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

701–710 of 713 posts

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

#701

Post by underdeserver »

underdeserver wrote: post #700
chmod775 wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should be stressed? The point might be that environments where you're not stressed because they lull you into a false sense of security tend to kill more pedestrians. You're moving tons of metal at high speeds. Don't get too comfortable doing that.

Why do you assume I'm the driver in this case? I'm stressed as a pedestrian too. You really think it's healthy to be stressed all the time? I live in Israel and we've had pro-democracy demonstrations in a main intersection in Tel Aviv, every Saturday for the past 30 weeks. There are people and bikes all around but no cars and no motorcycles. It's ridiculous how calming it is to be on the street and not have to worry…

Also, when I'm on the freeway, though I'm moving tons of metal are even higher speeds, I'm somehow less stressed. I'm alert, I'm actively driving, but less stressed - because the frequency of surprising events happening is low. In the city there are jaywalkers, kids, tiny bikes with no lights, e-scooters, buses pulling in and out of stations, gas scooters cutting you off. It's completely different.

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

#703

Post by tvaughan »

thenewwazoo wrote: post #414
msla wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Los Ángeles Why the accent? Is it not the one in California?

Almost certainly autocorrect. Bilingual devices sometimes forget (or mistake) the language you’re typing in. I’m typing this on a Spanish keyboard, for example.

This is the answer

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

#704

Post by aeternum »

ttymck wrote: post #652
aeternum wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is imprecise and unmeasurable. Do intersections that implement pedestrian scramble somehow increase dignity? I don't know. They do increase pedestrian safety and pretty clearly give pedestrians priority over vehicles via the exclusive use of the intersection for awhile.

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue improving safety does NOT improve dignity, but I see your point.

I'd argue that. To many having to wear a motorcycle helmet or even a seatbelt is less dignified. As is road workers having to wear a reflective yellow vest.

Dignity is weird, some people consider school and other uniforms dignified, many others consider them an affront to free-expression and for them being forced to wear it is an affront to dignity.

If the goal is max dignity, perhaps pedestrian crossings should simply play here comes the chief or long live the king as you cross.

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

#705

Post by elric »

eredengrin wrote: post #361
elric wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The light won't make you safer. It might make you feel safer, which is a different thing entirely.

Not sure I buy that. [0] has some data to suggest that light decreases crime, and there's also common sense. If you can see a potentially sketchy situation a block down, it gives you the chance to take a little detour and perhaps avoid it entirely. The light also allows more witnesses, more people to step in if needed, more people to call cops if needed, and more chance for cameras to be effective. [0] https://www.st…

Strikes me as a load of hogwash. Witnesses are next to useless. The more people witness a crime, the less likely any one of them is going to help, i.e. the bystander effect.

Street lights also don't increase visibility all that much, they increase visibility in the lit areas, at the cost of reducing vision in the unlit spots because your eyes don't have time to adjust.

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

#706

Post by danny_codes »

balfirevic wrote: post #435
danny_codes wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in a well-designed city, you could just walk to all those things. From my house in Berkeley, CA, daycare is about 400 meters from my house. There are two fields of soccer-ing size, one about 10 minutes away and one 25 minutes by foot. The grocery store is a 4 minute walk, my hairdresser is a 1 minute walk, CVS is a 3 minute walk. I also have an amazing park with play structures, basketball courts, tennis courts,…

> There's nothing special about where I live except that it's development predates the automobile. Seems like there is, and it's that it's very rich? Because something like this: > an amazing park with play structures, basketball courts, tennis courts, large gracy field, a creek, picnic areas, and such about a 1 minute walk away. doesn't exist in the entirety of my city, which also predates cars. Also, do you mean a…

> doesn't exist in the entirety of my city, which also predates cars.

Really? You have no parks in your entire city? How is that possible? I don't think that's a wealth problem, sounds more like a governance problem to me.

I live in a quadplex on a mixed-density Street. I'd guess there's a 1000 housing units within a 5-10 minutes walk. I'm sure people come from further away as well though.

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

#707

Post by danny_codes »

lelanthran wrote: post #562
danny_codes wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well in a well-designed city, you could just walk to all those things. From my house in Berkeley, CA, daycare is about 400 meters from my house. There are two fields of soccer-ing size, one about 10 minutes away and one 25 minutes by foot. The grocery store is a 4 minute walk, my hairdresser is a 1 minute walk, CVS is a 3 minute walk. I also have an amazing park with play structures, basketball courts, tennis courts,…

> Well in a well-designed city, you could just walk to all those things. You may call it well-designed, but I think that all those close amenities you are enjoying is a side-effect of high-density living for high-income people. After all, no matter how well you design a place, that (for example) hairdresser still needs enough people who can afford the service to live within walking distance so that it can turn a prof…

> That's true for most places.

Sorry I wasn't specific enough. Predates the automobile AND (mostly) wasn't destroyed for the automobile.

Lots of America was built before cars but was subsequently destroyed for cars. Those areas aren't what I was referring to.

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

#708

Post by danny_codes »

fnimick wrote: post #426
pdonis wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My man is using a strategy I fondly refer to called "burning the head in the sand"

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

#709

Post by iggldiggl »

sershe wrote: post #696
wizofaus wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I basically waste no time at all travelling - I do it mostly by bike which is obviously beneficial health wise, and if I do take a train or bus I use the time to read etc. (plus walking to/fro stations/stops is, again, a positive use of time). The objective downsides in the amount of infrastructure dedicated to allowing everyone to drive everywhere is surely seen in the cost of maintaining it, and the impacts it has…

Cycling commuting distances/speeds, especially European-style, only counts as exercise for very sedentary people. Walking is barely exercise at all.. in the same time one could drive and also do some real exercise. Reading does make transit less bad, but usually only works on a familiar (no need to check for stops), transfer-free commute that's not very crowded. Otherwise if you time overhead vs reading (I've actuall…

> Cycling commuting distances/speeds, especially European-style, only counts as exercise for very sedentary people.

Which I'd wager includes a sizeable fraction of the population. I also remember seeing a study in Germany some years ago where they found that exclusive car commuters had the highest average BMI and bike commuters the lowest. Granted, it was not a massive (ahem) difference, but definitively a few kilos…

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

#710

Post by msla »

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…

And this ableist anti-pedestrian shit is still here. Wonderful.
Post reply on HN