4 ms·

Exactly. Walking with young kids is so stressful. All that kids want to do is run ahead, and I keep having to yell at them to stop, wait. You can never be at

Exactly. Walking with young kids is so stressful. All that kids want to do is run ahead, and I keep having to yell at them to stop, wait. You can never be at ease.

enriquto 8y ago
A city with fast cars running around is the least human-friendly environment that we have built on purpose. People often complain about hostile or "anti-human" architecture [1], but those are silly details. The sad tragedy is building the whole city around the needs of cars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
- wahern 8y ago
  I wonder what effect the increasing performance of cars has had on safety. Any modern car can accelerate to ridiculously unsafe speeds within the span of a single block, whereas cars from the 1970s and even 1980s were sluggish. Similarly, modern cars can make sharp turns where older cars risked skidding. Then factor in things like less noise and larger A-pillars reducing visibility[1], and modern cars seem more anti-pedestrian. The gap between inattentiveness and recklessness has been closed. Even considering improved braking, there was simply more margin for error back when speeds were naturally lower. I know cars have always been dangerous to pedestrians. But there were other factors at play, like drunk driving being nearly ubiquitous. [1] The left A-pillar in my Honda CRV has just the right size and placement that it blocks the far left-hand corner of the intersection from view. A pedestrian about to cross the street is invisible to me unless I physically lean over or have already entered the intersection.
  - mywittyname 8y ago
    > modern cars seem more anti-pedestrian. Pedestrian safety is a big consideration with modern cars, as it's a legal requirement in most countries. Most of the homogeneity in modern car design is due to these regulations -- low hoodlines are rare because there needs to be a buffer between the engine and the hood; the hood can't extend all the way to the grill because the edge causes excessive injuries; and the front ends of cars have a weird bulge because pedestrians struck should be tossed to the side of the car to prevent them from being run over. That's not even getting into automatic braking systems or backup cameras. In contrast, a 65 Toronado looks designed to cause the maximum amount of damage to any person you run over.
    - wahern 8y ago
      Yeah, but there's only so much technology can do to mitigate a 40mph impact.[1] And I assume that 65 Toronado required wide turns (as did the 60-something Pontiac Boneville I briefly owned and stupidly sold because it wasn't sleek enough). Whereas pedestrians getting clipped by a left-turning car racing pedestrians is a regular occurrence. That said, point taken. And those mitigations are based on real-world data, not my anecdotes. And, of course, nothing prevents us from having the best of both worlds--safer cars and safer streets. I was just thinking that streets are so stupidly designed today because, once upon a time, the same configurations may not have been as stupid. (I know that one reason SF streets are so wide, especially in the Western part of the city, is because they were designed to accommodate street cars and cars simultaneously.) [1] Automatic braking is a huge deal but its far from pervasive. The last time I went car shopping three years ago, it was still an expensive option for both the Honda CRV and Mercedes GLC we were looking at. My lease is almost up and I think it'll be standard on the same model CRV. Even when it becomes standard industry-wide it'll be many years before I'd factor it into my mental calculus as a pedestrian. Less well-off drivers in older cars spend a disproportionate amount of time on the streets simply because of the economics (e.g. often live far outside the city because of housing costs, and drive into the city because neither their homes nor jobs are conveniently located to mass transit).
- njarboe 8y ago
  I don't think that cars vote or really have any agency (yet). Maybe if people, who think that people who emphasize the use cars have been in charge of building cities for too long, used a word like motorist that recognized the humanity of car users, you might find less resistance to your ideas. Being referred to as an inanimate object is an quite an "othering".

Exactly. Walking with young kids is so stressful. All that kids want to do is run ahead, and I keep having to yell at them to stop, wait. You can never be at ease.

enriquto 8y ago

A city with fast cars running around is the least human-friendly environment that we have built on purpose. People often complain about hostile or "anti-human" architecture [1], but those are silly details. The sad tragedy is building the whole city around the needs of cars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture

wahern 8y ago
I wonder what effect the increasing performance of cars has had on safety. Any modern car can accelerate to ridiculously unsafe speeds within the span of a single block, whereas cars from the 1970s and even 1980s were sluggish. Similarly, modern cars can make sharp turns where older cars risked skidding. Then factor in things like less noise and larger A-pillars reducing visibility[1], and modern cars seem more anti-pedestrian. The gap between inattentiveness and recklessness has been closed. Even considering improved braking, there was simply more margin for error back when speeds were naturally lower. I know cars have always been dangerous to pedestrians. But there were other factors at play, like drunk driving being nearly ubiquitous. [1] The left A-pillar in my Honda CRV has just the right size and placement that it blocks the far left-hand corner of the intersection from view. A pedestrian about to cross the street is invisible to me unless I physically lean over or have already entered the intersection.
- mywittyname 8y ago
  > modern cars seem more anti-pedestrian. Pedestrian safety is a big consideration with modern cars, as it's a legal requirement in most countries. Most of the homogeneity in modern car design is due to these regulations -- low hoodlines are rare because there needs to be a buffer between the engine and the hood; the hood can't extend all the way to the grill because the edge causes excessive injuries; and the front ends of cars have a weird bulge because pedestrians struck should be tossed to the side of the car to prevent them from being run over. That's not even getting into automatic braking systems or backup cameras. In contrast, a 65 Toronado looks designed to cause the maximum amount of damage to any person you run over.
  - wahern 8y ago
    Yeah, but there's only so much technology can do to mitigate a 40mph impact.[1] And I assume that 65 Toronado required wide turns (as did the 60-something Pontiac Boneville I briefly owned and stupidly sold because it wasn't sleek enough). Whereas pedestrians getting clipped by a left-turning car racing pedestrians is a regular occurrence. That said, point taken. And those mitigations are based on real-world data, not my anecdotes. And, of course, nothing prevents us from having the best of both worlds--safer cars and safer streets. I was just thinking that streets are so stupidly designed today because, once upon a time, the same configurations may not have been as stupid. (I know that one reason SF streets are so wide, especially in the Western part of the city, is because they were designed to accommodate street cars and cars simultaneously.) [1] Automatic braking is a huge deal but its far from pervasive. The last time I went car shopping three years ago, it was still an expensive option for both the Honda CRV and Mercedes GLC we were looking at. My lease is almost up and I think it'll be standard on the same model CRV. Even when it becomes standard industry-wide it'll be many years before I'd factor it into my mental calculus as a pedestrian. Less well-off drivers in older cars spend a disproportionate amount of time on the streets simply because of the economics (e.g. often live far outside the city because of housing costs, and drive into the city because neither their homes nor jobs are conveniently located to mass transit).
njarboe 8y ago
I don't think that cars vote or really have any agency (yet). Maybe if people, who think that people who emphasize the use cars have been in charge of building cities for too long, used a word like motorist that recognized the humanity of car users, you might find less resistance to your ideas. Being referred to as an inanimate object is an quite an "othering".