Hacker News Reader

Comment by foxes | Hacker News Reader

Urban sprawl catering to the car lifestyle is the mistake. Most major cities that cater exclusively for cars are hellscapes covered in concrete and parking lots. I truly despise car traffic. Cities should be higher density, feature plenty of parkland so you can ride and walk through it, plus end of trip facilities for those bikes, obviously you need some roads for necessary services, but then have an abundance of public transport.

View on HN

As someone who wiped the black dust off his balkony once a week I can tell you the absolute worst I had from living at a major road was the noise.

When I first slept in my new flat it felt like someone lifted a heavy rock off my chest. I hadn't realized just how much the noise affected me.

And I am not a noise sensitive person, in fact Metal and Noise music are kinda a thing I like.

I think cities first and foremost should look out for the people wjo actually live there. Widening roads is the polar opposite of that.

I spent a couple of years living next to a main road. Not a highway, but one of the main routes into London from the south east.

The noise was terrible. It wasn't even that the road was particularly constantly busy, but because it was the "main" road there was always vehicles. And motorbikes. Motorbikes were the worst, by far. Being woken suddenly every hour by someone on a motorbike revving their engine wears down on you night by night.

Living in a very walkable old-inner-city I have essentially zero cars going through the neighbourhood, especially at night. But motorbike and scooters (!) are able to go through and a single scooter is easily able to eradicate cumulative hours of sleep throughout the neighbourhood within seconds.

How these things have not been regulated out of existence by now is beyond me. The only silver lining is that I see more and more electric scooters. As they're starting to make economic sense I hope that the others will phase out, but the old ones will have to be removed by force (of law) or they'll keep ruining people's health (air & sleep) for decades...

I think once electric motorbikes are a bit more viable, internal combustion ones should be banned. I'm sure there's plenty of responsible bike owners, but the bad eggs are _really_ bad. They're so incredibly antisocial in urban environments (and rural too - at my parents house in the mountains you can hear them racing up and down the roads a couple of miles away).

Yeah, I remember a midnight trip to the fort towering over Grenoble. You can see the whole town from 1.1km above and a few km away.

Everything was so calm and quiet from up there... until WRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! a scooter cut through the night. :|

My current situation: I live in an apartment ~30 km away from the next big city (where I used to commute to by train before Covid enabled me to have home office). The house is in a nice cul-de-sac, and when you look out of most of the windows you can't even see a car most of the time (Ok, they're in the underground parking garage between the houses, but out of sight). However, at night, when it's nice and quiet, you can still distinctly hear the buzz of cars, trucks, motorbikes etc. on the freeway which is ~2 km away. Shows that you can't really escape the effects of automobile traffic, unless you want to live somewhere so secluded that you need to use the car to do anything, and add to the problem...

I have just moved from the main road in my neighbourhood (not a major road for the city, but busy for the area), where I was on the ground floor with a bus stop outside and apartment building entrances across the road and next door.

Now, I'm on the top (5) floor, on a much quieter side road, and the different is astounding. I can actually sleep with the window open in hot weather.

https://unevenearth.org/2018/08/the-social-ideology-of-the-m...

What about the disabled and elderly?

What about them?

"pedestrian-first" might be better described as "car-last". "Pedestrianised" areas are usually better for folk with mobility scooters, wheelchairs, mothers with pushchairs and bairns and that.

Less private vehicles with one occupant taking up space means there is more bandwidth for busses and trams etc that can transport many people (and which have ramps for pushchairs, wheelchairs, etc).

A mobility scooter works if you live close or can use transport that uses that. And also if you want one or have access to one, lots of e.g. elderly people don't use them. They're limited to where they can drive and walk an increasingly short distance.

Exactly, removing some private cars from the roads and private car infrastructure (car parks, parking bays, over-engineered roads) means more bandwidth for public transport which those with mobility scooters, prams, etc, can use.

Public transport is less accessible to people who can drive and walk very short distances.

> Public transport is less accessible to people who can drive and walk very short distances.

Perhaps I'm just stupid, but I can't parse the intent behind this response - what do you mean, exactly?

I know an elderly person that:

- does not have a mobility scooter

- cannot walk more than like 20 feet

- is able to drive

So if e.g. their hairdresser was suddenly in a pedestrianised place they would not be able to go there anymore. A bus would not help, they would not be able to walk to a bus stop, the bus might not go near enough to the hairdresser. So in their case the bus is less accessible than a car. I'm not saying this is true in general, as some disabled cannot drive but can get the bus.

Thanks for the clarification.

But - n=1? Seems like this context disacknowledges improvement of infrastructure.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. We should not invest in public transport for the less able because it will inconvenience people who currently prefer to drive or walk?

I didn't say anything about investing in public transport.

In pedestrianised places, you see these people actually walking, or the closest equivalent.

I can run across three lanes of traffic in the 40 nanoseconds of pedestrian green I'm given, or stamp on the pedals when cycling so I can make a turn in 25 mph traffic. My dad can't - so the majority of the town, for him, doesn't exist.

Those groups are exactly the people most screwed over by car-friendly design, and using them as a reason to push it more is rather poor taste.

Are the disabled and elderly supposed to be able to wield two ton death machines better and safer than an electric wheelchair or walker?

Not everyone who struggles to walk more than 20 feet wants to use a scooter (or can even afford one), many elderly people in that situation already have a car, and many of them are able to drive relatively safely. Like people with respiratory or heart issues.

And right now they have the option to use a mobility scooter or a car, if they lose the option to use a car then there will be places that will take a lot longer to get to. I think it's reasonable for people like this to prefer being able to drive everywhere, it gives a huge amount of independence and is clearly can be more convenient than public transport.

And there is a dignity aspect as well, I don't know how seriously people will take that argument but I understand that many older people would avoid doing trips rather than using a mobility scooter. I think that deserves consideration as well.

I think there are reams of people living in cities like SF, NYC, and DC that are retired and make do without a car. In fact, I would bet that the elderly live better lives on all metrics when they are able to live carless in a walkable neighborhood.

Cars probably do help them kill their dignity- at the expense of their grandchildren's quality of life.

A lot of accusations flying around here about my intent. But just bear in mind that I have a particular person in mind that I know is unable to visit anywhere in pedestrianised places. They do not have a mobility scooter, can only walk like 20 feet, are able to drive still.

So my comments are not motivated by some kind of hidden agenda, I am just thinking about someone who has apparently fallen through the cracks of the desire that some people have to make cities less accessible for cars.

It's a consideration I voice when I get the opportunity, and hopefully it will be factored into whatever planning happens. Not all elderly people like using mobility scooters, can afford them, want to spend extra time getting public transport etc etc.

Remove all parking spots instead of those for disabled people and your issue is resolved. No one will drive into the center unless they're disabled because they won't be able to find parking. So you can massively reduce car lanes, speed limits, etc. and thus effectively pedestrianizing the area.

It is possible to have it both ways. Look at some of the city design in the Netherlands. The YouTube channel "https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes" is a great start.

There is a large number of disabled people that are physically unable or legally not allowed to drive, but can get around pedestrian spaces and public transport just fine. This includes most wheelchair users and blind people.

The point is already moot.

Also if you can use a car, you could use a mobility scooter or electric wheelchair, and you will greatly benefit from denser, more developed pedestrian areas featuring amenities such as elevators.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com