NYC. Within a year of our first kid, I was living in the burbs with a large SUV.

Anti car people tend to be single or at least childless and they fail to understand that the majority of Americans aren't like them. About 40 percent of households have kids under 18, ie 60-80% of American adults have kids of the age where having a car is immensely helpful. So while these people also recognize that it's annoying to press the button to turn the light green or to walk around a parked car, those are nowhere near the top of their life's concerns.

So I think the "we want" is a bit presumptuous in the headline. The guy who wrote the article is a city councilor and an avid biker but what he doesn't seem to be is a parent, so his concerns are skewed a certain way vs the mass of the population.

Like I said, I get the love of walking and walkable spaces, but I see now that this is way more interesting when you are single. As a parent you also get excited about things like tossing all your groceries into the trunk.

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

#430

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

vegetablepotpie wrote: post #348
ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tinted windows are such a pet peeve of mine. I get it in the tropics but in most of America the individual benefits of dark tint seem like they’d be outweighed by the collective good of better visibility through cars, enabling eye contact with drivers, etc. The SUV craze is really to blame - in general many US states don’t allow dark tint on traditional cars but do on SUVs. And since rear windows on vans and light tr…

I was surprised by SUVs being able to have more window tint, and I looked it up, and you’re right [1]. For windshield and drive side windows it’s the same as a sedan, but for rear windows it can be darker for passenger comfort. Apparently in Alabama at least, the manufacturer determines the designation [2]. So you might be able to call Subaru about the Impreza and have them call it “an SUV” to get that sweet rear win…

This wouldn't be as much of a problem if "crossover" hatchbacks were properly classified as cars as they should be.
Post reply on HN