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

#411

Post by albedoa » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:44 PM UTC

wil421 wrote: post #260

albedoa wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your one example incident involved a stopped school bus and the death of a child back in 2009. That you recall the result as being extraordinary ten years later should reenforce the representation.

How often do you think this happens within 2 miles from your house? This is my example locally. The GPs comments were implying it wouldn’t happen in Europe without manslaughter charges and the US it they wouldn’t be charged. It can happen in the US with similar charges, vehicular homicide. My comment is valid.

> How often do you think this happens within 2 miles from your house?

How often do I think what happens? I live in Boston. So depending on what you are asking, the answer is probably too damn often, which is the point. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20403831

> My comment is valid.

Oh okay.

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

#412

Post by caconym_ » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #374

caconym_ wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> puritanical > religious Nice. Your point has regressed from "most drivers aren't irresponsible" to "most drivers are irresponsible but it's fine". If you can support the former with hard data, great, let's see it. The latter is an opinion; it's one I do not share, and it's not something I'm interested in discussing because there is zero chance of that discussion bearing any sort of fruit.

There's no regression whatsoever. I am telling you, your definition of "responsible" (and by implication irresponsible) is not shared by society at large. I have told you this in several ways. Since apparently my last way of phrasing it wasn't easy to deflect now you're trying to straw-man me. What sort of citation do you want? You said ~3k people are killed by distracted drivers and implied that it's a regular occur…

Pro tip: projection and strawmanning aren't good substitutes for reading comprehension skills, critical thinking skills, and the ability to form cogent responses in a discussion.

It is my sincere recommendation that you work on the latter three, or possibly on your ability to simulate them when you aren't arguing in good faith.

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

#413

Post by Trilkhai » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

crunchyfrog wrote: post #297

Another result of this culture that I wish the author would have addressed is how cars have changed how we raise our children. We are forced to keep our children inside because all our houses are surrounded by rivers of death. Why are we surprised that young kids spend all their time sedating themselves with screens? What choice have we given them? We have designed our living spaces to be ideal for cars, not humans.…

That's certainly the case in the densely-packed public-transit-friendly cities where the only option to being inside is either a sidewalk or the street. Out in the less-public-transit-friendly suburbs, kids can (and do) run around in their front/back yards or even the street if it's not too busy.

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

#414

Post by anticensor » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #270

pavel_lishin wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way to pass such a law without it seeming agist - because it would be. It seems to me, probably naively, that the easiest way around this would be to require yearly tests for everyone . You're driving a huge honking piece of metal at 60+ miles an hour down the street; a yearly verification of your ability to do so doesn't seem excessive.

I think every two years would work, just like the FAA requires Flight Reviews every two years. For those driving bigger vehicles like commercial trucks, they can have an annual “proficiency check.” If getting a car license were more like getting a pilot license, we’d all be a lot safer.

Then you look for a Bundeswagen rating course after your Rugby car breaks down. (brands are deliberately kept fictional) And you find out Bundeswagen model Z is not a so common type rating, and look for yet another successor of Rugby model B.

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

#415

Post by Trilkhai » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 8:20 PM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #387

I'm vacationing Ireland at the moment, and it really hits me how car-centric it is, and I found the Scottish Highlands be very similar. Quite narrow roads, with hedges or stone fences and very little space for a pedestrian or cyclist. Southern Germany too, although at least they usually don't put hedges/fences right up to the edge of the road. I would hate to walk or bike on those roads, despite the beautiful landsca…

I've always figured that the narrow roads over there were (much like the ones in the older European cities) created long before cars, when people relied on horses or horse-drawn vehicles for transport. Roads designed after cars became common tend to be much wider.

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

#416

Post by u801e » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 8:40 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #406

u801e wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that putting cyclists moving at 10 to 15 mph (14 to 22 feet per second) at the pedestrian position results in situations where neither the cyclist or the motorist see each other until the last second and that results in a collision. This isn't as much of an issue for pedestrians because they're moving slower 3 to 6 mph (4 to 8 feet per second). Also, pedestrians are able to stop much faster than a cycl…

> The problem is that putting cyclists moving at 10 to 15 mph (14 to 22 feet per second) at the pedestrian position results in situations where neither the cyclist or the motorist see each other until the last second and that results in a collision This is why I specified correctly designed: what you're saying is an artifact of a poorly-designed intersection which does not have good visibility or clear traffic flows.

> This is why I specified correctly designed

Even the NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) design guide states:

>> Driveways and minor street crossings are a unique challenge to cycle track design. A review of crossing facilities and design practice has shown that the following guidance may improve safety at crossings of driveways and minor intersections:

>>

>> * If the cycle track is parking protected, parking should be prohibited near the intersection to improve visibility. The desirable no parking area is 30 feet from each side of the crossing. >>

>> * For motor vehicles attempting to cross the cycle track from the side street or driveway, street and sidewalk furnishings and/or other features should accommodate a sight triangle of 20 feet to the cycle track from the minor street crossings and 10 feet from driveway crossing.

The distances quoted should make it evident that, at least in the US, even the guidelines aren't going to lead to "correctly designed" intersections.

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

#417

Post by KozmoNau7 » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 8:48 PM UTC

Trilkhai wrote: post #415

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #387

I'm vacationing Ireland at the moment, and it really hits me how car-centric it is, and I found the Scottish Highlands be very similar. Quite narrow roads, with hedges or stone fences and very little space for a pedestrian or cyclist. Southern Germany too, although at least they usually don't put hedges/fences right up to the edge of the road. I would hate to walk or bike on those roads, despite the beautiful landsca…

I've always figured that the narrow roads over there were (much like the ones in the older European cities) created long before cars, when people relied on horses or horse-drawn vehicles for transport. Roads designed after cars became common tend to be much wider.

That's sort of my point. cars are way too big and go way too fast for a lot of roads, and there is often no room to widen them. So we let the cars squeeze in anyway, to the severe detriment of pedestrians and cyclists.

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

#418

Post by Trilkhai » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 8:53 PM UTC

borkt wrote: post #356

pmichaud wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pedestrians have the right of way in our state in general, but in most of the state they still wait until it's safe (i.e. no cars immediately arriving) before they cross. In Berkeley, especially in the two-lane roads immediately surrounding the university, pedestrians often walk out blindly wherever they please in the assumption that cars will stop. Getting through some intersections takes freaking forever because groups of pedestrians simply ignore the signals, causing traffic to snarl.

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

#419

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 8:55 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #391

ThomPete wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are required BECAUSE cars are base for the sprawl. Again even in Denmark and other places that are extremely pro-public-transportation and anti-car, cars are still used by the majority of people because its the base means of transportation which provides the most benefits when you boil it down. Forcing people to live in big cities with public transportation makes no sense on a continent like America. Public tran…

makes no sense on a continent like America Based on what metrics? Sure, the space is there, but there are real costs to using it the way we do. It is a choice we have made as a society. But, there's no natural law that required us to choose cars or stopping us from reconsidering. As I see it: - cars and the sprawl they allowed made sense at the time - entrenched interested worked to codify the car-based lifestyle - i…

You are confusing two things here.

The discussion is what allowed cars to take over i.e. in the past not what might happen in the future.

Urbanization is a reality ex. because of the way the job market evolves, but the claim that there was some big conspiracy to make the cars take over is simply unfounded and based on very sloppy thinking.

Cars took over because they allowed us to live further away from the big cities which was cheaper and gave us more room and allowed us to build sprawl because the land was plentiful.

It's a combination of things not just some single reason that obviously isn't true which you will see the second you look at other countries who also need cars but doesn't have a legal system that helps.

Urbanization is taking over because of the benefits it offers today. Just because cars might not make sense in the future it doesn't mean that it didn't make sense in the past.

And no matter what, it's not something anyone of us decide to do just because it'something that we do once it makes sense and the benefits outweigh the negatives.

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

#420

Post by joshuaheard » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

WhompingWindows wrote: post #349

joshuaheard wrote: post #340

People drive cars because they are the most efficient mode of transportation. Laws and policy followed. Anything else is a moronic conspiracy theory. Let's just take the two examples in the article. First single family zoning. I would argue that before cars (and cities) people lived on farms and ranches. Cars were not to blame. The trend has been towards smaller living areas, not larger. Second, parking requirements.…

They aren't the most efficient mode of transportation, depending on your definition. In terms of carbon, energy utilized, or even time, in many places walking/biking will beat cars. It's not a moronic conspiracy theory to suggest that bringing a 2 ton wheel-chair everywhere we go is inefficient.

In very few places in America is walking/biking more efficient than cars. The author is not saying autos are inefficient, which is a valid argument, he is saying there is a conspiracy ("automobile supremacy") to supplant other forms of transportation with the automobile. This is simply foolish.