4 ms·

Right, then use the car.

by matz1 7y ago

romwell 7y ago
What are people without cars supposed to do? Drive. Great, simply great. As I said, that's not an option for: * people who can't afford a car * the disabled * children * very old people * etc You're literally requiring everyone else to drive so that's driving is a bit easier for you because you'll have to pay less attention to the road. OK. That kind of makes you look like a shitty driver, though.
- matz1 7y ago
  > What are people without cars supposed to do? Drive. Or use public transportation. > people who can't afford a car, the disabled, children, very old people Public transportation or uber or in the future, self driving car. If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available or improve it.
  - romwell 7y ago
    >If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available or improve it. Well, OK, we are on the same page here. But they surely do not exist in most of the US, and will not be available overnight. Until we have that, we should be mindful of people who have to deal with inadequacies of the infrastructure. Uber is not a solution for most people. Call it what it is: a taxi. And you wouldn't expect someone too poor to have a car to take a taxi everywhere (same applies for children, international students, etc, etc). ========================================= Personal anecdote: I petitioned the city of College Station, TX to construct sidewalks on Harvey Rd, where a lot of international grad students who don't have cars live. The street was missing sidewalks for a full block on both sides. I've seen a wheelchair being rolled on that road, where cars go 50mph, because there was no alternative. The city's answer? It's in the development plan, but there's "no money" for it. In the meantime, the Highway 6 ramp on Harvey Rd was redone two or three times. The ramp was fine, I saw no gain from that. In my 7.5 years of living in the area, I never figured out a way to get to DPS by public transportation. I heard that there is a city bus, but I have not witnessed it. You'd think that people who need to get a license should have means of getting to the place that gives them out without having to drive, but no. There was no way to get to most of the places without having to walk on the street where cars were driving. The sidewalk on College Main street (the main is in the name) was completed in 2016, and was an exception. You literally couldn't walk to a movie theater, for example: the walking directions on Google Maps would take you on a highway frontage (exactly where you wouldn't want to be as a pedestrian). So, if you have $10 for a movie ticket, but not another $20 for a taxi there and back (the idea that there could be a bus is laughable, of course there is no bus), you are SOL. Not to mention that before Uber, even taxis were not a thing in many suburbs. You know that people without cars are screwed, because you'd be very afraid to lose your license. It would be a disaster for your life. But it shouldn't be, because (as your driver's manual surely says) driving is a privilege that not all of us enjoy. ============================== PS: I say this as someone who accumulates at least 10K non-commute miles every year, and who considers 200 miles a "short" drive. I am very much pro-driving, and think that having a personal vehicle is very liberating. But at the same time, not having a vehicle should not be a death threat. In the US today, it is.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Like anything in life, you have to adapt or die, the city are build for car, you either adapt to it or at worse case die. Why are city build for car ? Apparently enough people/entity whatever want it to be that way. Good for you to, to fight for you cause, which is what you should be doing. If it were me, If I care enough I would petition to have more road and less sidewalks. No, I do not expect the situation would be ideal for everyone. You can't never have a situation where everyone is happy, that is simply impossible.
      - romwell 7y ago
        Well, you correctly describe the current state of affairs. Certainly building cities for cars benefited the people who built them, as well as the automobile manufacturers. And while we can't make everyone "happy", we definitely can definitely improve on things like, dunno, needlessly killing people. OK, I guess trying to spin "hey, maybe we could care just a tiny bit" about other people isn't going to work here, so how about this: The less people drive, the better it is for the drivers. Where I live, the 23-minute drive on Hwy 101 becomes up to a 1hr45m drive in the morning hours. Making the area pedestrian- and transit-friendly would likely cut down the peak commute time by half, saving car commuters a spare hour or two each day, judging by the experience in LA[1]. PS: "Adapt or die" is a shitty attitude to have, my friend. A good friend of mine and I were living on Long Island, NY. We were students, and couldn't afford to have a car. Insurance in NY is hella expensive. I moved out to grad school in TX, and "adapted": got a car and a license. It was cheap to live there, I could afford it. My friend didn't get the chance. He couldn't afford a car on a grad student stipend in NY. One day, he got hit by a car and died. I hold the Suffolk County - and people who say words like "adapt or die" regarding pedestrian deaths - personally responsible for the death of my friend, a PhD student who could have been working on self-driving cars now. You must be young to hold this attitude, and I sincerely hope you change it. There's always a bigger fish. "Adapt or die" is great when it doesn't concern you. [1]https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/04/public-transportation-does-relieve-traffic-congestion-just-not-everywhere/5149/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/04/public-transp...
        7y ago

Right, then use the car.

by matz1 7y ago

Right, then use the car.

What are people without cars supposed to do? Drive. Great, simply great. As I said, that's not an option for: * people who can't afford a car * the disabled * children * very old people * etc You're literally requiring everyone else to drive so that's driving is a bit easier for you because you'll have to pay less attention to the road. OK. That kind of makes you look like a shitty driver, though.

matz1 7y ago
> What are people without cars supposed to do? Drive. Or use public transportation. > people who can't afford a car, the disabled, children, very old people Public transportation or uber or in the future, self driving car. If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available or improve it.
- romwell 7y ago
  >If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available or improve it. Well, OK, we are on the same page here. But they surely do not exist in most of the US, and will not be available overnight. Until we have that, we should be mindful of people who have to deal with inadequacies of the infrastructure. Uber is not a solution for most people. Call it what it is: a taxi. And you wouldn't expect someone too poor to have a car to take a taxi everywhere (same applies for children, international students, etc, etc). ========================================= Personal anecdote: I petitioned the city of College Station, TX to construct sidewalks on Harvey Rd, where a lot of international grad students who don't have cars live. The street was missing sidewalks for a full block on both sides. I've seen a wheelchair being rolled on that road, where cars go 50mph, because there was no alternative. The city's answer? It's in the development plan, but there's "no money" for it. In the meantime, the Highway 6 ramp on Harvey Rd was redone two or three times. The ramp was fine, I saw no gain from that. In my 7.5 years of living in the area, I never figured out a way to get to DPS by public transportation. I heard that there is a city bus, but I have not witnessed it. You'd think that people who need to get a license should have means of getting to the place that gives them out without having to drive, but no. There was no way to get to most of the places without having to walk on the street where cars were driving. The sidewalk on College Main street (the main is in the name) was completed in 2016, and was an exception. You literally couldn't walk to a movie theater, for example: the walking directions on Google Maps would take you on a highway frontage (exactly where you wouldn't want to be as a pedestrian). So, if you have $10 for a movie ticket, but not another $20 for a taxi there and back (the idea that there could be a bus is laughable, of course there is no bus), you are SOL. Not to mention that before Uber, even taxis were not a thing in many suburbs. You know that people without cars are screwed, because you'd be very afraid to lose your license. It would be a disaster for your life. But it shouldn't be, because (as your driver's manual surely says) driving is a privilege that not all of us enjoy. ============================== PS: I say this as someone who accumulates at least 10K non-commute miles every year, and who considers 200 miles a "short" drive. I am very much pro-driving, and think that having a personal vehicle is very liberating. But at the same time, not having a vehicle should not be a death threat. In the US today, it is.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Like anything in life, you have to adapt or die, the city are build for car, you either adapt to it or at worse case die. Why are city build for car ? Apparently enough people/entity whatever want it to be that way. Good for you to, to fight for you cause, which is what you should be doing. If it were me, If I care enough I would petition to have more road and less sidewalks. No, I do not expect the situation would be ideal for everyone. You can't never have a situation where everyone is happy, that is simply impossible.
    - romwell 7y ago
      Well, you correctly describe the current state of affairs. Certainly building cities for cars benefited the people who built them, as well as the automobile manufacturers. And while we can't make everyone "happy", we definitely can definitely improve on things like, dunno, needlessly killing people. OK, I guess trying to spin "hey, maybe we could care just a tiny bit" about other people isn't going to work here, so how about this: The less people drive, the better it is for the drivers. Where I live, the 23-minute drive on Hwy 101 becomes up to a 1hr45m drive in the morning hours. Making the area pedestrian- and transit-friendly would likely cut down the peak commute time by half, saving car commuters a spare hour or two each day, judging by the experience in LA[1]. PS: "Adapt or die" is a shitty attitude to have, my friend. A good friend of mine and I were living on Long Island, NY. We were students, and couldn't afford to have a car. Insurance in NY is hella expensive. I moved out to grad school in TX, and "adapted": got a car and a license. It was cheap to live there, I could afford it. My friend didn't get the chance. He couldn't afford a car on a grad student stipend in NY. One day, he got hit by a car and died. I hold the Suffolk County - and people who say words like "adapt or die" regarding pedestrian deaths - personally responsible for the death of my friend, a PhD student who could have been working on self-driving cars now. You must be young to hold this attitude, and I sincerely hope you change it. There's always a bigger fish. "Adapt or die" is great when it doesn't concern you. [1]https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/04/public-transportation-does-relieve-traffic-congestion-just-not-everywhere/5149/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/04/public-transp...
      - 7y ago