4 ms·

It is funny how it is the "conservative" supposedly "old ways are the best ways" people who would absolutely riot if you restored the order that we had before 1

It is funny how it is the "conservative" supposedly "old ways are the best ways" people who would absolutely riot if you restored the order that we had before 1920 with pedestrians taking precedence over cars. The radical experiment of constructing our society entirely around single occupancy internal combustion engine vehicles has failed. Lets go back to the old ways.

ycombinete 4y ago
“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.” ― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  I'm not sure this applies here. Urbanism seems to be taking strong root in the popular imagination today, especially among young people, who are increasingly saying "screw cars, give us trains and buses and bikes and let us walk around town." And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives, possibly arguing to hot-swap the ICEs with EVs while keeping all the new highways and sprawling developments, and young people want to revert to the patterns of development from over a century ago with car-free infrastructure.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives Even in 1960 80% of households had a car: https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-transport-challenges/household-vehicles-united-states https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-trans.... Even in 1925 it was over half. There isn't a generation in American history where most people lived in a city and took public transit. In the 1920s and 1930s when that was common for people living in cities, half the country lived in rural places.
    - hannasanarion 4y ago
      You say this as if the only places that can be walkable are metropolitan downtowns. Small towns and villages used to be pleasant and walkable too. Many had single-line streetcars. There has never been a time in US history where the majority of people living in rural counties were farmers. The USDA estimates that the population of rural counties who actually work in agriculture peaked at around 40% in 1950, it's now more like 14%. Most people in rural areas live in towns, and they shouldn't be forced to own cars either.
      - b3morales 4y ago
        I always liked the idea of - live in a town - keep car in a garage in the town - retrieve car only when you need to go somewhere outside the town
        rayiner 4y ago
        This is totally impractical at scale. In most small towns, you need to go outside town routinely, and possibly daily. Even if you live and work in town, your kid may go to a high school or your spouse may work one town over. And once everyone is already paying for a car, it doesn't make much sense to ask them to also pay extra taxes for public transport within town.
        rainsford 4y ago
        Cars cost money to drive, so there is value in not making every trip a car trip even if you needed to buy a car anyways. And that's ignoring the costs of building your town exclusively around car travel. Even in places where you regularly need to use a car, there is value in balancing things so you don't have to use a car every single time you leave your house.
        rayiner 4y ago
        And public transit also costs money to operate and ride. The point is that your proposal doubles up on capital costs.
  - iforgotpassword 4y ago
    Aren't you rather confirming that Adams quote? Young people want change, old people want to keep it the way it's always been (in their lifetime).
  - drstewart 4y ago
    >Urbanism seems to be taking strong root in the popular imagination today, especially among young people, That's #2 >And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives, That's #3
- lamontcg 4y ago
  I find myself 50 years old right now. When I was 18 I owned a '67 mustang. When I was 35 I had a Honda Prelude SH. Now I want to go back to the 1920s and get single occupancy vehicles out of the urban center, and I was working from home full time since 2015. I finally got off my high horse and started using the lime bikes and scooters to get to downtown and back for events instead of driving.
kshacker 4y ago
hombre_fatal 4y ago
Conservative is better described as resistant to quick changes rather than an affinity for some historical point in time. Though “funny, isn’t it :D” political quips are kind of boring anyways.
- toiletfuneral 4y ago
- dalbasal 4y ago
  Idk if that's a better definition. It's better if what you are describing by "conservative" is a fairly narrow Anglo-American Conservative Ideology. Influential, sure. But not most of conservativeism, even within America or the UK. I dont think "resistance to (specifically) quick change" accurately describes how most conservatives or non conservatives use that term, not the political/social groups generally see as conservative. Affinity for "old ways" is absolutely part of what "conservative" is. Conservative movements aren't about a gradual move towards atheism or whatnot. They're about maintaining such traditional beliefs forever, as a rule.
- k__ 4y ago
  To me, conservativism is just cherry picking.
prpl 4y ago
FWIW there’s not a whole lot of people old enough to remember 1920.
rayiner 4y ago
> It is funny how it is the "conservative" supposedly "old ways are the best ways" people who would absolutely riot if you restored the order that we had before 1920 with pedestrians taking precedence over cars. "Conservatives" also don't want to abandon our "radical experiment" with settled agricultural society to go back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I think maybe you don't have a workable definition of "conservative" in your head. And given that it was progressives of the time who radically reshaped the American landscape around what they then viewed as an egalitarian and liberating technology, it's pretty rich for their intellectual descendants to blame "conservatives" for their mistake.
- coding123 4y ago
  The car industry was back then - well, moving fast and breaking things. Maybe progressives today should be a little more conservative. I bet that in 45 years the conservatives are going to be the ones arguing to keep some social networks alive and the progressives will be pursuing closing them down because they ruined society. (or something like that just as comical)
olalonde 4y ago
> It is funny how it is the "conservative" supposedly "old ways are the best ways" people who would absolutely riot if you restored the order that we had before 1920 with pedestrians taking precedence over cars. Let's leave partisan politics out of HN, shall we? Plus, the "conservatives" you are referring to have never believed that "old ways are the best ways" in relation to technology. They're not making some kind of exception for cars. > The radical experiment of constructing our society entirely around single occupancy internal combustion engine vehicles has failed. Lets go back to the old ways. What does that even mean? Ban non-electric cars? Ban all cars? What old ways?
- lamontcg 4y ago
  > Let's leave partisan politics out of HN, shall we? it is all over HN already, and you just like it better when people talk in code words that make you comfortable.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    I don't know what you mean by "code words that make you comfortable" so I guess you're wrong about that. I would have made the same comment if you had made a derisive remark on the "liberals". Just because it's all over HN doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better. From HN guidelines: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."
lettergram 4y ago
> It is funny how it is the "conservative" supposedly "old ways are the best ways" people who would absolutely riot if you restored the order that we had before 1920 with pedestrians taking precedence over cars. It’s not funny at all how condescending almost hateful people this comment is to “conservative” viewpoints. Quite an assumption you make. Rural (>80% conservative) populations cannot function without cars. So yes, they get concerned when government makes it more difficult / expensive to have cars. That said, I don’t think most have an opinion on city transportation. They take trains and buses like everyone else from what I’ve seen. That said, this article is a fluff piece. For context, these cities had a massive amount of pollution from the horse poop. The argument to allow vehicles was literally to solve the horse issues. More than that, it was also argued in a free society everyone should be free to move as they wish. Horses weren’t even mentioned in this article…
- periphrasis 4y ago
  Rural areas account for 14% of the US population. Why should they have veto power over the urban planning and transportation policy in metro areas? And I’m sorry you feel that the pro-coup, pro-Dobbs, pro-demonizing-gay-people party isn’t as well liked as you feel they’re entitled to be.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    > And I’m sorry you feel that the pro-coup, pro-Dobbs, pro-demonizing-gay-people party isn’t as well liked as you feel they’re entitled to be. Lol wtf? I’m saying I think it’s wrong to assume rural folk care what people in the city want to do. Most rural people are pro public transit that I’ve met. They just need cars where they are at, so they don’t like the idea of regulating it heavily such that they MUST move to a city. > Rural areas account for 14% of the US population Well over 70% of people need cars to transport themselves and others. Public transit is not practical in the suburbs either. Electric cars might and busses work to a degree, but the overwhelming majority of people need vehicles. At least based on the current suburban layout.
  - tpmoney 4y ago
    >Rural areas account for 14% of the US population. Why should they have veto power over the urban planning and transportation policy in metro areas? They shouldn't. And neither should the urban planners have veto power of the planning and transportation policy of rural areas. Yet in my experience, these conversations never stop at "I want my urban area to be less car focused". It always seems to extend to "I can't wait until we ban cars everywhere"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ycombinete 4y ago

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.” ― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

actionablefiber 4y ago
I'm not sure this applies here. Urbanism seems to be taking strong root in the popular imagination today, especially among young people, who are increasingly saying "screw cars, give us trains and buses and bikes and let us walk around town." And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives, possibly arguing to hot-swap the ICEs with EVs while keeping all the new highways and sprawling developments, and young people want to revert to the patterns of development from over a century ago with car-free infrastructure.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives Even in 1960 80% of households had a car: https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-transport-challenges/household-vehicles-united-states https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter8/urban-trans.... Even in 1925 it was over half. There isn't a generation in American history where most people lived in a city and took public transit. In the 1920s and 1930s when that was common for people living in cities, half the country lived in rural places.
  - hannasanarion 4y ago
    You say this as if the only places that can be walkable are metropolitan downtowns. Small towns and villages used to be pleasant and walkable too. Many had single-line streetcars. There has never been a time in US history where the majority of people living in rural counties were farmers. The USDA estimates that the population of rural counties who actually work in agriculture peaked at around 40% in 1950, it's now more like 14%. Most people in rural areas live in towns, and they shouldn't be forced to own cars either.
    - b3morales 4y ago
      I always liked the idea of - live in a town - keep car in a garage in the town - retrieve car only when you need to go somewhere outside the town
      - rayiner 4y ago
        This is totally impractical at scale. In most small towns, you need to go outside town routinely, and possibly daily. Even if you live and work in town, your kid may go to a high school or your spouse may work one town over. And once everyone is already paying for a car, it doesn't make much sense to ask them to also pay extra taxes for public transport within town.
        rainsford 4y ago
        Cars cost money to drive, so there is value in not making every trip a car trip even if you needed to buy a car anyways. And that's ignoring the costs of building your town exclusively around car travel. Even in places where you regularly need to use a car, there is value in balancing things so you don't have to use a car every single time you leave your house.
        rayiner 4y ago
        And public transit also costs money to operate and ride. The point is that your proposal doubles up on capital costs.
- iforgotpassword 4y ago
  Aren't you rather confirming that Adams quote? Young people want change, old people want to keep it the way it's always been (in their lifetime).
- drstewart 4y ago
  >Urbanism seems to be taking strong root in the popular imagination today, especially among young people, That's #2 >And in this matter, the "old fuddy-duddies" are the ones who want to keep the new, aberrant patterns of development and transportation that became dominant during their lives, That's #3
lamontcg 4y ago
I find myself 50 years old right now. When I was 18 I owned a '67 mustang. When I was 35 I had a Honda Prelude SH. Now I want to go back to the 1920s and get single occupancy vehicles out of the urban center, and I was working from home full time since 2015. I finally got off my high horse and started using the lime bikes and scooters to get to downtown and back for events instead of driving.

kshacker 4y ago

hombre_fatal 4y ago

Conservative is better described as resistant to quick changes rather than an affinity for some historical point in time. Though “funny, isn’t it :D” political quips are kind of boring anyways.

toiletfuneral 4y ago
dalbasal 4y ago
Idk if that's a better definition. It's better if what you are describing by "conservative" is a fairly narrow Anglo-American Conservative Ideology. Influential, sure. But not most of conservativeism, even within America or the UK. I dont think "resistance to (specifically) quick change" accurately describes how most conservatives or non conservatives use that term, not the political/social groups generally see as conservative. Affinity for "old ways" is absolutely part of what "conservative" is. Conservative movements aren't about a gradual move towards atheism or whatnot. They're about maintaining such traditional beliefs forever, as a rule.
k__ 4y ago
To me, conservativism is just cherry picking.

prpl 4y ago

FWIW there’s not a whole lot of people old enough to remember 1920.

rayiner 4y ago

> It is funny how it is the "conservative" supposedly "old ways are the best ways" people who would absolutely riot if you restored the order that we had before 1920 with pedestrians taking precedence over cars. "Conservatives" also don't want to abandon our "radical experiment" with settled agricultural society to go back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I think maybe you don't have a workable definition of "conservative" in your head. And given that it was progressives of the time who radically reshaped the American landscape around what they then viewed as an egalitarian and liberating technology, it's pretty rich for their intellectual descendants to blame "conservatives" for their mistake.

coding123 4y ago
The car industry was back then - well, moving fast and breaking things. Maybe progressives today should be a little more conservative. I bet that in 45 years the conservatives are going to be the ones arguing to keep some social networks alive and the progressives will be pursuing closing them down because they ruined society. (or something like that just as comical)

olalonde 4y ago

> It is funny how it is the "conservative" supposedly "old ways are the best ways" people who would absolutely riot if you restored the order that we had before 1920 with pedestrians taking precedence over cars. Let's leave partisan politics out of HN, shall we? Plus, the "conservatives" you are referring to have never believed that "old ways are the best ways" in relation to technology. They're not making some kind of exception for cars. > The radical experiment of constructing our society entirely around single occupancy internal combustion engine vehicles has failed. Lets go back to the old ways. What does that even mean? Ban non-electric cars? Ban all cars? What old ways?

lamontcg 4y ago
> Let's leave partisan politics out of HN, shall we? it is all over HN already, and you just like it better when people talk in code words that make you comfortable.
- olalonde 4y ago
  I don't know what you mean by "code words that make you comfortable" so I guess you're wrong about that. I would have made the same comment if you had made a derisive remark on the "liberals". Just because it's all over HN doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better. From HN guidelines: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."

lettergram 4y ago

> It is funny how it is the "conservative" supposedly "old ways are the best ways" people who would absolutely riot if you restored the order that we had before 1920 with pedestrians taking precedence over cars. It’s not funny at all how condescending almost hateful people this comment is to “conservative” viewpoints. Quite an assumption you make. Rural (>80% conservative) populations cannot function without cars. So yes, they get concerned when government makes it more difficult / expensive to have cars. That said, I don’t think most have an opinion on city transportation. They take trains and buses like everyone else from what I’ve seen. That said, this article is a fluff piece. For context, these cities had a massive amount of pollution from the horse poop. The argument to allow vehicles was literally to solve the horse issues. More than that, it was also argued in a free society everyone should be free to move as they wish. Horses weren’t even mentioned in this article…

periphrasis 4y ago
Rural areas account for 14% of the US population. Why should they have veto power over the urban planning and transportation policy in metro areas? And I’m sorry you feel that the pro-coup, pro-Dobbs, pro-demonizing-gay-people party isn’t as well liked as you feel they’re entitled to be.
- lettergram 4y ago
  > And I’m sorry you feel that the pro-coup, pro-Dobbs, pro-demonizing-gay-people party isn’t as well liked as you feel they’re entitled to be. Lol wtf? I’m saying I think it’s wrong to assume rural folk care what people in the city want to do. Most rural people are pro public transit that I’ve met. They just need cars where they are at, so they don’t like the idea of regulating it heavily such that they MUST move to a city. > Rural areas account for 14% of the US population Well over 70% of people need cars to transport themselves and others. Public transit is not practical in the suburbs either. Electric cars might and busses work to a degree, but the overwhelming majority of people need vehicles. At least based on the current suburban layout.
- tpmoney 4y ago
  >Rural areas account for 14% of the US population. Why should they have veto power over the urban planning and transportation policy in metro areas? They shouldn't. And neither should the urban planners have veto power of the planning and transportation policy of rural areas. Yet in my experience, these conversations never stop at "I want my urban area to be less car focused". It always seems to extend to "I can't wait until we ban cars everywhere"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]