Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1970-01-01 | Hacker News Reader

1970-01-01

>The story focuses on a redesign of one intersection in this town. The case highlights how we’ve elevated the value of moving cars quickly at the expense of everything else, even in highly walkable areas.

We should all expect this kind of regressing in walking. Pedestrians and cyclists don't seem to understand how this always will be a car-by-default country due to lifestyle. Yes, there are several cities bucking the trend with exceptions, but those exceptions are either economically able to buck that car-first engineering trend and build massive bike and walking infra or they have exceptional transportation alternatives (train, bus, and subway).

View on HN

You think pedestrians and cyclists don't realize how car dominant we are?

Correct. They expect safe walking and biking infra to fall from the sky and complain online when it does not.

this is a very uncharitable characterization of communities' desires for safe, quiet, and walkable/bikeable neighborhoods

It does sometimes seem that they think they should be able to walk/bike without concern for their own safety. I see pedestrians step into traffic and bicycles blow traffic signals and stop signs all the time. Safety and situational awareness is everyone's responsibility.

I guess I kind feel like yeah the person operating the heavy machinery at high speed does bear more responsibility for the damage they cause rather than their victims

You uncharitably speak for all pedestrians.

Pedestrians rightfully expect safe walking and biking infrastructure.

Not everyone can drive. Most of those who can't drive also cannot afford a taxi or rideshare. Many of them also do not have friends or family who can get them where they need to go, and reliance on others is extremely demoralizing to independence.

That says nothing of the carbon cost in fuel, the microparticle cost in tire and brake dust, or other inflated pollutants.

The U.S.'s car-dominant infrastructure is a tragedy.

I agree with everything you said except your first sentence. Why should people rightfully expect walking and biking infra to be paid for when it contributes so little to their economy?

Because human beings care about things that aren't the economy. Do you actually evaluate all public spending on this sole metric, or just the things you don't personally desire?

Can you provide an example where road budget spending was overridden by public outcry and was completed to those expectations?

For a start because building infrastructure for cyclists brings more return of investment, happiness and health than infrastructure for cars.

Cul-de-sac style suburbs, stroads and other related development patterns are a net drain on the local economy. It’s not a sustainable pattern long term when infrastructure needs to be replaced or upgraded.

And besides it’s really depressing to be so isolated and only get around in a little metal box.

For the same reason that people expect car infrastructure to be paid for: whether they are walking, biking, or driving, they are frequently traveling to some place where they will contribute to the economy.

Walking is not merely some sort of hobby. It is transportation, a means of getting from one place to another -- often the most convenient and pleasant means. And transportation infrastructure certainly falls under the purview of local governments.

> Not everyone can drive

Not everyone can afford to live in an area of the city where they don't have to drive places, either.

Which is exactly why we should build and design communities to have good transit.

When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

Heck yeah, I'm all for building and designing communities to have good transit. I love it when I can get where I want to go without driving. Let's do it, teammate!

In the meantime, until that's done and everybody lives where they can easily take public transit from their home to where they want to go, we'll continue to be in the situation I described, and will have to compromise with our fellow humans who have different locomotion options and choices.

All people are equal, regardless of transportation, so this intersection seems like a fair compromise which doesn't preference one person over another.

> Pedestrians rightfully expect safe walking and biking infrastructure.

Cyclists and pedestrians should be considered two separate groups. Most biking infrastructure doesn't benefit me at all as a pedestrian (but it's okay, because the cyclists will still ride on sidewalk instead of the bike lane).

> the cyclists will still ride on sidewalk instead of the bike lane

A lot of cyclists feel safer on the sidewalk because cars do not respect cyclists. It unfortunately does make it more dangerous for pedestrians.

> Cyclists and pedestrians should be considered two separate groups.

Yes, and they both rightfully expect safe infrastructure even if it is separate.

> A lot of cyclists feel safer on the sidewalk because cars do not respect cyclists. It unfortunately does make it more dangerous for pedestrians.

It's like the food chain, except cyclists don't seem to respect either pedestrians or motorists.

"Car-centrism" isn't some immutable property given to the US at the dawn of time. Infrastructure is built according to people's opinions, and in a democracy you change those people's opinions (or replace them altogether) by complaining.

And I don't think pedestrian infrastructure advocates expect it to "fall from the sky". They expect it to be built by municipalities over time, just like everyone else.

I fully disagree. Road infra is engineered to move goods quickly, and never to public opinion unless that public opinion brings loads of cash to help. Again, there are major exceptions to this default. Complaining about it helps, but does not bring cash to the table when it's time to build or rebuild road infra. As municipalities change over time, a city will always regress to car-first. Cars are simply the easiest path for it to move goods quickly.

If road infrastructure is designed solely to move goods quickly, it's only because people made a choice to prioritise that. Not The People, but indivial bureaucrats.

At least here in the Czech Republic, moving goods isn't on anyone's radar when designing municipal infrastructure. Delivery vehicles need to physically fit, sure, but any economic benefit they bring will only be felt as a very slight n-th order effect by the municipality. Complaining residents, be they pro-pedestrian or pro-car, are immediate and much more likely to be heard.

>If road infrastructure is designed solely to move goods quickly, it's only because people made a choice to prioritise that.

This argument simply does not work for the majortiy of USA.

Is the USA driven by abstract economic argumenents instead of the decisions of elected representatives?

I thougt the US had a fairly standard "town council" arrangement, with the councilors having large autonomy and being beholden primarily to voters.

The autonomy breaks down here. People will vote for building more roads or for less road spending, because only those options are present.

I'm literally just trying to stop drivers from killing my kids when they bike to school.

Some "lifestyle".

"Whether car, scooter, bike, or feet, look both ways before crossing a street"

The way you make your kids safe bikers:

1. NEVER RIDE ON THE SIDEWALK. Cars on the street cannot see you due to other parked cars and WILL make right or left turn on you. Additionaly, cars coming out of parking lots won't see you on the sidewalk.

2. NEVER RIDE ON OPPOSITE SIDE. Ride on the same direction as cars, make yourself visible.

3. INDICATE ALL TURNS WITH HAND SIGNALS. Be predictable. Don't just turn or otherwise behave unpredictably. Indicate turns, make eye contact and then turn.

4. (Obvious) ACT LIKE A CAR AND DON'T RUN LIGHTS.

> 1. NEVER RIDE ON THE SIDEWALK. Cars on the street cannot see you due to other parked cars and WILL make right or left turn on you. Additionaly, cars coming out of parking lots won't see you on the sidewalk.

How about to avoid hitting people walking? It's not always safe for pedestrians to jump into the street to avoid a guy on a bike.

> 3. INDICATE ALL TURNS WITH HAND SIGNALS. Be predictable. Don't just turn or otherwise behave unpredictably. Indicate turns, make eye contact and then turn.

You should also explain to them that 99% of drivers will not understand the typical bike hand signals. Making eye contact will help a lot, but mostly it makes sure they're watching you.

Do you really think the answer is for my 5 year old to ride her pink bike with a basket and flowers in the same street as a Dodge Ram 3500 piloted by someone staring at their phone?

1. Your 5 year old kid with her pink bike should not be on the street alone. This is just a matter of judgement, independent from other motorists. You should be behind her watching for cars. 2. If you want to ignore point 1, my argument still stands. The chances of a Dodge Ram 3500 ramming into her is far higher if she is on the sidewalk as opposed to on the street. A 5 year old doesn't understand traffic rules good enough to be riding on the side walk and watching for cars. Her best chances are to make herself as visible as possible (ie. by being on the road in a bright bike and protective gear).

Nonsense, the money spent on safer roads is an investment on human lives. Infrastructure needs to be rebuilt every few decades and with good planning roads that are being resurfaced anyways can be altered at little extra cost. Finally, let's not ignore that suburban sprawl is economically not viable for cities as the cost per household is higher in sprawl compared to a denser populated area. Changing the last point is obviously the toughest.

https://cayimby.org/blog/sprawl-costs-the-u-s-1-trillion-eve... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmQomKCfYZY

Reply on news.ycombinator.com