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

531–540 of 713 posts

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

#531

Post by praxulus »

itsanaccount wrote: post #524
sershe wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I don't want to! I literally just walked to the store and it was in absoute perfect conditions - we wanted to go for a walk anyway, the weather is perfect (sunny but not hot), the store is 10min walk from my house, the neighborhood is nice and not drive-thru so there is ~0 non-local traffic. The plan was we go for a walk, and pop by a store and get one item. But as usual it never ends up being that way, so we had…

[flagged]

I'm an anti-car urbanist, but this kind of comment makes me embarrassed to be one. Different people like different things. The fact that something is bad for the climate doesn't magically make it unpleasant for everyone. That remains true even if they accept the climate impacts.

It's true that the inevitable conclusion is that we can't rely on individual voluntary actions to solve climate change, but the obvious plan B is government regulation, not vigilantism.

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

#532

Post by Guvante »

brightlancer wrote: post #442
swexbe wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Non-intoxicated drivers do slow down in less forgiving environments though.

It isn't that accidents are impossible but the impact speed if you were doing 30 mph is livable. If you were drunk doing 60 mph it wouldn't be.

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

#533

Post by Lammy »

grecy wrote: post #310
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…

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.

Ironically the reason LA's freeway traffic is so bad is because so much of the system was left unfinished: https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-forgotten-freeways-20141...

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

#534

Post by Guvante »

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #378
Guvante wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can cost tens of thousands to remove a single tree. No shot those reasons would justify millions in tree removal fees. However the huge budgets for roads could do it trivially. You underestimate the impact of measuring fatalities as the only way of verifying success of transportation policy... Certainly if other benefits were weighed properly it might not happen but if you ignore the upsides... (certainly we histo…

Closer to where I work, over the four-year period ending one year ago, we had one tree per year fall during the Winter season. The period ended when the campus arborist did a detailed check of all the trees in the immediate area, and a number were removed. In the wider area, this part Winter had multiple trees fall. Not tree limbs, entire trees. One came down in front of a minivan carrying a local bus driver & his su…

I don't mean never remove trees.

I mean that we removed healthy trees in the name of safety.

Certainly verifying the health of trees and removing those that aren't healthy is a good thing.

My point is removing all trees within X distance on a non-highway was common practice.

Certainly clearing for highways is good as well.

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

#535

Post by bit_logic »

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…

People in this thread are really talking past each other. I've been to the nice Asian mega cities with great and clean subways and buses. And I've lived in the American suburbs. You can't make the American suburbs like the mega cities by just making them walkable.

Everything in a mega city works together to make transit work. Those tall buildings? They provide great shade no matter how sunny it is which is critical for walking to bus stops and subway stations. Also, the walk itself is so much more interesting, random stores to stop at and places to eat and go to. Density makes transit work.

You can't just put random stores in a suburb and make it "walkable" and expect the same thing. Just as everything in a mega city works together to make transit work, everything in a suburb works together to make cars work.

We need to give up on the mass transit solutions that work for dense cities (subways and buses) for suburbs. It's a waste of money and completely the wrong solution. It hasn't worked for decades and never will.

Shut down bus systems for suburbs and use the government funds to give out ride sharing (either Uber or government run) credits for everyone to use (low income can get more credits). That's what a suburb is designed for, point-to-point travel such as cars. And invest massively in real protected, useful bike lanes and stop trying to kill e-bikes with regulations (which a lot of cities are trying to do). e-bikes are finally a real alternative to cars in suburbs, it has just the right amount of travel speed and ease to challenge the car, but it's already under attack. Ride sharing credits and e-bikes, these are the solutions for suburbs. Stop trying to fit a square peg (buses and subways) into a round hole.

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

#536

Post by EarthMephit »

sershe wrote: post #489
aesclepius wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus it's objectively worse. NY/Chicago/London/Paris/Tokyo you can conceivably and easily nip out to a grocer's, bodega, cafe or pub within 10 minutes of where you are. LA? Outside of certain certain pockets like DTLA, KTown, WeHo or similar walking is tough and if your friend is across town you're SoL without a car.

But I don't want to! I literally just walked to the store and it was in absoute perfect conditions - we wanted to go for a walk anyway, the weather is perfect (sunny but not hot), the store is 10min walk from my house, the neighborhood is nice and not drive-thru so there is ~0 non-local traffic. The plan was we go for a walk, and pop by a store and get one item. But as usual it never ends up being that way, so we had…

That's because 10 minutes away is too far, that's almost a mile, and it becomes a chore.

I live a block from a store, and its much, much easier and more plesant than going to the effort of getting the car out, driving somewhere, having to find a parking spot, etc... Driving's a pain in the arse.

A decently walkable suburb/city would have a store within a block or two, maybe a five minute walk.

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

#537

Post by causality0 »

vivalasvega wrote: post #386
Aerbil313 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the city people who think moving five feet every thirty seconds and bathing in an ocean of car horn noises is somehow compatible with human life. Some even manage to enjoy it. I did not believe anyone actually wanted, let alone enjoyed the misery of modernity until I experienced one such person firsthand. It blowed my mind, I was in shock for a straight day. The guy genuinely "liked" the new Transformers movie…

Respectfully, who made you the arbiter of taste? Are people not allowed to like movies and foods and environments that you don't? Isn't it great that the world has something for everyone?

This argument becomes recursive almost immediately. He criticizes their opinion; you criticize his opinion of their opinion; he criticizes your opinion of his opinion of their opinion, and so forth.

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

#538

Post by makapuf »

labster wrote: post #526
makapuf wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, current level of car usage is absolutely unsustainable with current co2 emissions targets, even with electric cars if they use coal.

Climatologist here, basically everything is unsustainable if you use coal power. If we’re lucky we can keep steel production and that’s about it.

So we'll still be able to build steel bike frames ;)

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

#539

Post by Moldoteck »

lionkor wrote: post #219
smodo wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the point. Maintaining car infra is expensive, so owning a car should be expensive and discouraged. That's why there using a car to get to a destination usually is much slower compared to a bike. Cars are still allowed for the people that either really need them or don't need them but are willing to pay extra But I agree that Utrecht is a better city bc of less tourists and even more bike infra

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

#540

Post by wheels »

SoftTalker wrote: post #511
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not gonna lie, having a 10 minute walk ruined by carrying a bag home sounds like you maybe need to deadlift less and cardio more or something. Or maybe get better bags? Walking to stores is an advantage because it allows for a density of services unavailable if parking lots are a serious consideration for businesses. I can go to my local convenience store, and my barber, and a no-waste shop, and my local bar, all in…

Yeah if you're going to walk with groceries, use a mesh or canvas bag with handles, or a grocery basket/cart if you're buying more than a few items. Carrying paper bags sucks because you have to hold them in your arms and support the bottom of the bag.

In many countries adults just continue to wear backpacks. One of the things I keep in my backpack is a big IKEA bag, meaning I'm pretty set for shopping on foot (or bike, which is more common for me). Medium sized purchases go in the backpack, larger things go in the IKEA bag.
Post reply on HN