4 ms·

At least in terms of individual choices, it might be better to see it as some kind of a weighing scheme than as a rigid hierarchy. All kinds of individual and e

by Delk 3y ago

At least in terms of individual choices, it might be better to see it as some kind of a weighing scheme than as a rigid hierarchy. All kinds of individual and environmental factors can make you weigh some of the modes more or less. Arseholes aren't the norm in public transportation where I live. Not non-existent but also not the norm. If your local system tends to have more of them, that probably makes it less attractive to you. Large and thinly spread out communities generally make public transport less attractive from a resources point of view because it's harder and less economical to have it efficiently cover the area. But generally preferring community structures that do allow for efficient public transportation makes sense from a resource use point of view, even if that doesn't always mean it's preferable to you in a particular location. Giving a greater weight to walking or cycling makes sense both from resources and health points of view.

throwaway22032 3y ago
It's probably <5% where I am, but that is enough. And there seems to be no mechanism for removing them. I wish that we had conductors or something. I would gladly pay to have someone like that who could at least tell antisocial people to calm down. Passengers don't want to deal with it.
- Delk 3y ago
  5% of passengers sounds rather high to me. That would mean at least one per full bus or rail carriage on average. 5% of trips being disturbed also sounds high albeit not outlandish. (It's still significantly higher than what I'd expect in commuter traffic here. On weekend night buses quite possibly yes but I use those so rarely that I wouldn't be able to say.) Either way, the point was that such things obviously carry weight for individual preferences, but that they may apply on top of some kind of a baseline weighing hierarchy from a broader point of view.
  - throwaway22032 3y ago
    I mentioned less than 5, that wasn't intended to be an accurate figure. For me I just don't want to interact with weirdos. It doesn't have to be that extreme, the marker is something like - if I went to a restaurant, bar, workplace, party etc and it had the same number of degens as public transport I wouldn't go back there, I have options. I place great importance on spending time in places where the people around me feel like equals that I can converse with rather than potential threats. edit: No, I don't mean "different strata of society". I mean dickheads. A different strata of society is, say, Matt Hancock MP vs. an immigrant single mum, both of which travel on the Tube. I enjoy living in a diverse neighbourhood. My neighbours are from all walks of life. A dickhead is someone smoking weed on a bus, shouting homophobic slurs at people who look a bit different, playing loud music on speakerphone. I am indeed intolerant of in-your-face antisocial behaviour and I'm proud of that fact.
    - Delk 3y ago
      Public transport is one of those places where you do have to tolerate the fact that weird people (whatever that means) exist in the society. Ideally, I'd consider that a feature rather than a bug, but it obviously depends a lot. I have a lot of trouble interacting with people I feel are weird, too, but to a large extent I consider that a personal issue and limitation. In principle I consider some amount of such tolerance to be part of a civil and human society. It's natural to not like uncomfortable things but IMO gentrification and intolerance of different strata of people are also problems. Of course how much should be tolerated also depends on what kind of weird we're talking. "Weirdo" and potential threat aren't necessarily the same thing. But of course how easily a weirdo feels like a potential threat depends on the place and the culture. In some places the threat of actual violence might be common enough that it's understandable to be wary. I might underestimate that since situations that might actually be threatening are a lot less common than just uncomfortable ones here. If a "weirdo" or a "degen" means just someone who's not part of your understanding of normal or equal, and that means you don't want to tolerate having to deal with them, then I have to say that sounds quite intolerant to me. So, depending on the point of view and what kind of weird (and how much) we're talking, I might agree or vehemently disagree.
      - 3y ago

by Delk 3y ago

throwaway22032 3y ago

It's probably <5% where I am, but that is enough. And there seems to be no mechanism for removing them. I wish that we had conductors or something. I would gladly pay to have someone like that who could at least tell antisocial people to calm down. Passengers don't want to deal with it.

Delk 3y ago
5% of passengers sounds rather high to me. That would mean at least one per full bus or rail carriage on average. 5% of trips being disturbed also sounds high albeit not outlandish. (It's still significantly higher than what I'd expect in commuter traffic here. On weekend night buses quite possibly yes but I use those so rarely that I wouldn't be able to say.) Either way, the point was that such things obviously carry weight for individual preferences, but that they may apply on top of some kind of a baseline weighing hierarchy from a broader point of view.
- throwaway22032 3y ago
  I mentioned less than 5, that wasn't intended to be an accurate figure. For me I just don't want to interact with weirdos. It doesn't have to be that extreme, the marker is something like - if I went to a restaurant, bar, workplace, party etc and it had the same number of degens as public transport I wouldn't go back there, I have options. I place great importance on spending time in places where the people around me feel like equals that I can converse with rather than potential threats. edit: No, I don't mean "different strata of society". I mean dickheads. A different strata of society is, say, Matt Hancock MP vs. an immigrant single mum, both of which travel on the Tube. I enjoy living in a diverse neighbourhood. My neighbours are from all walks of life. A dickhead is someone smoking weed on a bus, shouting homophobic slurs at people who look a bit different, playing loud music on speakerphone. I am indeed intolerant of in-your-face antisocial behaviour and I'm proud of that fact.
  - Delk 3y ago
    Public transport is one of those places where you do have to tolerate the fact that weird people (whatever that means) exist in the society. Ideally, I'd consider that a feature rather than a bug, but it obviously depends a lot. I have a lot of trouble interacting with people I feel are weird, too, but to a large extent I consider that a personal issue and limitation. In principle I consider some amount of such tolerance to be part of a civil and human society. It's natural to not like uncomfortable things but IMO gentrification and intolerance of different strata of people are also problems. Of course how much should be tolerated also depends on what kind of weird we're talking. "Weirdo" and potential threat aren't necessarily the same thing. But of course how easily a weirdo feels like a potential threat depends on the place and the culture. In some places the threat of actual violence might be common enough that it's understandable to be wary. I might underestimate that since situations that might actually be threatening are a lot less common than just uncomfortable ones here. If a "weirdo" or a "degen" means just someone who's not part of your understanding of normal or equal, and that means you don't want to tolerate having to deal with them, then I have to say that sounds quite intolerant to me. So, depending on the point of view and what kind of weird (and how much) we're talking, I might agree or vehemently disagree.
    - 3y ago