6 ms·

Out of curiosity, why give up your license? It's a great ID. You don't have to use it. I know plenty of people with licenses to carry concealed, but don't. To

Out of curiosity, why give up your license? It's a great ID. You don't have to use it. I know plenty of people with licenses to carry concealed, but don't. To you point about car dependence, not using one is humiliating, at least for me. I live about .25 miles from my office. I walk daily to and from (twice). I feel, and have seen, people look at me like I'm poor. It is a foreign concept to many that walking or biking might be better (especially in Florida where on those rare 30 degrees nights, me, a Hoosier, is right at home, but right now it's a balmy 68).

avs733 9y ago
I, and several of my friends when I used to live in Phoenix, were big walkers. Its evening? go for a walk around the neighborhood. Walk to work, even though it was like 1.5 miles...just...walk. Each of us were stopped at least once by police for being suspicious...near as I can tell (we were all >middle class white people) all that was suspicious was us walking on sidewalks. Outside of the biggest cities America is actively antagonistic towards walkers. My sincere belief is because of the assumption that they are poor and should be judged.
- SirZimzim 9y ago
  Doesn't help that drivers act incredibly entitled to the road and view pedestrians and bicycles as obstacles.
  - rimliu 9y ago
    Otoh, drivets are also the ones taking the traffic regulations most seriously. Pedestrians are inclined to jaywalk, and that’s pretty much it, but don’t get me started on bicycles…
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      This. Drivers, pedestrians and bikers hating each other is a result of infrastructure that results in them having to interact in poorly defined ways.
    - emj 9y ago
      Your comment is anecdata, basing these kinds of statements on personal experiences is not a good idea, the truth is we break the rules with the same frequency what ever mode of transport the use. Furthermore in the statistics for accidents in Sweden serious injuries drivers vs. pedestrian/bicyclist you can see that in ~80% of the cases it was caused by drivers.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Bikes are slower so you would expect them to cause even fewer accidents. 20% may not seem like it, but it suggests bikes riders are much worse at following the rules of the road than drivers. In practice you actually see this with bike riders regularly ignoring red lights ect.
        btrettel 9y ago
        Cyclist here. A lot if drivers will be rude (or worse) to me on the road because of the sort of things you said. Based on most objective studies I've seen there is no real difference in the fraction of cyclists and drivers who regularly break the law. They break different laws, but I'd say drivers break the law in much more dangerous ways (e.g., speeding). Cyclists running red lights is a problem, but I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. In contrast I can think of more times off the top of my head when drivers blew through red lights without looking (most were obviously distracted), but that's to be expected as there are many more drivers than cyclists. Anyway, it seems to me that the fraction of drivers who are bad is about the same as that for cyclists, so someone's mode of transportation is not informative about whether someone's law abiding. Saying otherwise is not justified. You can find a lot about these studies via Google, e.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+of+cyclists+and+drivers+breaking+the+law https://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+of+cyclists+and+d... By the way, I follow the law to the letter. Doesn't get me any more respect on the road, unfortunately.
        Retric 9y ago
        Minor tranffic violoations are rarely an issue it's the big ones like: I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. which tend to kill people. Minor speeding (~15%) is not a significant hazard. Going through a red light is about as dangerous as doing ~50-100MPH over the speed limit which is very rare. Other things like riding on lane markers between cars is blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and vastly increase the risk of death. Again about as risky as a car slowly driving on the sidewalk, which you just don't see. Bike riders on sidewalks are again extremely dangerous and often lead to fatalities, but it's also very common. PS: I worked with bike messengers who may be unusually bad about this stuff.
    - TulliusCicero 9y ago
      Pedestrians and cyclists generally don't present a serious safety hazard to others. This is like complaining that people treat guns and knives with different levels of seriousness. Of course they do; both are potentially deadly, but one far more so than the other.
      - ekianjo 9y ago
        > cyclists generally don't present a serious safety hazard to others. If they behave dangerously and put themselves at risk of being hit, even if they are the one taking the risk, the car driver will always be at fault, no matter what. And yes, like some others have echoed in comments here, many bike riders do not stop at red lights. I see that every - single - day, multiple times.
        TulliusCicero 9y ago
        First off, you're wrong. Cyclists can absolutely be found at fault. Secondly, cyclist scofflaw-ness is mostly a result of a transportation system that's hostile to them. The Dutch aren't nicer cyclists because they're born that way, superior to Americans; they're nicer cyclists because the system there largely respects people on bikes, and so the system receives respect in return. Go to any city with widespread segregated bike lanes and bike lights, and you'll likely find a culture where cyclists are no more likely to break the law than pedestrians or motorists. Third, motorists are hardly exempt from constant law-breaking. How often do people not signal, or roll through stop signs, or enter the intersection right after the light turns red, or park in a bike lane, or 'block the box', or tailgate, or break the speed limit? I've lived in enough places in the US to know that the answer is "constantly". And all that with a vehicle that's vastly more dangerous than any bike or jogger. I mean, my god, one of the most common and stereotypical complaints in America about where anyone lives is "ugh, drivers in [state] are the WORST".
    - megaman22 9y ago
      My experience is generally that it's safer to cross the street away from crosswalks. Typically, crosswalks are put in places that have subpar visibility in one or both directions, or at intersections where there are many more variables in play and potential decisions that multiple parties can make. Drivers will do unpredictable things if you are on foot and merely in the general area of a crosswalk. If you cross the street on a straight-away with good visibility, you can gauge the speed of the traffic, determine a safe window, and cross easily, without disruption.
- ptaipale 9y ago
  Disagree with the antagonism, though my sample is of course very small. Coming from North Europe, where it's fairly natural to walk distances of a few hundred meters to do an errand, I and colleagues used to walk from a hotel in Rohnert Park to a Wal-mart on the other side of highway 101, whenever visiting the place and needing to do some shopping. And each time there were people driving by who would stop at us and ask: "Do you guys need help, did your car break down?" Very friendly people, apparently they thought we had a problem.
  - emj 9y ago
    That's a different situation, you will also get questioning looks in Sweden when walking in the urban sprawl of upper middle class, but it's worse in the US. The OSM Surveyors Jacket came about in part because of a necessity, so it's really not only a US thing.
    - ptaipale 9y ago
      Really? I have walked in some Swedish upper middle class / sprawl areas, didn't notice any particular questioning looks, not to mention antagonism. Har inte gått i faktisk Solsidan dock. The only area in Scandinavia where I met actual antagonism for walking was a neighbourhood in Århus; I lead a group of 12-year-old football players in a neat dual line through it by foot, and some "youth" started to throw little rocks at the boys. I guess they wanted to signal that it's their territory.
      - emj 9y ago
        The feeling can absolutely be found here too if you are unlucky. Calling it antagonistic would be hyperbolic of me.
  - avs733 9y ago
    I should clarify that by antagonism I don't mean individual negativity or dislike for... I mean conscious lack of interest at a design level in engaging those populations. The situation you describe, to me, is a manifestation of that cultural antagonism. That situation exists because society is squeezing out people who walk.
- crottypeter 9y ago
  This is very telling even though it was like 1.5 miles... It should be the other way round "People drive to stuff, even though it's only 1.5 miles".
  - pacerwpg 9y ago
    But 1.5 miles in Phoenix is not necessarily as 1.5 miles elsewhere. The sun is oppressive and actively trying to kill you there.
    - obscurantist 9y ago
      I can also imagine walking through 1.5 miles of Phoenix sprawl is dreadfully boring, compared to somewhere like San Francisco or Berkeley.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  Even in big cities American urban design tends to strongly favor cars and ignore pedestrians. Here in Germany, any decent sized intersection will have pedestrian islands, often multiple islands just for a single side. In the states, these are relatively uncommon. Or look at where the stoplights are. In Germany, they're set back such that it's impossible for a driver to go into the crosswalk and still see the light. This naturally encourages drivers to respect the crosswalk. Not so in the US, unfortunately. I could go on and on, but really almost all American streets are hostile to anything that's not a car.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Where you say "all", you are talking about roads and major streets. The typical American street has a sidewalk set back from the street and light traffic (so the controls at the intersections barely matter).
    - TulliusCicero 9y ago
      If you're talking about local, non-arterial roads, those are much worse for pedestrians in the US too. 1. At least here in Munich, most of them here have enough space for one lane of parked cars, and one comfortable lane of traffic; if cars happen to approach each other on such a street, one has to pull out somewhere, or sometimes they can barely squeeze by each other. Contrast that with the US, where room enough for two lanes of parked cars and for two lanes of traffic (albeit without any markings) are the standard. 2. Setbacks here, both for businesses and homes, are much smaller than in the US. 3. There are many "cut-throughs" and little paths that are only permeable to pedestrians and cyclists, not cars. The practical impact of the above is that streets here feel more human scale, cars travel more slowly, and walking and biking are more convenient. I let my six-year old son bike on the road on local streets here to get to the bakery or train station, something I'd never do in the bay area, where I'm originally from.
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        They may not be as nice as in Germany but they are not typically hostile either. The streets in town here are ~20-25 feet wide and mostly don't have much traffic. 3 or 4 extra steps to cross an empty street isn't a big problem.
- ensignavenger 9y ago
  Maybe that was a Phoenix thing- I've walked in areas of all sizes (From gravel farm roads to some of the countries biggest cities) all over the country and never had the problem.
- bencollier49 9y ago
  I can back this up. I'm British, my father and I were in the US and went to visit my uncle. We took the train out of Boston and decided to walk from the station to his house. Got stopped by the police and questioned. Amazing.
dundercoder 9y ago
Pragmatism aside, surrendering my license was a significant step in the grieving process for me. I was warned by a vision counselor that losing sight would be like losing a loved one. So far that has been my experience.
katzgrau 9y ago
I walk pretty much everywhere within a two mile range if I have the time. It's a bit meditative and I can also get a little exercise (if you could call it that) in. According to WaPo, 70% of Americans are overweight or obese, so I don't think that, statistically, many people are really in a place to look down on you for walking.
mbrameld 9y ago
I think the law requires you to give it up if you can't see well enough to drive. You can get an I'd card that looks a lot like a license, but doesn't permit you to operate motor vehicles on public roads.
gumby 9y ago
> It's a great ID. A few years ago i started telling people "I don't have any ID" and, remarkably, they all found ways to do business with me. As it happens I do have a driver's license but I leave it in the car. 99% of the time I am walking around with no ID at all, and my life works fine. You can fly without ID. I do carry a passport when flying internationally.

avs733 9y ago

I, and several of my friends when I used to live in Phoenix, were big walkers. Its evening? go for a walk around the neighborhood. Walk to work, even though it was like 1.5 miles...just...walk. Each of us were stopped at least once by police for being suspicious...near as I can tell (we were all >middle class white people) all that was suspicious was us walking on sidewalks. Outside of the biggest cities America is actively antagonistic towards walkers. My sincere belief is because of the assumption that they are poor and should be judged.

SirZimzim 9y ago
Doesn't help that drivers act incredibly entitled to the road and view pedestrians and bicycles as obstacles.
- rimliu 9y ago
  Otoh, drivets are also the ones taking the traffic regulations most seriously. Pedestrians are inclined to jaywalk, and that’s pretty much it, but don’t get me started on bicycles…
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    This. Drivers, pedestrians and bikers hating each other is a result of infrastructure that results in them having to interact in poorly defined ways.
  - emj 9y ago
    Your comment is anecdata, basing these kinds of statements on personal experiences is not a good idea, the truth is we break the rules with the same frequency what ever mode of transport the use. Furthermore in the statistics for accidents in Sweden serious injuries drivers vs. pedestrian/bicyclist you can see that in ~80% of the cases it was caused by drivers.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Bikes are slower so you would expect them to cause even fewer accidents. 20% may not seem like it, but it suggests bikes riders are much worse at following the rules of the road than drivers. In practice you actually see this with bike riders regularly ignoring red lights ect.
      - btrettel 9y ago
        Cyclist here. A lot if drivers will be rude (or worse) to me on the road because of the sort of things you said. Based on most objective studies I've seen there is no real difference in the fraction of cyclists and drivers who regularly break the law. They break different laws, but I'd say drivers break the law in much more dangerous ways (e.g., speeding). Cyclists running red lights is a problem, but I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. In contrast I can think of more times off the top of my head when drivers blew through red lights without looking (most were obviously distracted), but that's to be expected as there are many more drivers than cyclists. Anyway, it seems to me that the fraction of drivers who are bad is about the same as that for cyclists, so someone's mode of transportation is not informative about whether someone's law abiding. Saying otherwise is not justified. You can find a lot about these studies via Google, e.g.: https://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+of+cyclists+and+drivers+breaking+the+law https://www.google.com/search?q=comparison+of+cyclists+and+d... By the way, I follow the law to the letter. Doesn't get me any more respect on the road, unfortunately.
        Retric 9y ago
        Minor tranffic violoations are rarely an issue it's the big ones like: I can only think of a handful of times in my decade of cycling when a cyclist didn't check for oncoming traffic before going through a red light. which tend to kill people. Minor speeding (~15%) is not a significant hazard. Going through a red light is about as dangerous as doing ~50-100MPH over the speed limit which is very rare. Other things like riding on lane markers between cars is blatantly ignoring the rules of the road and vastly increase the risk of death. Again about as risky as a car slowly driving on the sidewalk, which you just don't see. Bike riders on sidewalks are again extremely dangerous and often lead to fatalities, but it's also very common. PS: I worked with bike messengers who may be unusually bad about this stuff.
  - TulliusCicero 9y ago
    Pedestrians and cyclists generally don't present a serious safety hazard to others. This is like complaining that people treat guns and knives with different levels of seriousness. Of course they do; both are potentially deadly, but one far more so than the other.
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > cyclists generally don't present a serious safety hazard to others. If they behave dangerously and put themselves at risk of being hit, even if they are the one taking the risk, the car driver will always be at fault, no matter what. And yes, like some others have echoed in comments here, many bike riders do not stop at red lights. I see that every - single - day, multiple times.
      - TulliusCicero 9y ago
        First off, you're wrong. Cyclists can absolutely be found at fault. Secondly, cyclist scofflaw-ness is mostly a result of a transportation system that's hostile to them. The Dutch aren't nicer cyclists because they're born that way, superior to Americans; they're nicer cyclists because the system there largely respects people on bikes, and so the system receives respect in return. Go to any city with widespread segregated bike lanes and bike lights, and you'll likely find a culture where cyclists are no more likely to break the law than pedestrians or motorists. Third, motorists are hardly exempt from constant law-breaking. How often do people not signal, or roll through stop signs, or enter the intersection right after the light turns red, or park in a bike lane, or 'block the box', or tailgate, or break the speed limit? I've lived in enough places in the US to know that the answer is "constantly". And all that with a vehicle that's vastly more dangerous than any bike or jogger. I mean, my god, one of the most common and stereotypical complaints in America about where anyone lives is "ugh, drivers in [state] are the WORST".
  - megaman22 9y ago
    My experience is generally that it's safer to cross the street away from crosswalks. Typically, crosswalks are put in places that have subpar visibility in one or both directions, or at intersections where there are many more variables in play and potential decisions that multiple parties can make. Drivers will do unpredictable things if you are on foot and merely in the general area of a crosswalk. If you cross the street on a straight-away with good visibility, you can gauge the speed of the traffic, determine a safe window, and cross easily, without disruption.
ptaipale 9y ago
Disagree with the antagonism, though my sample is of course very small. Coming from North Europe, where it's fairly natural to walk distances of a few hundred meters to do an errand, I and colleagues used to walk from a hotel in Rohnert Park to a Wal-mart on the other side of highway 101, whenever visiting the place and needing to do some shopping. And each time there were people driving by who would stop at us and ask: "Do you guys need help, did your car break down?" Very friendly people, apparently they thought we had a problem.
- emj 9y ago
  That's a different situation, you will also get questioning looks in Sweden when walking in the urban sprawl of upper middle class, but it's worse in the US. The OSM Surveyors Jacket came about in part because of a necessity, so it's really not only a US thing.
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    Really? I have walked in some Swedish upper middle class / sprawl areas, didn't notice any particular questioning looks, not to mention antagonism. Har inte gått i faktisk Solsidan dock. The only area in Scandinavia where I met actual antagonism for walking was a neighbourhood in Århus; I lead a group of 12-year-old football players in a neat dual line through it by foot, and some "youth" started to throw little rocks at the boys. I guess they wanted to signal that it's their territory.
    - emj 9y ago
      The feeling can absolutely be found here too if you are unlucky. Calling it antagonistic would be hyperbolic of me.
- avs733 9y ago
  I should clarify that by antagonism I don't mean individual negativity or dislike for... I mean conscious lack of interest at a design level in engaging those populations. The situation you describe, to me, is a manifestation of that cultural antagonism. That situation exists because society is squeezing out people who walk.
crottypeter 9y ago
This is very telling even though it was like 1.5 miles... It should be the other way round "People drive to stuff, even though it's only 1.5 miles".
- pacerwpg 9y ago
  But 1.5 miles in Phoenix is not necessarily as 1.5 miles elsewhere. The sun is oppressive and actively trying to kill you there.
  - obscurantist 9y ago
    I can also imagine walking through 1.5 miles of Phoenix sprawl is dreadfully boring, compared to somewhere like San Francisco or Berkeley.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
Even in big cities American urban design tends to strongly favor cars and ignore pedestrians. Here in Germany, any decent sized intersection will have pedestrian islands, often multiple islands just for a single side. In the states, these are relatively uncommon. Or look at where the stoplights are. In Germany, they're set back such that it's impossible for a driver to go into the crosswalk and still see the light. This naturally encourages drivers to respect the crosswalk. Not so in the US, unfortunately. I could go on and on, but really almost all American streets are hostile to anything that's not a car.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Where you say "all", you are talking about roads and major streets. The typical American street has a sidewalk set back from the street and light traffic (so the controls at the intersections barely matter).
  - TulliusCicero 9y ago
    If you're talking about local, non-arterial roads, those are much worse for pedestrians in the US too. 1. At least here in Munich, most of them here have enough space for one lane of parked cars, and one comfortable lane of traffic; if cars happen to approach each other on such a street, one has to pull out somewhere, or sometimes they can barely squeeze by each other. Contrast that with the US, where room enough for two lanes of parked cars and for two lanes of traffic (albeit without any markings) are the standard. 2. Setbacks here, both for businesses and homes, are much smaller than in the US. 3. There are many "cut-throughs" and little paths that are only permeable to pedestrians and cyclists, not cars. The practical impact of the above is that streets here feel more human scale, cars travel more slowly, and walking and biking are more convenient. I let my six-year old son bike on the road on local streets here to get to the bakery or train station, something I'd never do in the bay area, where I'm originally from.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      They may not be as nice as in Germany but they are not typically hostile either. The streets in town here are ~20-25 feet wide and mostly don't have much traffic. 3 or 4 extra steps to cross an empty street isn't a big problem.
ensignavenger 9y ago
Maybe that was a Phoenix thing- I've walked in areas of all sizes (From gravel farm roads to some of the countries biggest cities) all over the country and never had the problem.
bencollier49 9y ago
I can back this up. I'm British, my father and I were in the US and went to visit my uncle. We took the train out of Boston and decided to walk from the station to his house. Got stopped by the police and questioned. Amazing.

dundercoder 9y ago

Pragmatism aside, surrendering my license was a significant step in the grieving process for me. I was warned by a vision counselor that losing sight would be like losing a loved one. So far that has been my experience.

katzgrau 9y ago

I walk pretty much everywhere within a two mile range if I have the time. It's a bit meditative and I can also get a little exercise (if you could call it that) in. According to WaPo, 70% of Americans are overweight or obese, so I don't think that, statistically, many people are really in a place to look down on you for walking.

mbrameld 9y ago

I think the law requires you to give it up if you can't see well enough to drive. You can get an I'd card that looks a lot like a license, but doesn't permit you to operate motor vehicles on public roads.

gumby 9y ago

> It's a great ID. A few years ago i started telling people "I don't have any ID" and, remarkably, they all found ways to do business with me. As it happens I do have a driver's license but I leave it in the car. 99% of the time I am walking around with no ID at all, and my life works fine. You can fly without ID. I do carry a passport when flying internationally.