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

441–450 of 713 posts

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

#441

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

closeparen wrote: post #377
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how Muni trains close their doors and pull one foot out of the station just to wait at a red light There are safety and scheduling reasons for this. They are not merely trying to snub riders. For example, the light rail trains here have a standard for how long they open their doors at each station. It's something like 14 seconds. A vehicle with open doors will also allow passengers to disembark; it's a two-way pass…

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The space is for drivers. The rules governing the space are tuned for the predictability and convenience of drivers. The light rail is just a slower, less maneuverable, very timidly driven car that we're all sharing. It wasn't like that in The Netherlands. Urban spaces where the LRVs operate have few cars and fewer traffic lights. The train moves like it means business and anyth…

Well, I suppose if you want to seize on one reason out of several, then I suppose you win. I could've easily have said that pedestrians also expect the same sort of behavior at a red/green light.

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

#442

Post by brightlancer »

swexbe wrote: post #125
vorpalhex wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've discovered a core disagreement point in safety, "good for everyone" versus "good for the individual". Yes if I live near a road I want trees/big fence/whatever so drunks don't take out my house. Yet if everyone does that, the number of traffic fatalities increases. Of course it's a much harder stat to deliver who died and why versus just optimizing a single fatality count. This problem ruins a lot of really ni…

No sympathy for drunk drivers. A non-intoxicated driver would slow down in a more risky driving environment.

> A non-intoxicated driver would slow down in a more risky driving environment.

Unless they were distracted by a phone, the radio, a passenger, putting on make-up, etc.

Or fatigued.

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

#443

Post by rewmie »

jeromegv wrote: post #308
kccqzy wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But did they explain why?

You need a certain amount of revenue to be able to afford a car. Easy way to get rid of indesirables at night

Undesirable what? Undesirable paying customers?

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

#444

Post by ClumsyPilot »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #359
kccqzy wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But did they explain why?

Pedestrians are not served at drive-through windows at least in part because they are more dangerous to the workers. A driver at a drive-through window can't open their door, the window is very close to the drive-through kiosk but the kiosk is usually much higher (in a sedan) making it hard to climb out through the car window...they've also got a license plate. During the pandemic most fast food places locked their l…

This kafkesque nightmare sounds like it came from soviet-union style central planning

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

#445

Post by sershe »

rewmie wrote: post #439
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'm not sure you noticed you actually said you'd rather have enjoyable but infrequent events in one place than basic mundane and recurring chores. A honest, objective comparison would be between going to a store in, say, LA or Amsterdam, and going to a lake or nice big park in LA or Amsterdam. In Amsterdam, you can go to stores on foot without any issue. Not in LA. In LA you need to drive for hours to go to any of th…

Going to the store - I'd prefer to drive in LA on an average day of the year.

For the mid-range activities we have to compare like with like. For some low-mid range activity (like a local park) indeed, walking in Amsterdam would be more convenient. Something more remote/infrequent (e.g. a specialized gym like a climbing gym or a large pool), I'd prefer to drive rather than take transit.

As for the surrounding area it doesn't really depend on the city itself, LA is surrounded by desert and mountains, Amsterdam is in one of the most historically agriculturally productive (and so, densely populated for centuries) and flat areas in Europe. If LA was built like Amsterdam, it'd still take forever to get anywhere interesting outside of the city.

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

#446

Post by JJMcJ »

A major street like El Camino or Stevens Creek (to take Silicon Valley examples) will be 100 feet curb to curb. With right turn on red, and even worse, left turns active while the pedestrian walk light is on, crossing them is a harrowing experience.

Not only undignified but it feels very dangerous.

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

#447

Post by gedy »

hfgjdssaghj wrote: post #221
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.

> 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. A car driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian walk into a café and order ten cream cakes. When the waitress places them on their table the car driver grabs nine of them and scoffs them in his face, then he leans over to the pedestrian and whispers: “don’t let the cyc…

I get it, but affluent Bikeys are often insufferable and have a chip on their shoulder. To pedestrians and other bicyclists as well.

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

#448

Post by Kuinox »

xyzelement wrote: post #436
Kuinox wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because you live in a car centric place. In a well designed city, a car is optional. I recommend watching Not Just Bikes videos on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes/videos

You might have missed or forgot the start of my post where I told you I lived in NYC (an immensely walkable city) without a car for 20+ years. And that I gave it up quickly and gladly for a more car-based life once kids came. The whole point of my post is a shift in perspective. Just curious, how many kids do you have?

I did not missed it, but you describing it as a walkable city was funny. I don't have kids, but you also watched 0 video of the person I sent. They do have kids. Also, lots of inhabitants of Paris, Amsterdam have kids, yet a lot simply don't have a car.

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

#449

Post by Aeolun »

reducesuffering wrote: post #401
vivalasvega wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, then, those officers could get safer jobs doing something else, if they are unable to perform their duties. Or perhaps it could be harder to drive around freely with and conceal a deadly weapon. We have a lot of options other than "just let people break the law, I guess".

> Perhaps, then, those officers could get safer jobs doing something else, if they are unable to perform their duties. Do you have this same energy for every hazardous occupation? Like when workers protest dangerous working conditions? Do you also advocate they "could get safer jobs?"

Well, “make conditions safer” has historically not gone down well in the states.

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

#450

Post by xyzelement »

Kuinox wrote: post #448
xyzelement wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have missed or forgot the start of my post where I told you I lived in NYC (an immensely walkable city) without a car for 20+ years. And that I gave it up quickly and gladly for a more car-based life once kids came. The whole point of my post is a shift in perspective. Just curious, how many kids do you have?

I did not missed it, but you describing it as a walkable city was funny. I don't have kids, but you also watched 0 video of the person I sent. They do have kids. Also, lots of inhabitants of Paris, Amsterdam have kids, yet a lot simply don't have a car.

Sure. I grew up in eastern Europe and most people didn't have a car - because they couldn't afford it.

The few lucky ones that had one used it all the time. I can totally imagine having a kid in NYC or Paris or whatever without a car it's just a pain in the ass.

Post reply on HN