Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives • Hacker News Board

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#151

Post by acdha » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:02 PM UTC

joelhaasnoot wrote: post #124

acdha wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m certain that the police officers the original commented mentioned actually said that they had no grounds even though it is completely incorrect just because the United States is so heavily built around people driving everywhere (and that public transit is for poor, distasteful people). Older people losing their cars is often the start of a decline unto death because there’s so little you can do with driving in ma…

> Older people losing their cars is often the start of a decline unto death I'm not sure this is just because of the way neighborhoods are set up. It's also a lack of social structures to catch this. The richest country one earth, has Uber, yet can't keep healthcare costs low enough to keep the elderly alive longer.

It’s definitely not just that but losing the ability to travel is a big multiplier since it affects your ability to see other people, eat well, exercise, etc. along with getting medical or legal assistance.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#152

Post by Adirael » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:03 PM UTC

systemtest wrote: post #149

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what!? In Europe if you strike a pedestrian on the crosswalk you'll definitely loose your license and be looking at manslaughter charges too while your insurance company will murder you after paying the victim's medical/disability/court bills.

I have hit a pedestrian. Instead of using the nearby crosswalk she walked in between the cars and when she walked in front of me it was too late for me to brake. She flew a couple of meters and landed on the crosswalk. In the police report is was stated that I hit the person on the crosswalk as I couldn't prove otherwise. The woman was taken away in an ambulance due to a broken leg. I was 16 at the time. Really shake…

It does, mostly because Europe is not a country. In Spain you can't drive until you're 18 and they'll take your license away if you're found to blame, even though not forever.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#153

Post by CalRobert » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:05 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #30

living in a big city in europe i was able to live without a car easily, but when i got a job in the US i fully expected that i'd have to learn to drive and get a car to get around. BUT, i managed to get an apartment 10 minutes walking from the office. this was in san diego, of all places, a city which is very spread out. a few months later i moved in with friends and we found a place far north. most of my roommates h…

It is possible, but it is a challenge. When I was in San Diego Car2Go helped a lot (short one-way car rentals), but they're gone now. I cycled from Clairemont Mesa to South Park regularly and that was brutal.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#154

Post by Ygg2 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:05 PM UTC

r3bl wrote: post #137

Ygg2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't the same logic apply to a pedestrian? I mean his goals are getting to some arbitrary location and arriving at that location intact. Why should only the driver carry the responsibility? Driving slower than average increases the driver's chances of getting in an accident. Also, lower speeds aren't guaranteed safety. I know of an accident that occurred around 10-20km/h right next to a hospital, which resulted…

Because your life, as a driver, is shielded by a huge metal can. Pedestrian life is not. Pedestrians can't put your life in danger, while you can put their life in danger. That's why, in "normal" countries, it's always the driver that needs to be questioned by default, not the pedestrian. If the driver proves that he did all he could to avoid the accident, he faces no consequences. If not, he faces them. This really…

> Pedestrians can't put your life in danger

Sure they can. They can increase the likelihood you'll get in danger, by trying to avoid collision with them.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#155

Post by gshdg » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:12 PM UTC

systemtest wrote: post #149

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what!? In Europe if you strike a pedestrian on the crosswalk you'll definitely loose your license and be looking at manslaughter charges too while your insurance company will murder you after paying the victim's medical/disability/court bills.

I have hit a pedestrian. Instead of using the nearby crosswalk she walked in between the cars and when she walked in front of me it was too late for me to brake. She flew a couple of meters and landed on the crosswalk. In the police report is was stated that I hit the person on the crosswalk as I couldn't prove otherwise. The woman was taken away in an ambulance due to a broken leg. I was 16 at the time. Really shake…

Here when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk and gets hit and knocked outside the crosswalk, the police blame the pedestrian for crossing outside the crosswalk. It’s like they don’t grok the very obvious physics of a small object being hit by a larger and faster moving one.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#156

Post by jakelazaroff » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:14 PM UTC

afiori wrote: post #140

imtringued wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reducing your speed increases the likely hood of collisions because pedestrians tend to no care about their safety at all if they can shave off 2 seconds. They don't wait for your car to pass. If you are on the left lane and the right lane is free then they will walk onto the street and anticipate that you will pass them by the time they have reached the left lane. If you reduce your speed then their guess turns out…

In that case you are gonna see them. Aren't you going to slow down if somebody tries to jump in front of your car? A behavior like that should be illegal for both party. The driver is at fault of causing the incident and the pedestrian is at fault of being inconsiderate and a danger to the vehicles (one collision can cause many other collisions) independently from whether the accident actually happened.

This seems like an equivocation. Do you think more drivers or pedestrians are harmed by incidents involving both?

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#157

Post by u801e » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:15 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #119

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what!? In Europe if you strike a pedestrian on the crosswalk you'll definitely loose your license and be looking at manslaughter charges too while your insurance company will murder you after paying the victim's medical/disability/court bills.

I’m certain that the police officers the original commented mentioned actually said that they had no grounds even though it is completely incorrect just because the United States is so heavily built around people driving everywhere (and that public transit is for poor, distasteful people). Older people losing their cars is often the start of a decline unto death because there’s so little you can do with driving in ma…

> Older people losing their cars is often the start of a decline unto death because there’s so little you can do [without] driving in many neighborhoods.

The solution is to replace their car with a vehicle that's less dangerous for others like an electrically assisted tricycle. That can serve their local transportation needs and won't cause nearly as much damage if they hit someone or something.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#158

Post by nickpsecurity » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:18 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #12

Another way of stating this could be "transport is a policy question." How cities are built and what transport infrastructure they're built around. Im fairly sympathetic to the overall aims of this article. I think a transport system more similar to those in the Netherlands makes for better urban landscapes. But... this habitual style of treating everything as a conspiracy, built around a personified enemy ("They gav…

I too don't like the article presented that way. I should note that it was a conspiracy in this case. Automobile manufacturers ran media campaigns and lobbied to make walking across the street a crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM

Most of these are also laws passed by groups of people deciding to control others for a mix of perceived altruistic and selfish reasons. It's not secret but there's people conspiring.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#159

Post by PakG1 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:19 PM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #154

r3bl wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because your life, as a driver, is shielded by a huge metal can. Pedestrian life is not. Pedestrians can't put your life in danger, while you can put their life in danger. That's why, in "normal" countries, it's always the driver that needs to be questioned by default, not the pedestrian. If the driver proves that he did all he could to avoid the accident, he faces no consequences. If not, he faces them. This really…

> Pedestrians can't put your life in danger Sure they can. They can increase the likelihood you'll get in danger, by trying to avoid collision with them.

Mm, even if they "tried to not put their life in danger", they still wouldn't be putting your life in danger... simple physics.

Re: Cars took over because the legal system helped squeezed out alternatives

#160

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:21 PM UTC

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #76

methodover wrote: post #43

“Given New York’s lax enforcement record, the Freakonomics podcast described running over pedestrians there as “the perfect crime.”” I was driving in Oakland when the car in front of me didn’t slow down for a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The pedestrian disappeared in front of the car. I stopped my car, got out, found the struck young woman trembling and bleeding in the street. The speed limit was 30 miles per hour. I…

Wait, what!? In Europe if you strike a pedestrian on the crosswalk you'll definitely loose your license and be looking at manslaughter charges too while your insurance company will murder you after paying the victim's medical/disability/court bills.

In most of the US if you lose your ability to drive you lose your ability to be a functional member of society and outside a few cities with good public transit even the poor drive. Europe has good public transit and their regulations increase the cost of driving to the point where mostly only the middle and upper classes do it. Losing your license in Europe is not as big a deal as losing it in the US.