Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

I've never understood why pedestrians seem to be given the right of way by default in many countries - pedestrians can see cars, stop, and change directions far easier and faster than vice-versa, so this makes for a more dangerous situation. If you slow down the cars to compensate, doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose of having cars in the first place?

As anyone who has experienced the traffic in Beijing probably knows, having a mix of pedestrians, cars, bicycles, and other vehicles of various construction in the same space is not efficient nor particularly safe at all.

View on HN

If somethings got to go, the obvious choice is cars. Indeed, that's what cities like London have aimed to do with initiatives like congestion pricing, which attach a prohibitively heavy cost to driving during the most congested times of day.

Rather, they attach an accurate price, forcing drivers to pay some of the costs that they generally impose on the public. I mean, the amount of space required per driver is wildly disproportionate with the demand on a public resource that every other form of transportation requires. Then there are the environmental costs, which include both noise and pollution. Again, these are way out of proportion in terms of the number of drivers vs. non drivers. They also do damage to commerce, in that pedestrian friendly zones are far more amenable to shopping, dining, etc. than streets that give preference to the needs of drivers. And of course, cars are basically lethal, whereas pedestrians, bikes, and even busses (especially when they have their own lanes) generally aren't.

Basically, cars are a bad deal for cities, and the 21st Century is going to see a sharp and concerted effort to push them out. Letting them in was a mistake. It's time to undo that error.

Cars are a vital part of most people's lives and the economy. Most people don't want to be a slave to public transportation, including me. Getting rid of cars would be ridiculous.

Ok, but as parent says you are demanding public resources and not paying for them. Pay for them, and we can talk.

I do so with taxes already. I don't like the sound of extra fines for "congestion".

Car use is heavily subsidized in many ways, so no, you really don't.

Extra fees for congestion make sense, because the land that roads and parking use in the middle of cities is much more valuable than the land in suburban or rural areas. Gas taxes don't account for that difference. They treat every mile the same (or similarly), even when the cost of that infrastructure differs drastically.

Congestion pricing is a fee, not a fine. Again, there's a difference. Let's keep the conversation honest, okay?

Part of the reason that public transit is so bad is because it's having to compete with cars in areas that cars really don't belong. In cities where cars are not such a big part of the mix, public transit gets a lot better. And of course, where density drops sharply and public transit becomes unviable, cars make sense.

In any case, this is not about "getting rid of cars", so it's dishonest of you to reframe the argument in those terms. As very specifically noted, this is about sharply limiting to getting rid of cars in dense urban cores. Big, big difference.

“slave”?

Yes, as in I don't get to choose when I go or exactly where to, can't just drive around, and I don't control the radio, among a multitude of other reasons that using your own car gives you more freedom. I'd rather not revolve my transportation around someone else's timetables.

Yeah, that's not being a slave. In fact, the argument can be made that by insisting on driving to avoid any real - or perceived - inconvenience, you're making everyone else's journey that little bit less slick (I.e. Asserting your "freedom" impinges negatively on everyone else's ability to effectively do the same).

Also,cars are an important part of most economies, but less so in bigger cities - and it points to the fact that a)they weren't always so and b) might not always need to be, maybe there's a better way, which is what some posters are suggesting. If you Remove the necessity of a car for some people, and make alternatives better, then there are probably a lot of benefits (pollution, construction costs, congestion, safety) to it. But no one (or very few, I guess, since this is HN and lots of opinions) is suggesting arbitrarily and unilaterally getting rid of cars.

Um, that's not the definition of "slave". It's not even in the same ballpark as the definition of "slave".

This is free advice, so you can take it for what it's worth, but if you've ever found yourself suffering from a limited amount of trust or respect from others, consider that it may be due to your apparently limited respect for the truth. Or basic English.

I think you are the one with deficiency in the language. "Slave" is used in that kind of nonliteral sense all the time. Slave to gas prices, slave to the weather, slave to fashion.

I don't own a car, so I don't know this, but does the privilege of right-of-way come in the glove compartment of new cars or something? In all honesty, what are we creating things for? People, or cars? Which one should we be optimizing out shared space for?

It's food for thought.

The privilege is a subconscious process which springs from having spent a lot of money on the car. One begins to believe one is entitled to things in return. In fact antisocial behavior of drivers is directly proportional to the price of their cars.

"If you slow down the cars to compensate, doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose of having cars in the first place?"

Hmm, well, requiring cars to give way means that they're less likely to kill someone. Which is kind of the point, outweighs slowing cars down a smidgen. Although pedestrians have right of way it's only an insane pedestrian who would rely on that to stay safe: whether they have right of way or not, pedestrians need to be fully aware of what cars are doing.

In some parts of suburban Canada, many pedestrians don't bother paying much attention to the road; they just assume all cars will stop for them!

That's a good argument against cars, not against pedestrians.

I was in Shanghai last summer and started crossing the cross-walk with cars approaching from both directions. Instead of slowing, the cars just started honking and racing towards me. Had to play some hardcore frogger to cross the street. Just goes to show that driver opinions really are different in China. Oh, and don't use the crosswalks.

Ditto for Cairo, worst traffic I've ever experienced. Noticed an unusually high number of people walking with limps, too.

I had the same experience in India. A large group of us (Americans) was at one of the Mumbai offices.

We called it "consultant frogger" whenever we tried to cross the street. (Thane Belapur, if you're familiar with the area)

When road utilization is high enough, if cars get right of way, it is simply not possible to cross the street because cars will just continue flowing through the intersection the whole time.

There are lots of old videos of people trying to cross busy roads in the early-to-mid 1900s and having difficulty doing so safely.

That's what these are for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subway_(underpass) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpass#Pedestrian

The very old common law precedent is that if you're benefiting from a practice that accidentally causes someone else harm, you're liable for any damages regardless of whether or not there's any negligence. For example, blasting at mines on occasion resulted in people many miles away getting hit with high speed pebbles that hurt them. The miners are liable for damages even if they took careful measures to reduce risk. There is zero reason to alter this concept for cars, trucks, or trains. If you want to speed around in two tons of steel because that's easier for you, then you should be fully liable for any consequences that flow from speeding around in two tons of steel. Trying to walk across the street is not an activity that creates the risk in the first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com