Hacker News Reader

When the second amendment was written, guns were primitive and not much of a problem. Law and order was less institutionalized. People were afraid of being occupied by a foreign government because they recently had been. I agree that if they knew what we know now, they probably would have worded it better. But repealing the second amendment now won’t make things better. We made drugs illegal, how’s that going?

The article you posted said that 97% of the cars on the road are crash tested by the government. I think my statement on that is substantially accurate.

In America, most large urban areas do not have extensive trains. I’ve lived all over this country, the only places I can think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of train from most of the city to the airport are NY, Boston, Chicago. There may be some I’m missing, and even in those cities, they don’t cover the entire area. Probably at least 75% of the country can’t walk from their home to a train and take it to the airport.

America’s infrastructure is entirely beyond my ability to control. I can take a one hour bus ride and read I am sure but I’ve got stuff to do with my day, so I’ll take the 30 minute Uber with no nutjobs yelling at thin air.

I think you’re also getting confused between population and population density. The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. You can bike just fine around our densely populated areas, though our poor bike lane design makes it far more dangerous than driving. The Netherlands has a small population but they live much closer together which is what matters for public transport cost. It would cost an order of magnitude more here to provide the same level of service, so we don’t. Maybe we should but when I need to get to the airport that’s not really on my mind.

> But repealing the second amendment now won’t make things better. We made drugs illegal, how’s that going?

People aren't (physically) addicted to guns. If only there were data from other countries...

> I think you’re also getting confused between population and population density. The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands.

Few people are demanding public transport spanning entire sparsely populated states.

There are enough cities in the US with comparable population densities to e.g. Amsterdam.

There are not actually, and the ones there are (except Miami) are the ones I was counting as having good public transport. (And I’ve spent a lot of time in SF, I’m being generous counting them as good.) There are only 4 large cities in America that dense. They add up to about ten million residents, or about 3% of our population.

There’s one mid sized city (Jersey city) and 4 small cities.

Not even 5% of our population lives in somewhere as dense as Amsterdam.

These arguments come up here all the time because HN has a bike-friendly car hating crowd, but the actual numbers all support that the decision to have public transport vs car culture all stems from population density. Populations all over the world make similar decisions with similar inputs, they just have different inputs.

> I’ve lived all over this country, the only places I can think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of train from most of the city to the airport are NY, Boston, Chicago.

DC has the most convenient airport for transit access; if you park, you literally have to work through the train station to get to the airport. Atlanta has a mediocre train system, but it has excellent access to the airport. Philadelphia has a mediocre connection to the airport, but stronger system overall. SFO also is reasonably accessible by BART.

Indeed, the only US city I can think of with a large urban rail system with an abysmal airport connection is LA, although LA's rail transit network in general is just a smorgasbord of sadness.

> The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands.

Yeah, that's because there's large expanses of land in Alaska or the West where literally nobody lives. But most people live in urban environments of some kind; the fifty largest MSAs account for over half the population (too lazy to do the math to get the exact number), and even the fiftieth largest is of a size that would, in Europe, have a functional transit system of some kind.

Perhaps fair counting DC. SFO does have it, I’m not sure even half of the people going to/from the airport have access to BART/Caltrain but I am ok counting it too. NYC, Boston. Anything else?

Go down the list of the biggest cities (all of which I’ve spent time in and commuted to an airport except DC) and ask if the average person can walk to a station and get to it and it’s like 90% NFW.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_ci...

A lot more Americans live in a city that looks like Houston than NY.

(Though I have a place in Phoenix and the tram system is getting better by the year and it is quite possible they’ll change categories.)

City population isn't the right metric to use; you want to use metro population, i.e., MSAs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area).

Most of the cities in the US don't have a functional mass transit system, but there is no population density reason they couldn't.

Yes I was using “city” to mean metro area, as it is colloquially.

You linked to a list sorting cities by population proper, rather than sorting them by metro area population.

The picture doesn’t change markedly. Not everyone in a metro area has access to a city subway system.

Most Americans can’t walk from their door to train station to the airport. However you want to count it, it’s unlikely to be even a double digit percent.

> Most Americans can’t walk from their door to train station to the airport.

I'm not denying that. What I'm trying to point out is that most Americans live someplace where a viable mass transit system can be designed to facilitate that. In other words, in the places where Americans actually live, the US isn't all that much less dense than the corresponding places in Europe. If Nice can have a viable tram system, there's no reason that, say, Nashville couldn't.

Yeah, that’s just not accurate, if you look at those metro areas, you find significantly less population density outside of the city.

The success of public transit is entirely a function of population density, because the amount of riders is directly proportional to population, and the cost is proportional to the distance you were moving them.

People always say that, and somebody even said that in this thread, and I pointed out that Amsterdam would be the fifth most dense city in America if it were here. Three of the more dense cities are the ones that actually have usable public transit.

Of course, everywhere could have public transit if you are not counting return on investment. If you had infinite money, and no necessity to make it back, you could put public transit in Columbus, Ohio.

But that is not how our world works, and roads and cars simply make economic sense when the population density drops below, a certain threshold, which is where most of America lives. And by most I mean like 90 some percent.

I mean look at the existing public transit in very dense cities, like New York, Boston, etc. They are all losing money and struggling to pay for it while cutting services. It’s just really difficult in America because we are spread out and everything is expensive, in Europe, where the cities have substantially higher population density and lower expenses it makes sense.

Philly has a very good airport line - I figure most of the Eastern Coast will? Less sprawl here.

Am I missing something, or did you forget New York City, perhaps the best example in the world of a city with great internal rail and godawful airport connectivity?

NYC has a janky train-to-train-to-train connection to the airports (except LaGuardia), but it at least has train connectivity. LAX is currently in the process of upgrading its connection to NYC-levels of jank.

Right, but "except LaGuardia" is a big caveat! :)

Hey, NYC might get around to extending the N to LaGuardia before I die!

> Indeed, the only US city I can think of with a large urban rail system with an abysmal airport connection is LA

Seattle has pretty awful train <-> airport access. You walk from the train through the parking garage to the terminal.

even NYC is a stretch in terms of airport access. There is no one-seat ride to any airport unless you live along the route of the LGA bus, which makes it very unpleasant to schlep a 45lb checked luggage to the airport

Just for the record, the 2nd amendment is not a 'law' - it is a right guaranteed by the constitution.

while it is a simple process to change a law - rights guaranteed by the constitution necessarily and by design, have a much higher bar that must be crossed in order to change - and there is currently not even close to enough people in favor in enough states to revoke the 2nd amendment.

Yeah but the laws enforce the limits. A tank is an 'arm' as is a bazooka, but you can't buy either of those with operable weapon systems.

Yes you’re right, it’s not technically a law.

I’m the odd duck in thinking that almost any country would easily find 3/4 of its state/provincial legislature votes needed to approve a repeal of an amendment similar to the 2nd amendment. I am more than baffled by the logic behind keeping it around.

Even the most progressive segments of the US aren’t generally in favor of getting rid of it entirely.

The list of countries with similarly permissive gun laws is basically one-hand’s worth, and none of them are G20 countries. Basically the United States is in the company of Yemen and almost nobody else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

(Check out the “comparison” section with the maps)

Anyway, sorry, this is horribly off-topic.

And anyway, to your original points, air travel got a lot safer in the last 40 years because of government intervention. Same with cars, perhaps even more dramatically. That’s why the hubbub now. The government intervention was decreased and the safety seems to have gone down. (This is true of both the mechanical and operational aspects, see all the articles about increasing runway incursions and near collisions.)

Correlation != causation, but one doesn’t have to be ignorant of statistics to suspect the system failure is at least in part due to letting corporations self-certify.

We don’t want the regulators to wait until there’s another crash to do something about it.

> Yes, car makers self-certify. You are not correct about that. Government crash tests aren’t a prerequisite to being allowed to sell a vehicle. > > https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/some-cars-will-ne...

I love when people don't read the very source they cite.

> Some untested models are new or redesigned and merely waiting in line to be evaluated. About 97 percent of all new vehicles sold are crash-test rated by one or both of the independent organizations.

This is for niche models and make upgrades that will be tested soon. It's perfectly correct to say that cars are tested when 97% of them are.