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

#351

Post by bsanr » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #331

mac01021 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will if car taxes increase. And if ridership increases enough, then bus commute times will be reduced a great deal.

People will pay a lot for the convenience - I think of all my coworkers who need to go pick their kids up from school to take them to soccer practice after work - that's really hard to do commuting.

Is it? Robust transit systems are efficient and don't take much more time. If it's substantially longer, maybe we need to look at our work attendance policies to account for the increased transit time? (We already needed to do that anyway, considering how little of the average workday is spent on actual work, and how much less the average labor hour is worth today compared to a few decades ago.) And how old are the kids? Alien as it is to suburbanites, city kids often get around by themselves (often in groups) by the end of elementary school.

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

#352

Post by pmichaud » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #232

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…

As a pedestrian (or cyclist), you should always give way to cars, even being prepared to jump out of the way when you have the right-of-way. Unless the driver is intoxicated, they get inconvenienced with higher insurance premiums for a little while at worst, while you get stuck with life long injuries and pain at worst.

Pedestrian culture in that area is weird. There's a general region which I think centers on Berkeley, but definitely includes Oakland, in which pedestrians have right of way (in some cases legally, in others just culturally/in expectation).

It makes driving pretty stressful because it makes people much less predictable. When I commuted to Berkeley I would often joke/not joke that Berkeley pedestrians were trying to make me kill them with my car.

But a different weird thing is that being a pedestrian in Berkeley turns you into one of those people who is trying to die by car. I was more cautious than average (read: acting like a normal pedestrian somewhere else), and it was annoying and maybe dangerous for everyone else.

That may not seem clear, but it's analogous to someone being "nice" at a 4-way stop and letting everyone else go even if it's your turn. It's not "nice," because it delays and confuses everyone who now has to cautiously navigate a potentially dangerous situation instead of just following a simple procedure.

Similarly, cars stop for people in Berkeley. That's how it goes. If you act like they don't, then you get awkward standoffs between people and cars each not trusting the other to go first, all while traffic piles up behind the cars, and other pedestrians are now interleaving in between the cars in the jam. If you're on foot, you should just step out into road and cross it, after a perfunctory check, otherwise you're gumming up the works.

I don't like it, on either side, but it's not possible to unilaterally do better. You just have to go with it.

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

#353

Post by wool_gather » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:31 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #331

mac01021 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will if car taxes increase. And if ridership increases enough, then bus commute times will be reduced a great deal.

People will pay a lot for the convenience - I think of all my coworkers who need to go pick their kids up from school to take them to soccer practice after work - that's really hard to do commuting.

The kids need to be picked up in a car partly (largely?) because there's no alternative. Given increased public transit, they may be able to get themselves to soccer practice.

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

#354

Post by bsanr » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #344

jliptzin wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it possible that we don't have mandatory driving tests once you reach certain ages, ie 80, 85, 95+? I just heard the other week that my friend's great-great grandma (98 years old) is still driving. If someone that old can still drive safely, good for them, but there should be a mandatory test to check that.

Here's some data to inform: https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuri... From this, 60s is peak age range for driving safety. In the 70s people are still good. 80+ are still pretty good in the "All crashes" and "Injury crashes" categories (a little better than people 25-29, a little worse than people 30-39), but they are really bad in "Fatal crashes" -- even a little worse than 16-17yo. Digging int…

>Police-reported

So the parent established that, in his case, a crash took place but was not recorded by the police. Police are known to give the benefit of the doubt to certain classes of people, leaving incidents that they cause outside of formal records and review. Is this a widespread phenomenon that could skew the data presented in your citation? I think that's worth investigating.

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

#355

Post by astura » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #331

mac01021 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will if car taxes increase. And if ridership increases enough, then bus commute times will be reduced a great deal.

People will pay a lot for the convenience - I think of all my coworkers who need to go pick their kids up from school to take them to soccer practice after work - that's really hard to do commuting.

Kids could walk, bike, or use the bus/train if the infrastructure was there.

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

#356

Post by borkt » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

pmichaud wrote: post #352

stronglikedan wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a pedestrian (or cyclist), you should always give way to cars, even being prepared to jump out of the way when you have the right-of-way. Unless the driver is intoxicated, they get inconvenienced with higher insurance premiums for a little while at worst, while you get stuck with life long injuries and pain at worst.

Pedestrian culture in that area is weird. There's a general region which I think centers on Berkeley, but definitely includes Oakland, in which pedestrians have right of way (in some cases legally, in others just culturally/in expectation). It makes driving pretty stressful because it makes people much less predictable. When I commuted to Berkeley I would often joke/not joke that Berkeley pedestrians were trying to m…

Are you talking about outside of crosswalks? Because in all of California the pedestrian has the right of way at any crosswalk and even at unmarked intersections.

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

#357

Post by 9dev » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

u801e wrote: post #175

rocgf wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the feeling you do not know what good cycling infrastructure looks like.

If it requires cyclists to act like pedestrians and is only safe to use at pedestrian like speeds, then it's not good cycling infrastructure.

In Munich, where I live, for example, we have bike lanes on the sides of most streets throughout the town, and dedicated bike paths in the countryside. It's wonderful - cyclists can drive safely the speed they'd like to, without interfering with neither cars nor pedestrians. I use my bicycle almost exclusively for anything up to 20km.

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

#358

Post by astura » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:44 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #251

gavia1 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "full control"? The average driver does not have the experience nor the training to maintain full control at all times. For example, consider a situation where the driver has to correct understeer, or lift-off oversteer, both relatively easy to achieve in cold, wet conditions.

You're never supposed to operate your vehicle outside of your comfort zone where you know you'll be able to react correctly and optimally. If the conditions are sub-optimal and you think you might not be able to handle your car correctly in case of emergency you should drive slower or not drive at all. I won't pretend that I've always been a perfect driver, quite far from it actually, but I don't think the law should…

Most people think they can handle their car in situations where they absolutely can't.

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

#359

Post by cafard » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:46 PM UTC

digitalengineer wrote: post #325

jliptzin wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it possible that we don't have mandatory driving tests once you reach certain ages, ie 80, 85, 95+? I just heard the other week that my friend's great-great grandma (98 years old) is still driving. If someone that old can still drive safely, good for them, but there should be a mandatory test to check that.

Perhaps because the generation making the laws are baby boomers? (And don’t want to loose their access to their cars?) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/17/generation-soc...

My late mother-in-law's neighbor drove until something over 90, which pretty much nobody thought was a great idea. I don't think the boomers of Pennsylvania did anything to enable this except leave the laws unchanged.

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

#360

Post by adley » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 4:47 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #331

mac01021 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will if car taxes increase. And if ridership increases enough, then bus commute times will be reduced a great deal.

People will pay a lot for the convenience - I think of all my coworkers who need to go pick their kids up from school to take them to soccer practice after work - that's really hard to do commuting.

True. And even with public transit, activities like taking kids to soccer practice / music school requires carrying some equipment along. Not really convenient lugging duffelbags if there is more than one kid.