4 ms·

People in America live in such a bubble and just think that anything that doesn't work in America can't possibly work at all. A common post on HN goes along the

People in America live in such a bubble and just think that anything that doesn't work in America can't possibly work at all. A common post on HN goes along the lines "trains are shit and could never be seriously used. I took a train once and it was dirty and slow"

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
Yeah but if I can't carry sixteen kids in the car whilst towing my 60ft yacht 2000 miles without refuelling then what you are proposing is useless.
product50 7y ago
No it is not like that. I know you want to fit things to your narrative but honestly what we are asking here is to completely redesign cities from ground up and it is not going to happen anytime soon. Europe works since it has a huge history to it when cars weren't there and thus a lot of roads/lanes were built accordingly. To suggest US should do the same seems improbable to me. We should build for the future vs. the past. So the question I will ask what is next after cars? My mind goes into ideas such as aerial transport vs. walking/biking. Also, I would be very curious how many folks commenting here have kids vs. single men/women who ride their bikes and hate that they have to share the road with cars.
- TulliusCicero 7y ago
  > No it is not like that. Oh, yes it is. I see comments on the internet like, "bike friendly? But what about kids??" as if kids explode if they get too close to a bike, all the damn time. Somewhere in the commenter's mind, they're aware that there are bike friendly places where people have kids, like the Netherlands, and it works just fine. But they don't want to admit it, so they pretend they don't know. If you point it out to them, they'll find whatever the most obvious surface differences are between that place and where they live and insist this makes it impossible to draw any lessons. I have a kid and we live car-free in Munich. We use walking, biking (including an electric cargo bike), buses, and trains. Works great. I don't dispute that sometimes it would be nice to have a car for the convenience, for things like going to Ikea or ski trips, but overall it's worth it for us to avoid the hassle and expense of car ownership. On the other hand, I accept that when we move back to the states, unless we're in NYC we'll probably need a car. Oh well.
  - product50 7y ago
    The problem with this line of argument often is that you are transposing solutions that work elsewhere piecemeal vs. looking at things holistically. For example, public schools in cities such as SF could be quite far away from people's homes. And public transport in SF sucks. Likely very few people in Munich travel to suburbs for work (since many companies in the bay area are headquartered far away from SF) and there are parents who have no option but to make that travel happen. As such, this line of reasoning that if it works in Netherlands will work here seems vacuous. You need to consider the realities on the ground vs. making one off statements.
- Someone 7y ago
  ”to completely redesign cities from ground up and it is not going to happen anytime soon” So, better start now. The longer you wait, the longer it will take. ”We should build for the future vs. the past.” A future where we have to significantly decrease energy use in order to limit global warming? ”who ride their bikes and hate that they have to share the road with cars.” Who says cyclists have to share the road with cars? Any decent infrastructure has separated cycling lanes wherever cars go over 20 miles per hour. Kids in particular, have a lot to gain. A bicycle has thrice the speed of walking, so riding a bicycle makes a kid’s neighborhood about ten times as big (when comparing road system built for cars with one built for people, the difference is even greater) And with it, their parents have a lot to gain, as kids riding their bike to school/friends/sports means parent do not have to drive them there.
widowlark 7y ago
It's more of a design problem in american cities than anything else. It's hard to get public transport working well in cities - as a result less people use them - as a result they are slow - as a result they are dirty and not well taken care of.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

Yeah but if I can't carry sixteen kids in the car whilst towing my 60ft yacht 2000 miles without refuelling then what you are proposing is useless.

product50 7y ago

No it is not like that. I know you want to fit things to your narrative but honestly what we are asking here is to completely redesign cities from ground up and it is not going to happen anytime soon. Europe works since it has a huge history to it when cars weren't there and thus a lot of roads/lanes were built accordingly. To suggest US should do the same seems improbable to me. We should build for the future vs. the past. So the question I will ask what is next after cars? My mind goes into ideas such as aerial transport vs. walking/biking. Also, I would be very curious how many folks commenting here have kids vs. single men/women who ride their bikes and hate that they have to share the road with cars.

TulliusCicero 7y ago
> No it is not like that. Oh, yes it is. I see comments on the internet like, "bike friendly? But what about kids??" as if kids explode if they get too close to a bike, all the damn time. Somewhere in the commenter's mind, they're aware that there are bike friendly places where people have kids, like the Netherlands, and it works just fine. But they don't want to admit it, so they pretend they don't know. If you point it out to them, they'll find whatever the most obvious surface differences are between that place and where they live and insist this makes it impossible to draw any lessons. I have a kid and we live car-free in Munich. We use walking, biking (including an electric cargo bike), buses, and trains. Works great. I don't dispute that sometimes it would be nice to have a car for the convenience, for things like going to Ikea or ski trips, but overall it's worth it for us to avoid the hassle and expense of car ownership. On the other hand, I accept that when we move back to the states, unless we're in NYC we'll probably need a car. Oh well.
- product50 7y ago
  The problem with this line of argument often is that you are transposing solutions that work elsewhere piecemeal vs. looking at things holistically. For example, public schools in cities such as SF could be quite far away from people's homes. And public transport in SF sucks. Likely very few people in Munich travel to suburbs for work (since many companies in the bay area are headquartered far away from SF) and there are parents who have no option but to make that travel happen. As such, this line of reasoning that if it works in Netherlands will work here seems vacuous. You need to consider the realities on the ground vs. making one off statements.
Someone 7y ago
”to completely redesign cities from ground up and it is not going to happen anytime soon” So, better start now. The longer you wait, the longer it will take. ”We should build for the future vs. the past.” A future where we have to significantly decrease energy use in order to limit global warming? ”who ride their bikes and hate that they have to share the road with cars.” Who says cyclists have to share the road with cars? Any decent infrastructure has separated cycling lanes wherever cars go over 20 miles per hour. Kids in particular, have a lot to gain. A bicycle has thrice the speed of walking, so riding a bicycle makes a kid’s neighborhood about ten times as big (when comparing road system built for cars with one built for people, the difference is even greater) And with it, their parents have a lot to gain, as kids riding their bike to school/friends/sports means parent do not have to drive them there.

widowlark 7y ago

It's more of a design problem in american cities than anything else. It's hard to get public transport working well in cities - as a result less people use them - as a result they are slow - as a result they are dirty and not well taken care of.