We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#341

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 30, 2018, 7:28 PM UTC

woolvalley wrote: post #278

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". It's more like the other way around: the idea is to make public transport cheap and efficient enough that it's a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere. >> For example I live in a very public transit friendly city, but…

It's probably because you have the NHS and socialized medicine, which would probably house the mentally ill homeless in some sort of mental hospital? I'm guessing the OP post lives in SF or maybe LA, where the mental hospitals were dismantled because of scandals in the 70s or 80s. There are 2 kinds of homeless, normal people down on their luck, and people who need psychiatric or addiction care. The normal people go u…

[deleted]

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#342

Post by dang » Sun, Jul 01, 2018, 4:41 AM UTC

gjs278 wrote: post #229

peterwwillis wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they do have that responsibility. They're supposed to wash their hands. That's the #1 way to stop the spread of viruses and bacteria. We also require they put their garbage into garbage cans and out to the street every week, so that the streets aren't literally covered in contaminated waste, like they were a century ago. We also require they call the police when a crime is occurring. And the fire department when…

you are so incredibly full of shit it hurts. you don't have to call the police if you see a crime. you can stand there and let it happen. this is iamverysmart material, and it won't cost an extra $1.50 in local taxes. like the other commenter said, sign off and go fix it yourself, it will at least spare us from having to read this self righteous drivel.

Personal attacks aren't allowed here, regardless of how wrong or annoying another comment is. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't. If you'd (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and only post civil, substantive comments, we'd appreciate it. The idea on HN is to have a slightly higher quality level than "internet special".

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#343

Post by dang » Sun, Jul 01, 2018, 5:57 AM UTC

ManFromUranus wrote: post #335

btingle wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my original comment may have been a bit too snarky. But countries like the US could absolutely be doing more for their poor and downtrodden than they currently do. And yes, I guess I am fine with spending "other people's money" (AKA money belonging to people who don't need it) if it means that the quality of life for those with the least advantages was improved.

>But countries like the US could absolutely be doing more They could do more for sure. But it's a bottomless pit. The more you invest the more "poor" people are "pulled" into orbit of the programs requiring more spend, which brings more poor which requires more spend ad inifinitum. > I am fine with spending "other people's money" (AKA money belonging to people who don't need it) Oh ok then, I just decided that you do…

Could you please not use HN for political and ideological flamewar? It's not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#344

Post by MagnumOpus » Mon, Jul 02, 2018, 1:52 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #265

AcerbicZero wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. It's amazing how much damage medium single axled, and heavy multi-axled vehicles do to the roads, and while emissions from those vehicles are better than they once were, its still not great.

You can't ignore the reason the trucks exist in the first place. The trucks exist because towns and commercial spaces are spread out, and they're so spread out because of cars. It's sort of like saying that cars don't emit CO2, burning gasoline does. The gasoline is burnt to operate the cars. Trucks deliver products to our car-centric landscape. If everybody lived in cities we'd only need a fraction of the trucks.

You could however internalise the costs they cause by charging road taxes based on the amount of street damage a vehicle causes.

This might actually create unexpected side effects, like semi trucks with 12 axles instead of 3 - but that would be a genuine contribution to lowering the costs of repairing roads!