Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

greeneuropeanjournal.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 994 posts

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#701

Post by afavour »

mothballed wrote: post #696
afavour wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true at all. Police in NYC are able to remove passengers who are being a nuisance, there just aren't enough of them to police every car of every subway train. In my experience (as an NYC resident) the people causing problems on the subway aren't just being assholes for the sake of it. They're homeless, have mental issues or frequently both. I suspect when you visit Germany or Japan you're seeing…

You don't need police to trespass someone in private transit though. You can just tell them to leave, and if they don't they can be made to leave (depending on the state). If you're familiar with bouncers you understand this function. Expecting a police to be available to every transit disturbance, I agree, is not going to end with a functional outcome.

I'm not sure why there would be a distinction, really. The NYC subway has a specific transit police force who would act as the "bouncers" in this scenario. Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Disruptive passengers can be ejected on public transit.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#702

Post by jandrewrogers »

erentz wrote: post #693
jandrewrogers wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another practical reality that separates the US from Europe specifically with respect to walkability. The US has much more extreme weather in many places. What would be called severe heat or cold in much of Europe, which I've suffered through for the week if need be, is normal weather in many parts of the US for several months on end. You need alternative transportation for those extended periods. Few people…

And yet Seattle has very few pedestrianized spaces for the size of the city. It’s as car dominated and sprawling as any major North American city.

Difficult to call it sprawling given the geography, and I don't know what "pedestrianized" even means here since walking in many neighborhoods is both common and designed for.

There is plenty of accommodation for vehicles in Seattle, that is true. Even people that walk everywhere often own one in order to take advantage of the prodigious outdoor activities for which the region is famous.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#703

Post by Saline9515 »

Earw0rm wrote: post #642
froddd wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data you present does not say that: > 35% des cyclistes tués, 63% des cyclistes blessés gravement le sont dans un accident sans autre véhicule impliqué. 35% of cyclist deaths, and 63% of cyclist seriously injured occur in an accident with no other party involved. Another graph in that report shows that a vast majority of cyclist deaths occur while cycling for leisure. I would hazard that most cycling in cities is…

Yes, this will be the road racer guys (it is mostly guys) screwing up while descending an Alp or Pyrenee. Split-second safety margins and if you get it wrong on a 60kph descent - or someone else gets it wrong, or you suffer a mechanical failure - you're likely dead.

A city is a much more dangerous environment. You have bollards, stupid pedestrians who keep on trying to circulate on YOUR sidewalk, potholes, dogs, and so on.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#704

Post by mothballed »

afavour wrote: post #701
mothballed wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need police to trespass someone in private transit though. You can just tell them to leave, and if they don't they can be made to leave (depending on the state). If you're familiar with bouncers you understand this function. Expecting a police to be available to every transit disturbance, I agree, is not going to end with a functional outcome.

I'm not sure why there would be a distinction, really. The NYC subway has a specific transit police force who would act as the "bouncers" in this scenario. Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Disruptive passengers can be ejected on public transit.

You don't see the difference between every driver being able to be a bouncer, and only sworn police being able to be a bouncer?

Private citizens generally can't trespass people on public property. You have to get a policeman and the policeman has to cite a specific policy or law they have violated.

The private system in this case is way more pragmatic since every driver that is already on the bus has bouncing rights.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#705

Post by Gud »

Saline9515 wrote: post #488
Gud wrote: post #367

Writing this on a tram in Zürich. At this hour(peak hours) they depart ever 2-3 minutes or so. Walking distance is 50 meters. It feels great. Now let me hear your objections to why public transport could never work at your location

Public transport usually requires a medium-to-high density to be sustainable. However, it can get saturated - in Paris, the subway and the trams are full for long periods during the day, even at midnight! It makes the experience really unpleasant when you have no alternative.

I'm not really arguing that the world adopts the Paris metro system. First of all, there are turn stills everywhere which is nowhere to be found in Zürich. Why not create choke points and erect this annoying block everywhere in front of people who wish to reach their destination as quickly as possible. Great idea.

In Luxembourg, public transport is for free. Also great.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#706

Post by afavour »

mothballed wrote: post #704
afavour wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why there would be a distinction, really. The NYC subway has a specific transit police force who would act as the "bouncers" in this scenario. Either way it has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Disruptive passengers can be ejected on public transit.

You don't see the difference between every driver being able to be a bouncer, and only sworn police being able to be a bouncer? Private citizens generally can't trespass people on public property. You have to get a policeman and the policeman has to cite a specific policy or law they have violated. The private system in this case is way more pragmatic since every driver that is already on the bus has bouncing rights.

I don't really understand what this has to do with the original discussion. You said:

> It applies to public transit specifically because people have freedom of speech to be assholes

My response to was to say I do not believe that is true at all. Passengers on public transit do not have freedom of speech to be assholes.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#707

Post by Saline9515 »

froddd wrote: post #687
Saline9515 wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bikes and cars. But cars have their own space (the road) and rules (red lights, crosswalks...), whereas cyclists ride at full speed on the pedestrian's space (the sidewalk).

The argument that cyclists (implied: all cyclists) ride at full speed on pavement at all times is akin to arguing that cars (implied: all cars) go over the speed limit at all times. It’s daft at best, and utterly outlandish. You should stop and have coffee in a street shared only by pedestrians and cyclists, and observe the behaviour of cyclists. I have observed it to be mostly slow, controlled, courteous and respect…

I picked up my son today at the kindergarten, and we walked for 25 minutes back home. Here in Riga most cyclists go on the sidewalks, I'd say that 2/3 of them don't respect a minimum 1.5 meter safety distance, and about the same amount go as fast as they can. I stopped and scolded a food courrier (who is incentivized to go as fast as he can) who was slaloming between pedestrians as if it was a game.

No, I don't feel safe at all, and my son can't walk freely either. In Paris it's the same (my wife, who was pregnant then, got hit at a crosswalk by a cyclist who seemed to believe that red lights were for cars only). Even Le Monde published an piece about it!

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/our-times/article/2024/11/17/anti-...

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#708

Post by SilverElfin »

vkou wrote: post #649
SilverElfin wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can gauge how you feel when you walk through the cities and realize something is off with this narrative. I suspect a lot of crimes aren’t tracked or classified properly in the data we see from cities in blue states, to support their policies. Or that victims are exhausted by the lack of prosecution and sentencing, and stop reporting things.

> I suspect a lot of crimes aren’t tracked or classified properly People don't under-report or misclassify homicides . > when you walk through the cities and realize something is off with this narrative. I happen to live in one of those war-torn anarchist cities that was claimed by Fox and friends to be an open charnel pit back in 2020, and I assure you, there is something off with a narrative . Specifically, the nar…

> People don't under-report or misclassify homicides.

They do. I’ve seen games like changing the rules by which deaths are counted as homicides and when. For example by requiring certain things are proven before it can be counted in a reported stat.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#709

Post by goosejuice »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #681
lokar wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Manhattan (Chelsea) and took the subway to work and most other outings (when I could not walk) in the few years before Covid. It was fine. You would get some people trying to sell stuff or in some kind of distress, but it was not all the time and it was easy to manage. Americans who don't live in dense cities (and use transit) seem to be obsessed with the idea that these are some intolerable dystopias that…

I found the density of Manhattan oppressive and stifling. Coming from Wrigleyville, in Chicago, it felt very impersonal and alienating. I ended up buying a house in an internal suburb (a former suburb from the 1930s that had been swallowed by the city) that is also a historic neighborhood (so it's character cannot be destroyed by developers).

Funny, I find Wrigleyville oppressive. I lived by that red line for a few years. It takes a lot of patience to live there.

Re: Pontevedra, Spain declares its entire urban area a "reduced traffic zone"

#710

Post by bombcar »

Earw0rm wrote: post #664
bombcar wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single newborn can be handled without a car (if you spend used car prices on a stroller system!) - but if you have three kids under three, or five under 7, a car greatly simplifies things - or you need to hire additional wranglers. It's not about the good times (on a good day, moving five kids by walking/stroller is easy) - it's about the bad times, the crying, the screaming, the attempted suicides, etc.

Until you're the only adult in the car, driving along the motorway, and one of the kids in the back starts crying / gets car sick / needs the toilet when you're 15km from the next services. Granted, train toilets with a toddler aren't much fun either. Don't need a crazy expensive stroller though. A sling when they're small and light, and once they get big and heavy, they're large enough to go in a more basic foldable…

Singles - I agree. Even doubles, there are reasonable ones.

Find a good cheap triple or higher stroller. Then you're looking at used car prices.

And I agree - a train is nice with a family, because once you're in, you're in.

But a train is more like a plane than a car; it's the subway that's closest to short commuting trips, and they rarely have bathrooms and often subway stops don't have them, either.

(Sometimes the temptation to get an RV with a toilet is high, mind you.)

Post reply on HN