3 ms·

It might be considered a sort-of subsidy, but ultimately, the people who own land fronting on a road are the main beneficiaries. I also cannot frame a disparit

It might be considered a sort-of subsidy, but ultimately, the people who own land fronting on a road are the main beneficiaries. I also cannot frame a disparity in mass as "taking away rights." It only gets worse if this is identity politics. Don't get me wrong - people commuting alone in a car an hour or two a day is simply obscene. The article does a great job of identifying that the experiment in making all people drivers has failed, though. As long as I live, I'll never understand how people can be so blase about such high risk behavior.

xapata 10y ago
> identity politics I don't know what you mean by that. > cannot frame disparity in mass as "taking away rights" I'm guessing you're referring to the difference in the mass of an automobile and a person. Right-of-way laws are only one of the policies that I'm referring to, but that in particular was/is in fact taking away rights. Pedestrians had the right to cross the street at any place or time until automobile manufacturers ran marketing campaigns (such as inventing the term "Jay walking") and lobbied to change laws. Of course there should be some compromise, to promote safety and convenience, but perhaps we erred too much on the side of the automobile.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  Of course I mean disparity in mass :) "Walkability" is inherently political ( goes to land use ) , and it's strongly correlated at least with people's identity. Cars have been about for 100 years, but it's only recently that there's been any writing to the effect of there being conflict. I think the basic mindset of drivers is a lot the problem, but it should be clear that as a pedestrian, you cannot trust car drivers to be very aware. There's only so much gain to be had there with things like rule changes. I see this as an extension of "everything is a college campus" but maybe that's just me.
  - xapata 10y ago
    > only recently Perhaps you should do a more thorough literature review. The NYT reported, "Nation roused against motor killings" in 1924. http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/ http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/

xapata 10y ago

> identity politics I don't know what you mean by that. > cannot frame disparity in mass as "taking away rights" I'm guessing you're referring to the difference in the mass of an automobile and a person. Right-of-way laws are only one of the policies that I'm referring to, but that in particular was/is in fact taking away rights. Pedestrians had the right to cross the street at any place or time until automobile manufacturers ran marketing campaigns (such as inventing the term "Jay walking") and lobbied to change laws. Of course there should be some compromise, to promote safety and convenience, but perhaps we erred too much on the side of the automobile.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Of course I mean disparity in mass :) "Walkability" is inherently political ( goes to land use ) , and it's strongly correlated at least with people's identity. Cars have been about for 100 years, but it's only recently that there's been any writing to the effect of there being conflict. I think the basic mindset of drivers is a lot the problem, but it should be clear that as a pedestrian, you cannot trust car drivers to be very aware. There's only so much gain to be had there with things like rule changes. I see this as an extension of "everything is a college campus" but maybe that's just me.
- xapata 10y ago
  > only recently Perhaps you should do a more thorough literature review. The NYT reported, "Nation roused against motor killings" in 1924. http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/ http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/murder-machines/