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

#301

Post by 49531 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

tmux314 wrote: post #298

There is no doubt that we are over-reliant on cars. We (Americans) spent the last century towards developing automobile infrastructure. Now with global warming, it will take many more years to undo the damage. We can agree over that. But focusing the blame on car companies and the wealthy one-percenters is historical revisionism. It undercuts the fact that these policies were eagerly supported by lower-middle class a…

You're just passing blame away from the people who are directly responsible for the excessive usage of cars to the users of cars, which solves even less.

If you want systemic change you need to approach systemic levers. Focusing on individual action is much less effective than focusing on the people who have power to change laws and reach the minds of consumers.

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

#302

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

caconym_ wrote: post #269

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe fancy urban planning can help, but it's a band-aid on a deeper problem, at least where I live: drivers are ignorant and have bad attitudes not suited for the responsibility of operating motor vehicles. Which is more likely? a) everyone is irresponsible b) your definition of "responsible" is not in line with everyone else's

Given my observations of how frequently and flagrantly (and objectively ) drivers (and other road users) break laws put in place to keep all the users of our public infrastructure (including themselves) safe, I'll have to go with a). If your definition of being responsible explicitly allows for breaking such laws, you may want to re-evaluate it. I'm not interested in hearing the word "anecdotal", either. Check out DU…

Oh quit your puritanical hand wringing.

Average people can drive in an average manner and go years or often decade, sometimes entire lifetimes without screwing up badly enough to attract law enforcement attention or get in a crash. We as a society have determined that is mostly good enough. Most people are satisfied with the current level of risk/reward of driving and unless improvements come with minimal trade-offs people are for the most part not interested. Society at large does not demand the same religious adherence to traffic rules as you do.

More people were killed by fires (a hazard that most people would not consider to be a Big Problem(TM)) in 2016 than in crashes related to distracted drivers.

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/fire_death_rates.h...

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

#303

Post by qwerty456127 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:23 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 Russia you are also guaranteed (unless you have friends in power) to spend some years in prison if you hit a pedestrian. Even if the pedestrian was crossing the road at an inappropriate place where you couldn't even see them. But this doesn't help much, Russian drivers still are crazy.

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

#304

Post by jdavis703 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:24 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #258

myspy wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a reason why cars have to vanish from cities.

Then cities have to radically change. I don't know how people can ever commute from the current urban sprawl to their place of work without them. Cities would need to build massive bus and rail infrastructures at the cost of billions or similar amounts are going to have to be spent to increase densification. I chose where to live because of a desire to be able to commute easily - the bus is 10 minutes, walking is abo…

I've had three jobs where I commuted from 10-30 miles over public transit. All those long commutes were either suburb to suburb or from city to suburb via reverse commute. There’s no need to drive a car if you’re commuting to a fixed location and you live in the burbs or the city.

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

#305

Post by at-fates-hands » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:24 PM UTC

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…

First time I visited my cousin in Illinois, they took me into Chicago for dinner at a pizza place and then to show me the rest of the city. During dinner, my cousin told me not to slow walk when you cross the street. As soon as the light changes, cars will barrel right into the intersection, so be careful.

Sure enough, I went to cross and my cousin tried to grab my arm and not let me cross. The light was green, but the timer on the crosswalk light was going down from 5. I figured I was good to go.

The light turned green for the cars and I was just about across the street when two cars who clearly had seen me, raced into the intersection. I had to nearly dive to the curb to get to safety and in the process both drivers shouted at me to get the F out of the street.

I turned around petrified and saw my cousin and uncle were laughing hilariously at my introduction to being a pedestrian in Chicago.

I'm sure there are still many cities where cars will (wrongly) always have the right of way; regardless of whether there are people in the crosswalk or not and don't care if someone gets clipped or run over in the process.

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

#306

Post by DocTomoe » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:27 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #190

vonmoltke wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of similar places in Europe. I don't see how this says anything useful.

well, i did claim that if i can live without a car in san diego i can do it anywhere. dannyw does have a point about places like montana likely being a lot worse. i can't think of any places like that in europe. european cities are simply not that spread out. so unless you live on a farm far from everywhere, you should be fine.

In Europe, urban centers are prohibitively expensive to live in if you want to avoid living in a slum.

Imagine if every city was San Francisco, especially in realtion to income.

In the end, I can live somewhat comfortably if I commute, essentially trading my time for lower crime rates and nicer surroundings.

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

#307

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #304

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then cities have to radically change. I don't know how people can ever commute from the current urban sprawl to their place of work without them. Cities would need to build massive bus and rail infrastructures at the cost of billions or similar amounts are going to have to be spent to increase densification. I chose where to live because of a desire to be able to commute easily - the bus is 10 minutes, walking is abo…

I've had three jobs where I commuted from 10-30 miles over public transit. All those long commutes were either suburb to suburb or from city to suburb via reverse commute. There’s no need to drive a car if you’re commuting to a fixed location and you live in the burbs or the city.

What were your long commutes? 1-2 hours? Why would people accept that when a car can do that in a quarter the time?

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

#308

Post by hk2001 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:29 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #262

dalbasal wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a practical consequences of urban "design." In Amsterdam, Rotterdam or den haag, a 5km radius is a large area that captures a large chunk of the city. In Houston or LA, a 5km radius is a very small area.

I felt the same way on my bike in Tokyo.

Tokyo is hyperdense despite its massive size. I think the point is less "what percentage of the city can I reach easily on a bike" and more "how many places of interest can I reach easily on a bike". In metropolises in Europe or Japan, 5km contains a lot. In the lower density, sprawling cities of North America, there isn't nearly as much utility to the places you can travel to within 5km.

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

#309

Post by francisofascii » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

DaveInTucson wrote: post #27

According to Wikipedia [0], the number of MV-related deaths has been right about 10 or 11 per 100,000 per year for the last ten years. Which makes the opening claim "Americans are condemned to lose friends and relatives to traffic violence" seem particularly overwrought. And while the legal system may have been of some help, I rather suspect the main reason cars took over is because they give the user a tremendous am…

Motor vehicle-related injuries are the leading cause of death for people ages 5 through 34 in the United States. Also, the injuries are substantial. In the US, 2.7 million emergency department visits from motor vehicle accidents each year. I am not suggesting we eliminate cars, but the US has gone way, way overboard and thus actually "reduced" our freedoms. Congestion, car dependency, and lack of alternatives is not freedom.

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

#310

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 3:31 PM UTC

I am unconvinced about this claim.

The legal and political and taxation system in Denmark is anti car and pro public transportation and have been for decades.

We are talking 200% taxes on the cars and constant reduction of roads in the big cities, constant expanision of public transportation.

Yet cars for most people in Denmark is very important.

Cars are the perfect balance between flexibility, scaleability, speed, utility etc.

This is why cars win, not because of some conspiracy.