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

661–670 of 713 posts

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

#661

Post by dymk »

brightlancer wrote: post #428
dymk wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Go read the page you just linked, but more closely. Induced demand is relevant to adding more car lanes, not dedicated bus lanes and other off-grade transit.

Civilized countries already solved this problem.

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

#662

Post by maxbond »

maxbond wrote: post #648
johnnyanmac wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, I feel you started the molehill by replying to someone who was (also) frustrated by getting a reply about someone slashing their tires because of a small life choice (one that they DIDN'T do, in this instance. Just wished they could in the future). I just wanted to touch into the why's and hows of the frustration. It feels like similar results, but had different causes. If you aren't interested,…

Well, from my perspective, I was trying to say it was a mole hill, and you were saying, from this angle it looks like a mountain. I think maybe I didn't communicate tone well enough in my previous comment, I don't mean it to come off as berating you to stop or something. I was saying that, if you understand that painting with a broad brush doesn't work, I'm confused why I see a brush in your hand.

Lemme ask you this.

Do you not think it's likely, if left wing people changed the language they used or otherwise addressed these reasons you highlighted (or likewise if right wing people did the equivalent), that because there was still profound polarization and disagreement, people would kinda find other things to complain about?

If you accept that premise, then does it really matter what things the people who you disagree with do that grind your gears and what it is you find grating about them?

Isn't it more important to try and have a productive dialog, despite finding the people you disagree with grating?

I think almost always when there is something about the way someone expressed themselves that bothers you, it's more a reflection on your preferences than anything else, and it's best to set it aside and try to hear them out anyway. There's no obligation to do so, I'm just suggesting it's the pragmatic and productive thing to do.

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

#663

Post by paul_funyun »

How about more driveable cities? There are a few walkies out there, but a stated preference for walking usually comes down to sour grapes (can't afford a car or a move to the burbs), or poor urban planning making driving more onerous than it should be. Dignity is car ownership and the infrastructure to make the most of it.

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

#664

Post by [deleted] »

paul_funyun wrote: post #663

How about more driveable cities? There are a few walkies out there, but a stated preference for walking usually comes down to sour grapes (can't afford a car or a move to the burbs), or poor urban planning making driving more onerous than it should be. Dignity is car ownership and the infrastructure to make the most of it.

[deleted]

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

#665

Post by fragmede »

paul_funyun wrote: post #663

How about more driveable cities? There are a few walkies out there, but a stated preference for walking usually comes down to sour grapes (can't afford a car or a move to the burbs), or poor urban planning making driving more onerous than it should be. Dignity is car ownership and the infrastructure to make the most of it.

How about not. It's not sour grapes that people prefer walking, and even if you had a government program to give everyone a car, what then? Congratulations, you've just made more traffic. Car's don't scale. They are super convenient and I will admit to having one (sometimes two!). But being unable to afford one doesn't deal with what to do when it breaks down, or gets stolen, or is towed, or gets clamped for unpaid parking tickets. There is no dignity in having a shitbox car that's 20 years old and falling apart and is just threatening to break down on you.

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

#666

Post by sdeframond »

fragmede wrote: post #657
sdeframond wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really wish cars had two different horn I really wish cars didn't have horns. Or that horns would be louder inside than outside for drivers to "feel" it accordingly. 99% of the honks I hear are useless to prevent any incoming danger (too late, honking to say "hi", honking to express displeasure...) I've used the horn once in the last 10 years, and I shouldn't have.

If you want to expand your mind, travel to south east Asia or India for a bit and see a different way of how billions of people live and drive every day.

Yep. I cannot speak for India but I lived in China for a few years. Honking is useless there as well.

It is used a lot, but without actual benefit IMHO.

Edit: perhaps less useless since drivers tend not to look before changing lane. That's another issue.

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

#668

Post by Doxin »

msla wrote: post #391
hfgjdssaghj wrote: post #221

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. 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've been all but shoved aside by cyclists on sidewalks. Don't try that crap with me.

The problem here is not the cyclist -- though that's for sure a dick move -- but the lack of proper space for cyclists to exist. There'll be seventy-two lanes for cars, and maybe one cycle lane which'll end up occupied by parked cars anyways.

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

#669

Post by Doxin »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #241
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…

> 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…

> Our transit authority reminds riders to arrive at the stop 5 minutes early.

For reference, In the Netherlands you only strictly need to be at the stop 30 seconds before departure, as that is when the doors close in preparation for departure.

> Now, other motorists see a train stopped at a station and they think one thing. They see a train stopped and waiting for a red light and they know that it will proceed through on green.

Why in the hell would drivers need to know that? Leave the train with the doors open at the station to allow any late comers to board. When the track clears start the traffic light cycle to stop car traffic, close the train doors and depart. The drivers see a red light and hopefully know to stop, whether or not they can see a train waiting.

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

#670

Post by mbs159 »

paul_funyun wrote: post #663

How about more driveable cities? There are a few walkies out there, but a stated preference for walking usually comes down to sour grapes (can't afford a car or a move to the burbs), or poor urban planning making driving more onerous than it should be. Dignity is car ownership and the infrastructure to make the most of it.

Because cities should be designed foremost for people, not cars.
Post reply on HN