4 ms·

The best way to gain support is to extrapolate from your own situation. /s Don't get me wrong: I believe your case, and I believe it's roughly on the path to r

The best way to gain support is to extrapolate from your own situation. /s Don't get me wrong: I believe your case, and I believe it's roughly on the path to reducing the effect we have on the planet. But you are missing few practical considerations. The immediate case that you are obviously ignoring is parents with babies. Babies are known not to regulate their body temperature well, nor to have strong immune systems, nor can they walk long distances on their own. So what do parents do? Move between places with temperate climate and clean(er) air (home with AC/heating, cars, malls...). How do they do that? Driving cars (you've also got your mobile "locker" where you can put a stroller or any other necessities in). At the same time, parents with small children (as a category) probably spend the most time outdoors walking in our society today, but that's usually walking "without a purpose." When they live in non-walkable areas, they'll drive to a walkable area first. (Sure, we could subject our babies to all the extremes, but we'll have a higher infant/child mortality rate. We've long stopped subscribing to the "only the fittest survive" mantra.) Since having a baby is a big investment today, if you are at the same time investing in a house, you'll look for (slightly) cheaper housing options. So, walkable neighbourhoods — I can't imagine anyone not wanting to live in one — are usually priced out of their range. You are right that this is a loop: parents can't tell when they can stop being so vigilant, especially as children (and parents) are now unused to extreme climates, so they easily fall sick (parents included). And if they've invested in a home outside a walkable area, it's costly to move. While you say breaking that loop is easy, I don't think it is. Moving places is hard and expensive (and harder and more expensive with children). Accepting higher sickness rates while your kids and you develop your immune and cardiovascular (to better manage body heat) systems is costly too (leave from work, paid help...). You should consider yourself privileged to have been able to do so! This points at a number of problems: financial incentives for home builders are misplaced, missing regulatory requirements... and sure, insufficiently motivated people. And this is only when constrained with one thing (having a baby): there are plenty other constraints people might have (job availability, care availability, friends proximity...). Basically, people might have to compromise a lot. If you only focus on insufficient motivation, I don't think you'll get many to "sign up".

frobozz 5y ago
The immediate point that you are obviously ignoring is that no one you are replying to has even suggested anything that you seem to be arguing against. It looks like you are responding to someone saying "ban all cars, anyone living somewhere unwalkable just has to suck it up, regardless of any extenuating circumstances" What was actually said was "LET people run errands by foot and by car", and "I'd like more awnings" Basically - make places more walkable. "Low hanging fruit" meaning focus on making nearly walkable places into very walkable places. I am a parent with small children. We walk to school. With a baby, I would walk to the supermarket, no one got ill any more than the occasional sniffle. Combining a pram and a backpack meant I could easily bring home the weekly shop, much easier than I can now that I have to carry everything. It's also about places that are wantonly and deliberately hostile to pedestrians. Don't make people drive between adjacent destinations, don't force people to walk 2 miles to get somewhere half a mile away. If you live in a village with a baby and an elderly parent and your nearest city is Timbuktu or Nuuk, this is not about you.
- necovek 5y ago
  That's not all they were saying in either this or their other comments. The comment I replied to had this in response to someone's question about walking in "sweltering heat": > (talks a lot about personal experiences and hardships and then concludes with...) So I'm not especially impressed by such arguments. I don't think they have much, if any, merit. The entire tone of the comment is "if I can do it, anyone can". While it's not as strong as "anyone living somewhere unwalkable just has to suck it up", there is definitely an implication of something along those lines.
  - frobozz 5y ago
    The "sweltering heat" comment was, itself, a bad-faith "Ha! you didn't think about this edge condition" kind of comment, in response to a comment saying this: > Take the gains you can access instead of quibbling about "But that doesn't work for everyone!" The tone of that you describe as "if I can do it, anyone can", I read as "yes I did think of that, because this is my relevant experience, and people living somewhere hot isn't the massive 'gotcha' you think it is" But the point still stands, this is about reducing car use by making places more walkable, and your reaction read as a response to reducing car use by banning cars. Many places in North America are actively and unnaturally hostile to pedestrians, so that even those who want to walk end up driving. This is what needs to change first. Moaning that Oklahoma gets so hot so you can't possibly install pedestrian facilities in suburban Philadelphia, or that some people need to drive along this road, so you can't possibly provide a way for pedestrians to get across it is ridiculous. Improving walkability also improves drivability, because it reduces traffic and parking demand. Quibbling about not working for everyone is precisely what you and the "sweltering heat" comment are doing. Take the easy steps and the harder ones can follow. Moreover, I don't think you are really considering the reality of getting around with small children, just trying to win another gotcha. My kids hated getting into the car as babies. A pram ride along a nice tree-shaded, low-traffic Street would be far more preferable in all but the most ridiculous summertime-midday-in-the-outback heat.

frobozz 5y ago

The immediate point that you are obviously ignoring is that no one you are replying to has even suggested anything that you seem to be arguing against. It looks like you are responding to someone saying "ban all cars, anyone living somewhere unwalkable just has to suck it up, regardless of any extenuating circumstances" What was actually said was "LET people run errands by foot and by car", and "I'd like more awnings" Basically - make places more walkable. "Low hanging fruit" meaning focus on making nearly walkable places into very walkable places. I am a parent with small children. We walk to school. With a baby, I would walk to the supermarket, no one got ill any more than the occasional sniffle. Combining a pram and a backpack meant I could easily bring home the weekly shop, much easier than I can now that I have to carry everything. It's also about places that are wantonly and deliberately hostile to pedestrians. Don't make people drive between adjacent destinations, don't force people to walk 2 miles to get somewhere half a mile away. If you live in a village with a baby and an elderly parent and your nearest city is Timbuktu or Nuuk, this is not about you.

necovek 5y ago
That's not all they were saying in either this or their other comments. The comment I replied to had this in response to someone's question about walking in "sweltering heat": > (talks a lot about personal experiences and hardships and then concludes with...) So I'm not especially impressed by such arguments. I don't think they have much, if any, merit. The entire tone of the comment is "if I can do it, anyone can". While it's not as strong as "anyone living somewhere unwalkable just has to suck it up", there is definitely an implication of something along those lines.
- frobozz 5y ago
  The "sweltering heat" comment was, itself, a bad-faith "Ha! you didn't think about this edge condition" kind of comment, in response to a comment saying this: > Take the gains you can access instead of quibbling about "But that doesn't work for everyone!" The tone of that you describe as "if I can do it, anyone can", I read as "yes I did think of that, because this is my relevant experience, and people living somewhere hot isn't the massive 'gotcha' you think it is" But the point still stands, this is about reducing car use by making places more walkable, and your reaction read as a response to reducing car use by banning cars. Many places in North America are actively and unnaturally hostile to pedestrians, so that even those who want to walk end up driving. This is what needs to change first. Moaning that Oklahoma gets so hot so you can't possibly install pedestrian facilities in suburban Philadelphia, or that some people need to drive along this road, so you can't possibly provide a way for pedestrians to get across it is ridiculous. Improving walkability also improves drivability, because it reduces traffic and parking demand. Quibbling about not working for everyone is precisely what you and the "sweltering heat" comment are doing. Take the easy steps and the harder ones can follow. Moreover, I don't think you are really considering the reality of getting around with small children, just trying to win another gotcha. My kids hated getting into the car as babies. A pram ride along a nice tree-shaded, low-traffic Street would be far more preferable in all but the most ridiculous summertime-midday-in-the-outback heat.