Hacker News Reader

Comment by barbacoa | Hacker News Reader

Car depend infrastructure is amazing to families. A mom can take her children to the grocery store in a car in relative safety without worrying about mentally ill homeless people on the subway.

View on HN

Why would you need to get on the subway to go to the grocery store? When I lived in Paris I was within a five minute walk to at least three general grocery stores plus various speciality shops. Always plenty of parents all around. This is not uncommon in properly designed non-car dependent cities. Not to mention deliveries are just that much easier and all without a car.

In more than a decade living in Stockholm never had a mentally ill homeless person bothering anyone in the subway.

Perhaps the subway itself isn't the problem...

Men would rather build a continent-sized car-dependent infrastructure that deal with mentally ill homeless people on the subway...

It is called the American way.

Correct. Lack of accessibility is a feature when you live around bad people and the legal system doesn't function to eliminate the threat

The radio said 'No, John. You are the bad people.'

yeah but i can make money selling comically oversized trucks and suvs to fatass americans

fixing homelessness doesn't make me money

Surely the priority should be to help those with mental issues and those without homes? It's bizarre to want to live in a society that prioritises car use so that people don't have to see those discarded by the same society.

wow. this thread is microcosm of how wild and polarised the internet can be.

It's pure facts. I used to live in a city where me and my wife were terrorized by homeless people on the light rail. Now we live far away from public transportation and no longer have to worry about the safety of ourselves or our children and our neighbors are fantastic people.

Car dependency and castle doctrine is essential in a low trust society with a legal system that puts violent offenders right back on the street.

Moving in a private vehicle is statistically the most dangerous activity an otherwise healthy young person routinely participates in. Your family is almost certainly at higher risk of death and serious injury now because you based this decision on your perception of safety rather than evaluating the reality of it. Speaking of "pure facts."

I have more than 200,000 miles accident free and my kids are doing fine. Living in a city with unhinged maniacs on drugs was way more dangerous.

Right, except it wasn't, like objectively. Like factually. As in its not up to your opinion.

Driving is more dangerous, and it's not even close. For example, in NYC you're over 100x more likely to die in a car on the roads above the subway than on the subway.

I'm glad we understand that risk isn't evenly distributed and this also applies to driving

It does, but not much. When you drive, your life is in thousands of people's hands.

Only the most naive of the naive can believe being a safe driver means they won't die in a car wreck.

I've been sharing needles for 20 years and I'm fine so far what's your point.

you are not correctly evaluating the risks you take by driving. it wasn't more dangerous. but ok.

A mom can also take her car in a non-car-dependent infrastructure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com