Hacker News Reader

Every time I see one of these articles, I get confused. I have to wonder what mysterious world they live in.

There are many reasons I don't use a car (I own one; I rarely use it). They're all touched on in here. But beyond a shadow of a doubt, the number one reason: fuck. traffic. FUUUUUUUUCK. Traffic.

Traffic infuriates me. It's filled with people who drive unsafely. It's filled with people who drive too fast. It's filled with people who drive too slow. It's filled with people who don't understand left hand vs right hand lanes. It's filled with people who can't read street signs or don't know where they're going. It's filled with pedestrians who think they can dart out between parked cars whenever they feel like it. It's filled with cyclists who ride too aggressively. And, most importantly, it's filled with a billion other cars.

I went on a day trip to Berkeley -> Monterey last Saturday. Google maps said "116 miles, 2 hrs 10 minutes". Door to door it was 4 hours 15 minutes. An average speed of 25 mph. On a fucking freeway rated 70. This is insanity.

Even ignoring the fury, how does anyone plan their life when traffic can swing so wildly. How does anyone get to work on time and not get fired when LOL TRAFFIC YOU'RE NOW AN HOUR LATE.

Public transit might be dirty and smelly and crowded and out of the way. But I also know that, pending someone suicidal, I will always get to work at the same time.

Is traffic that much different everywhere else in the country?

Corollary: fuck parking. It's not as bad in the East Bay, but I've easily spent one minute trolling around in the city searching for parking for every two spent stuck on the 880.

I'd imagine traffic variation increases drastically with higher population densities. It's really not much of a problem in rural areas or smaller cities.

Source: Grew up in fly-over country

> Every time I see one of these articles, I get confused. I have to wonder what mysterious world they live in.

I think part of the problem is that the questions they ask ("Why don't millenials want cars?") come with an unstated context: millenials' parents and grandparents did want cars. The question is not so much why millenials behave as they do; it is why different generations have behaved so differently.

Saying, "Because we're sensible, and our parents were idiots," isn't really a good enough explanation. So the questions keep being asked.

Yes, traffic is far different outside of the most congested cities. I live in a "city" of 250k with about 1.2M including suburbs and surrounding areas. Bad traffic might add 20 minutes to your commute.

Check Google Maps right before or when you leave for your trip. The Navigation app is nice, but you could always just hop on your computer right when as you leave or check a while before you leave too. Just figure out the times when you aren't going with traffic. In general that is towards SF evening and away from SF in the morning. Also aim for off hours (9am-Noon, 1pm-3pm, night time). Socal traffic can be exponentially worse and probably not nearly as predictable (haven't lived there but have heard stories).

It is going to take a long time for public transit in California to beat the efficiency of well planned driving on most occasions besides major events. It would be nice if everywhere had trains as punctual and ubiquitous as Japan!

In a mid-sized American city, I prefer to cycle since downtown and the inner-ring suburbs have 15-20 minute bicycle trips. My wife and I split a car.

Traffic is not as bad as the worst places: you can drive most places in town within about a half-hour. But when you have to run a couple of errands in the car-centric suburbs, that time piles up quickly. Try to run 2-3 errands in the suburbs and you're spending hours driving. It's horrible.

Of course, we have no light rail and the buses are really slow. Cycling is the main viable alternative.

Unfortunately, cycling gets you sweated and crumpled, and that makes itself a non-starter for a lot of jobs, unless at the destination you have access to showers and a change of clothes. Cycling is however an option for many other mobility needs.

But I also know that, pending someone suicidal, I will always get to work at the same time.

This is not true. In my experience BART keeps to schedule pretty well but buses don't. Back when I had the option of a walking commute in Berkeley I chose that option because my walking speed was more consistent than the buses. Also, it was not that much slower, and I didn't risk running into people I knew on the bus and finding myself stuck in awkward conversations with them.

Also, I live in Atlanta now, and I'm finding that "there was traffic" is a totally fine excuse to be late.

> Cars are simply not safe.

In addition to accident-type safety issues, I also find driving a bit worrying from the perspective of what you might call "legal safety". The chances of ending up in a negative interaction with the police seem much higher when you drive than when you travel via other modalities, because a traffic stop has a pretty low bar of evidence, and is often used as a lead-in to various other searches/etc. I probably am realistically not at that much risk (being a white middle-class person usually traveling in middle-class areas), but I still feel less exposed to the police when not driving.

White, black or otherwise, you are quite susceptible to the tyranny of the police state [1]. The young man in that link was murdered in cold blood because he pissed off a cop. It was premeditated. The cop is still working actively on the force with zero repercussions.

Cops have a license to kill with impunity. The race hysteria is used, ironically, to maintain the status quo via the clever bit of propaganda that "white" people are not at risk. Statistically, "whites" are less at risk, but only because they happen to be the richest demographic. As the article I've linked shows, the cops go after the weak and helpless, regardless of race or creed [2].

1. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/what-i-did-af...

2. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873238488045786080...

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous on its face.

If you are pulled over for a traffic violation, 99% of the time you get a ticket or a warning and are on your way. You can't cherry pick two extreme incidents and pretend that this is the norm.

The only time I ever interact with someone who has a gun is if I get pulled over while driving. Sure the risk is low, but the threat exists on every interaction, and is a big incentive for me to find ways to avoid driving.

If you live in a state that has concealed-carry laws, then you are likely wrong about your comment that "the only time" you interact with people with guns.

Even in those states it's not that common for people to actually carry guns, at least in cities. I lived for years in Houston, and it was very uncommon, even among people who had the license, in part because it greatly restricts where you can legally go. You can't enter any establishments that sell alcohol, post offices, educational institutions, most hospitals, sporting events, etc. Private property owners can also exclude weapons by posting a notice at the entrance. So you have to be very careful about how to plan your day if you're carrying.

>Even in those states it's not that common for people to actually carry guns, at least in cities.

Going to need some sort of evidence for this. Anecdotal doesn't even work here because the firearms are concealed.

The firearms are concealed, sure, but you can still talk to people. :) I do know a reasonable number of people who have concealed-carry permits, and none of them carry a gun regularly, if they're telling the truth, because it's too much of a hassle and they don't normally feel a need to. They got the permit so they can, but it doesn't obligate them to actually do so. My guess (but it's a guess) extrapolating from that is that only a small fraction of permit holders actually carry at any given time. But it would be nice to have a more solid estimate, I agree. The number of permit holders itself is about 2% of the population, but I haven't found an estimate of the utilization rate.

I know some people who have concealed-carry permits and claim to carry whenever they're not at work.

DC and Maryland (where I work and live respectively) have the most restrictive concealed carry laws in the country, ones that are probably unconstitutional. Illinois, where I lived before that, was the last state to enact a concealed carry law, forced by a court order after I moved out.

Minnesota was second to last, I like to think that being slow to adopt the law also means that the aggregate rate of people carrying concealed weapons is lower, or will at least take longer to reach the levels of southern states.

To the point of cops however: All cops get a 50 state exempt conceal and carry permit for life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety...

This unfortunate piece of legislation set back federally-mandated interstate permit reciprocity untold amounts of time.

Why is it that drivers licenses, marriage licenses (both licenses to exercise privileges) covered under the full faith and credit clause, but CCW permits are not?

Marriage is a privilege? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Decision

You can't kill people with a marriage license. Driving, although very dangerous, serves a purpose other than killing people. Although I'm not sure I agree with interstate reciprocity for driving licenses-- a Texan or southern California driver plopped onto a North Dakota road in the middle of winter sounds more dangerous to the public than him having a concealed gun.

Not sure where the "killing people" exemption is in the full-faith and credit clause. Must've missed that one.

"who has a gun" - that you know of.

Also, you imply anyone with a firearm is a "threat." The USA might not be the best place for you to reside, as hoplophobia is largely futile.

When someone says, "The threat is low," I think using "phobia" to refer to their recognition that the threat does exist is ridiculous.

(Unless, of course, you are saying that the majority of the population in countries where the police do not carry guns are all phobic, as many of them would have the same reaction.)

Whenever someone raises these issues, there sure is someone like you putting them down by using the argument "but most of the cops are good guys, see? no problem, move along."

You use an (uncited) 99% there. Fine, let's leave it at that. So in one in hundred cases you will have an unpleasant experience, ranging from being treated disrespectfully, to jail, to being tazed, to being shot. I don't know how you negotiate SLAs, but me, I wouldn't agree to these terms.

I don't know why you're being down-voted for this. I wanted to stretch it further, to "there are still good [pick your choice] in there, see? no problem, move along" as a ridiculous apology that may pop up even if 99% would be in fact bad/corrupt!

The Justice Department report on the Ferguson PD is ample evidence that, there are plenty of routine traffic stops are racially biased and seriously unjust, even if the person just gets a ticket and is waved on.

I prefer transit to driving because owning a car is vastly more expensive

I prefer transit to driving because I prefer walkable communities that I can connect to, rather than places full of parkades and parking meters.

I prefer transit to driving because I understand that a bus can take a hundred cars off the road, which results in smoother traffic and more efficient travel.

I prefer transit to driving because it gives me the opportunity to read a book or have a conversation with my travelling companions without one of us having to focus on the road.

From my perspective, the question isn't 'why do you not own a car?' but 'why do you own a car?' For me and the people I know, who fall everywhere from '20 hours at minimum wage' to 'cashed in on IPO', the default is not to own a car, or to own it and rarely use it. The extra time I would save driving halfway to work would be spent stuck in traffic for the other half. The cost of a lease + insurance is many times more than a transit pass, plus fuel, parking, maintenance, etc. It's just not practical.

Whenever I read someone talking about how 'maybe this new thing is why transit', I look around at Vancouver, which has had amazing transit for a long time, and think 'Why would you not?'

I was born in 1983, so that puts me at the leading edge of what I think most people classify as millennials, but honestly what you're saying doesn't resonate strongly with me. I can (and have recently) lived without a car, but not for any of the reasons you cite. Instead it comes down to (a) parking is a pain in the ass in downtown Seattle and (b) if I drive somewhere, I avoid drinking while I'm there, so driving is a no-go for shows, parties, or even most evenings out with friends. Both of these are solved pretty thoroughly by Uber and (rarely) public transit. I don't tend to use my phone when I'm moving between places unless I'm running late or someone pings me; I'm much more likely to sit back and just watch the world go by.

That said, I do own a car primarily for my daily commute and weekend outings up to the mountains. In terms of safety, environmental friendliness, or cost effectiveness, none of these factored at all into the decision for me. That said, I drive a Tesla, so it's chock full of modern safety features (protecting me; for pedestrians it's a silent rolling death machine with 691 horsepower), and I could argue that it's less environmentally unfriendly than other cars, but I bought it because it looked fun, not for either of those reasons :)

75 here. The first thing I did when moving to the U district at UW was get rid of my car, it is just annoying to have one there. I've had a car since, but prefered biking or public transit, and now I'm completely carless in Beijing where parking is sh*t and taxis are ubiquitous. Oddly enough, all my chinese colleagues have cars anyways since it is a precondition (along with owning an apartment) to getting married....

"I'm completely carless in Beijing where ... taxis are ubiquitous."

I don't know about you, but I had a bad experience when I've needed to use a taxi in Beijing! Taxis are ubiquitous, yes, but they won't take you if your destination is not far enough for them, and most of them don't use taxing machines (because you know, there are plenty of tourists around), and prefer just to wait for someone willing to pay ten times the rate that they actually should bill. And there's more - you can't call a taxi in order to come to pick you up even from hotels (which is ridiculous), and most of the places where you might have some certainty that you'll land in a taxi are taxi-stops (often posted near bus-stops), and you also may have to stay in line for one!

There's an app for that.

Didi kuai che for taxis.

Didi Zhuan che if you want something more like Uber.

The latter allows you to pay electronically from your union pay account, the meter is GPS (just like Uber), so you'll never get ripped off. Beijing taxis drivers are pretty honest as China goes, of course, that is just in the city, out in tourist ghettos it can be much worse.

Thanks, I'll keep in mind, although I don't know how much will change for those like me (I was in a tourist-related activity having to crawl in tourist ghettos). I hope my next experience with Beijing taxis will be better.

In any case, the apps aren't very useful if you don't speak chinese (a problem for some visitors). They do make life tolerable in Beijing for those of us who live here.

I was born in 1987 and I didn't think of myself as a millenial until someone told me a month ago what the definition was. I'm still not sure if I agree that my behavior matches up as closely with the behavior of the people born in the 90's as the demographics people would like.

In regards to point a: I've never really driven in our downtown area enough to experience this problem. I hear a lot of other people complain about it though. I imagine, if I started driving in the downtown area more this would probably get added to my list of complaints.

In regards to point b: I don't drink more than 3 or 4 times a year. So this doesn't really come up for me, but I do agree that this is a factor for a lot of people.

As for not using my phone when moving between places, I don't use mine much during transit either. However, the mental pressure of being completely unable to check it when it pings seriously bothers me. With that being said, I actually spend most of my time on the bus reading books, which is definitely not something I can do while driving. I guess I could amend my post by saying that driving takes away time when I could be doing literally anything else, and, with modern advances in technology, 90% of the things I would be doing otherwise can be done on the bus.

Every time I read one of these articles I'm surprised that the rise of smart phones isn't cited as a contributor to this change of preference. Every minute I'm driving is a minute that I am disconnected from the internet. Constant connection is arguably a bad thing, but I'm pretty much addicted, and I would bet that everyone else is too.

I think the best summary I've heard of this was on CBC Radio (probably on Spark, but I'm not sure): "For older generations, mobile phones are distractions from driving. For millenials, driving is a distraction from their mobile phones."

Most of the millenials I'm friends with try to not own a car themselves. The whole leaning on the friend with a car thing seems to be enduring past college for this generation. I imagine this will work pretty well for most people until they have a kid. Not sure where it'll go then.

Car-sharing isn't going to work well, in this scenario, because there'll be a bum-rush for the car-share pool at the same times in the morning and afternoon. Maybe we'll have to go back to using school busses? -gasp- ;)

I guess the car-sharing folks will choose the same kindergartens/schools and band together like they used to.