4 ms·

> Suburban sprawl has mang negative effects but it can sometimes produce walkable areas and quiet residential roads that it's safe to play on too The populatio

> Suburban sprawl has mang negative effects but it can sometimes produce walkable areas and quiet residential roads that it's safe to play on too The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. They can't even walk to school, for goodness' sake. More importantly, most people unsurprisingly live in the most densely populated areas, not in suburbs, and traffic there is awful, making it remarkably unpleasant to loiter, not to mention that there is hardly any public space to do so. I'm talking from the perspective of a parent living in Toronto. It's a terrible place to raise independent children, and as a consequence you never see them around, and instead they are always being chauffeured from one structured activity to the next with zero agency or self-sufficiency.

mcpackieh 3y ago
> The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. That's just your point of view, a point of view which results in helicopter parenting. When I was a kid I used to ride my bike 5 miles down country lanes into the nearby suburbs to play with my friends. The only rule was that I had to be back by dinner. This sort of thing remains a viable option for kids today, except their parents are too anxious to permit it. And forget the "the roads are too dangerous now" argument. My elderly parents still walk those same roads with their dog every day. It's fine. They don't use reddit/etc so they aren't pumped full of hyperbolic propaganda about how dangerous walking in America is, and consequently, they're able to enjoy it just fine.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  > That's just your point of view, a point of view which results in helicopter parenting > They don't use reddit/etc so they aren't pumped full of hyperbolic propaganda about how dangerous walking in America is, and consequently, they're able to enjoy it just fine Here's some of the data and context that informs my opinion. I'm used to walking about 30-35Km a week in suburban Toronto. Close calls with cars happen on a weekly basis. I wear hi-viz clothing, look both ways, all that jazz. You know who doesn't look both ways? Cars making right turns. Pedestrian safety statistics published every year in my area very much support this viewpoint [0]. As for the risk involved, if again you look at actual statistics you will find that pedestrian deaths have been increasing sharply in North America with the advent of ever larger vehicles like lifted pickup trucks and SUV [1]. This is happening in spite of far fewer people choosing to walk these days [2]. As for the volume of car traffic, it's worse than ever in my area [3]. So, with actual data at hand, it does look like walking is rather more dangerous than it used to be. You can look up cycling statistics if you feel like. Hint: they are much worse. [0] https://www.york.ca/transportation/traffic/traffic-safety-program https://www.york.ca/transportation/traffic/traffic-safety-pr... [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedes... [2] https://data.bikeleague.org/show-your-data/national-data/rates-of-biking-and-walking/#number-percent-of-people-walking-to-work https://data.bikeleague.org/show-your-data/national-data/rat... [3] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-most-congested-spots-1.6716662 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-most-congeste...
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Most pedestrian result from pedestrians doing stupid things, like walking in the middle of the road at night wearing black while drunk. 77% of pedestrian deaths occur at night: https://www.vox.com/23784549/pedestrian-deaths-traffic-safety-fatalities-governors-association https://www.vox.com/23784549/pedestrian-deaths-traffic-safet... 60% of pedestrian deaths occur on high-capacity urban roads: https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i... The most dangerous roads are multilane roads e.g. highways: "among 60 roads that had the most pedestrian deaths during 2001-2016, all were roads with adjacent commercial retail space, nearly all were multilane roads" https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i... 30% of pedestrian deaths involve a drunk pedestrian: "About one out of three (30%) involved a pedestrian with a BAC of at least 0.08 g/dL.7" https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i... Men account for 70% of pedestrian deaths, because men are more inclined to have a severe disregard for their own safety: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/males-and-females https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/males... If you simply choose to follow basic common sense, then these population-level statistics don't represent the actual risk to yourself. You're getting yourself freaked out by numbers that don't actually apply to you (or shouldn't if you have any sense.)
    - david-gpu 3y ago
      > Most pedestrian result from pedestrians doing stupid things like walking in the middle of the road at night wearing black while drunk According to the local statistics I have [0], in something like 75% of car collisions the pedestrian had the right of way, and the immense majority of them occur at intersections rather than in the middle of the road. > 60% of pedestrian deaths occur on high-capacity urban roads And how does that compare to the amount of walking that happens on one area vs the other? > Men account for 70% of pedestrian deaths, because men are more inclined to have a severe disregard for their own safety What percentage of pedestrian Km are walked by men vs women? > You're getting yourself freaked out by numbers that don't actually apply to you (or shouldn't if you have any sense.) I am concerned for my safety because I actually walk and have noticed how often drivers don't even see me, in spite of wearing hi viz clothing. The statistics merely confirm what the risk I already noticed empirically: what sort of vehicles are dangerous to pedestrians (SUVs and pickups), where the danger occurs (busy intersections) and whose fault it is (predominantly drivers). Finally, it there is an inherent contradiction in the simplistic narrative that people barely walk anymore "even though nothing has changed": there is far more car traffic now precisely because people barely walk anymore. Walking doesn't kill, cars kill, so more traffic means more dangerous streets. It is rather obvious. [0] https://www.york.ca/transportation/traffic/traffic-safety-program https://www.york.ca/transportation/traffic/traffic-safety-pr...
- Kye 3y ago
  The local cycling advocacy group maintains a map of safe, dangerous, and risky routes based on their actual experience: https://usg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d8432d71c0f548469f48100de0896cf8 https://usg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=... See all that red? That's what it's like for most people in the US, minus all the sidewalks. You might be lucky enough to live in a place like I do where there's enough green and orange and walkable shoulders to make walking and cycling viable if you live in the right neighborhood or close to a bus stop. Also take special note of the situation on Prince Avenue. It has clearly marked, wide, dedicated bicycle lanes you can easily make out on a satellite view and it's still orange. People have died there, recently. You can at least get a bicycle across with the racks on buses. Most people don't have buses. People still walk it and ride it. And people die often enough doing it to validate the concern.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    That link centers the map on Prince Ave in Athens-Clarke County. Look that road up, it's a 4 lane road. I would never bike on that road, of course it's dangerous. If you avoid roads like that, you avoid most of the risk. It's common sense but a substantial portion of adult male cyclists obstinately refuse to apply such common sense because they'd rather die as some sort of martyr for their right of way than stay alive. In fact most of the roads on the map you just linked to are marked as green. If I zoomed out and the first red road I saw was Broad Street. That is four lane road as well. No surprise. Multi-lane roads are very dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, so you should tell your children to avoid them. That's what I've always done, so I have much less to worry about than the crudest population-level statistics would suggest.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - david-gpu 3y ago
      > It's common sense but a substantial portion of adult male cyclists obstinately refuse to apply such common sense because they'd rather die as some sort of martyr for their right of way than stay alive Let's stop for a moment and reflect on these words. Notice the implausibility of what this person is saying. Observe how they place the blame squarely on the person bearing the risk, rather on the inadequate infrastructure or the pervasiveness of the mode of transportation that causes the most fatalities per Km. Not even a faint attempt at understanding what could be behind the cyclist's behavior, other than painting them as zealots. It's a thing of beauty, in a way.
jjav 3y ago
> The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. They can't even walk to school, for goodness' sake. All of North America is quite a big area. Clearly as a generalization that's incorrect. Here in a very suburban town in northern California one can walk around no problem. Easy walk from this neighborhood to the middle school. My office window faces the street of the school and when classes end I see hundreds of kids exit the school and they all walk off in various directions, a smaller number bike or skateboard.
kazinator 3y ago
> The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. They can't even walk to school, for goodness' sake. That makes no sense; population densities were even lower 150 years go, yet kids walked to school. A lot of it is how those suburbs are laid out. To walk to a point that is a 100 meter beeline, you may have to navigate 500 meters of labyrinth, to avoid going through people's backyards. Could it be that the schools are larger, serving a larger catchment? I.e. schools in suburbia are perhaps modeled too closely after schools in denser urban areas.

mcpackieh 3y ago

> The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. That's just your point of view, a point of view which results in helicopter parenting. When I was a kid I used to ride my bike 5 miles down country lanes into the nearby suburbs to play with my friends. The only rule was that I had to be back by dinner. This sort of thing remains a viable option for kids today, except their parents are too anxious to permit it. And forget the "the roads are too dangerous now" argument. My elderly parents still walk those same roads with their dog every day. It's fine. They don't use reddit/etc so they aren't pumped full of hyperbolic propaganda about how dangerous walking in America is, and consequently, they're able to enjoy it just fine.

david-gpu 3y ago
> That's just your point of view, a point of view which results in helicopter parenting > They don't use reddit/etc so they aren't pumped full of hyperbolic propaganda about how dangerous walking in America is, and consequently, they're able to enjoy it just fine Here's some of the data and context that informs my opinion. I'm used to walking about 30-35Km a week in suburban Toronto. Close calls with cars happen on a weekly basis. I wear hi-viz clothing, look both ways, all that jazz. You know who doesn't look both ways? Cars making right turns. Pedestrian safety statistics published every year in my area very much support this viewpoint [0]. As for the risk involved, if again you look at actual statistics you will find that pedestrian deaths have been increasing sharply in North America with the advent of ever larger vehicles like lifted pickup trucks and SUV [1]. This is happening in spite of far fewer people choosing to walk these days [2]. As for the volume of car traffic, it's worse than ever in my area [3]. So, with actual data at hand, it does look like walking is rather more dangerous than it used to be. You can look up cycling statistics if you feel like. Hint: they are much worse. [0] https://www.york.ca/transportation/traffic/traffic-safety-program https://www.york.ca/transportation/traffic/traffic-safety-pr... [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedestrians https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/pedes... [2] https://data.bikeleague.org/show-your-data/national-data/rates-of-biking-and-walking/#number-percent-of-people-walking-to-work https://data.bikeleague.org/show-your-data/national-data/rat... [3] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-most-congested-spots-1.6716662 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-most-congeste...
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Most pedestrian result from pedestrians doing stupid things, like walking in the middle of the road at night wearing black while drunk. 77% of pedestrian deaths occur at night: https://www.vox.com/23784549/pedestrian-deaths-traffic-safety-fatalities-governors-association https://www.vox.com/23784549/pedestrian-deaths-traffic-safet... 60% of pedestrian deaths occur on high-capacity urban roads: https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i... The most dangerous roads are multilane roads e.g. highways: "among 60 roads that had the most pedestrian deaths during 2001-2016, all were roads with adjacent commercial retail space, nearly all were multilane roads" https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i... 30% of pedestrian deaths involve a drunk pedestrian: "About one out of three (30%) involved a pedestrian with a BAC of at least 0.08 g/dL.7" https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i... Men account for 70% of pedestrian deaths, because men are more inclined to have a severe disregard for their own safety: https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/males-and-females https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/males... If you simply choose to follow basic common sense, then these population-level statistics don't represent the actual risk to yourself. You're getting yourself freaked out by numbers that don't actually apply to you (or shouldn't if you have any sense.)
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    > Most pedestrian result from pedestrians doing stupid things like walking in the middle of the road at night wearing black while drunk According to the local statistics I have [0], in something like 75% of car collisions the pedestrian had the right of way, and the immense majority of them occur at intersections rather than in the middle of the road. > 60% of pedestrian deaths occur on high-capacity urban roads And how does that compare to the amount of walking that happens on one area vs the other? > Men account for 70% of pedestrian deaths, because men are more inclined to have a severe disregard for their own safety What percentage of pedestrian Km are walked by men vs women? > You're getting yourself freaked out by numbers that don't actually apply to you (or shouldn't if you have any sense.) I am concerned for my safety because I actually walk and have noticed how often drivers don't even see me, in spite of wearing hi viz clothing. The statistics merely confirm what the risk I already noticed empirically: what sort of vehicles are dangerous to pedestrians (SUVs and pickups), where the danger occurs (busy intersections) and whose fault it is (predominantly drivers). Finally, it there is an inherent contradiction in the simplistic narrative that people barely walk anymore "even though nothing has changed": there is far more car traffic now precisely because people barely walk anymore. Walking doesn't kill, cars kill, so more traffic means more dangerous streets. It is rather obvious. [0] https://www.york.ca/transportation/traffic/traffic-safety-program https://www.york.ca/transportation/traffic/traffic-safety-pr...
Kye 3y ago
The local cycling advocacy group maintains a map of safe, dangerous, and risky routes based on their actual experience: https://usg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d8432d71c0f548469f48100de0896cf8 https://usg.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=... See all that red? That's what it's like for most people in the US, minus all the sidewalks. You might be lucky enough to live in a place like I do where there's enough green and orange and walkable shoulders to make walking and cycling viable if you live in the right neighborhood or close to a bus stop. Also take special note of the situation on Prince Avenue. It has clearly marked, wide, dedicated bicycle lanes you can easily make out on a satellite view and it's still orange. People have died there, recently. You can at least get a bicycle across with the racks on buses. Most people don't have buses. People still walk it and ride it. And people die often enough doing it to validate the concern.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  That link centers the map on Prince Ave in Athens-Clarke County. Look that road up, it's a 4 lane road. I would never bike on that road, of course it's dangerous. If you avoid roads like that, you avoid most of the risk. It's common sense but a substantial portion of adult male cyclists obstinately refuse to apply such common sense because they'd rather die as some sort of martyr for their right of way than stay alive. In fact most of the roads on the map you just linked to are marked as green. If I zoomed out and the first red road I saw was Broad Street. That is four lane road as well. No surprise. Multi-lane roads are very dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians, so you should tell your children to avoid them. That's what I've always done, so I have much less to worry about than the crudest population-level statistics would suggest.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    > It's common sense but a substantial portion of adult male cyclists obstinately refuse to apply such common sense because they'd rather die as some sort of martyr for their right of way than stay alive Let's stop for a moment and reflect on these words. Notice the implausibility of what this person is saying. Observe how they place the blame squarely on the person bearing the risk, rather on the inadequate infrastructure or the pervasiveness of the mode of transportation that causes the most fatalities per Km. Not even a faint attempt at understanding what could be behind the cyclist's behavior, other than painting them as zealots. It's a thing of beauty, in a way.

jjav 3y ago

> The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. They can't even walk to school, for goodness' sake. All of North America is quite a big area. Clearly as a generalization that's incorrect. Here in a very suburban town in northern California one can walk around no problem. Easy walk from this neighborhood to the middle school. My office window faces the street of the school and when classes end I see hundreds of kids exit the school and they all walk off in various directions, a smaller number bike or skateboard.

kazinator 3y ago

> The population density in North American suburbs is too low to allow for children to comfortably walk or bike to their friend's homes, or to third places. They can't even walk to school, for goodness' sake. That makes no sense; population densities were even lower 150 years go, yet kids walked to school. A lot of it is how those suburbs are laid out. To walk to a point that is a 100 meter beeline, you may have to navigate 500 meters of labyrinth, to avoid going through people's backyards. Could it be that the schools are larger, serving a larger catchment? I.e. schools in suburbia are perhaps modeled too closely after schools in denser urban areas.