5 ms·

> designed with cars in mind, not human beings This is a bad faith framing. The cars are driven by humans. Or in the case of autonomous driving, are driving hu

> designed with cars in mind, not human beings This is a bad faith framing. The cars are driven by humans. Or in the case of autonomous driving, are driving humans around. I've come up to plenty of lights that had the pedestrian signal lit even though there were no pedestrians. This happens during the day and at night, and is frustrating. Just happened the other day when I was driving around midnight. Not a pedestrian in sight!

dleslie 2y ago
If the designers were truly considering the well-being of the occupants of the vehicles then they would be designing cities to minimize the time spent in vehicles; which means more than saving a few seconds at a stop light, it means getting them out of their cars entirely.
- crackercrews 2y ago
  That might fly in temperate parts of California, but it sure doesn't work in places with less pedestrian-friendly weather.
  - jplrssn 2y ago
    There are plenty of examples of walkable neighbourhoods in places with cold and/or wet weather.
    - crackercrews 2y ago
      Yes, there are some places that people can walk, nearly everywhere. But GP suggested "getting them out of their cars entirely". That is not a nuanced proposal that acknowledges tradeoffs and seeks to find a balanced approach. It's saying that people should not be in cars. Tell that to a parent with 4 bags of groceries and 3 kids and see what the reaction is. If we want better cities and towns, zealotry won't get us very far. It will get us laughed at. And I say this as someone who walks all the time and is about to do so right now.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      There are also plenty of examples of countries that lack reliable running water. That doesn’t make it a preferable standard of living.
  - roguecoder 2y ago
    It is working great in New York City: traffic is down 11-60% with just a $9 fee.
    - crackercrews 2y ago
      Do you think people who previously drove into NYC are now walking from NJ? Or are they working remote? The photos of carless streets I've seen don't seem to be packed with pedestrians.
  - redman25 2y ago
    Minneapolis, Chicago, a lot of less temperate cities have protected walking tunnels, either underground or protected by buildings.
- philwelch 2y ago
  Forcing people into a 19th century standard of living is not good for their well being.
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    "Walking" is not some outdated concept. Lordy.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      To the vast majority of Americans it unfortunately is.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      No but living in a world without automobiles absolutely is. I’m sick and tired of this deranged notion that it’s somehow virtuous to deliberately impoverish ourselves by giving up things like cars that, empirically, human beings from every culture rich enough to afford them prefer to use.
      - unethical_ban 2y ago
        Let's not ignore the negative externalities of cars. Separately: In a small town, it's objectively nicer to have certain areas that are walkable without navigating traffic.
        philwelch 2y ago
        > In a small town, it's objectively nicer to have certain areas that are walkable without navigating traffic. Sure, I don't have a problem with that.

dleslie 2y ago

If the designers were truly considering the well-being of the occupants of the vehicles then they would be designing cities to minimize the time spent in vehicles; which means more than saving a few seconds at a stop light, it means getting them out of their cars entirely.

crackercrews 2y ago
That might fly in temperate parts of California, but it sure doesn't work in places with less pedestrian-friendly weather.
- jplrssn 2y ago
  There are plenty of examples of walkable neighbourhoods in places with cold and/or wet weather.
  - crackercrews 2y ago
    Yes, there are some places that people can walk, nearly everywhere. But GP suggested "getting them out of their cars entirely". That is not a nuanced proposal that acknowledges tradeoffs and seeks to find a balanced approach. It's saying that people should not be in cars. Tell that to a parent with 4 bags of groceries and 3 kids and see what the reaction is. If we want better cities and towns, zealotry won't get us very far. It will get us laughed at. And I say this as someone who walks all the time and is about to do so right now.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    There are also plenty of examples of countries that lack reliable running water. That doesn’t make it a preferable standard of living.
- roguecoder 2y ago
  It is working great in New York City: traffic is down 11-60% with just a $9 fee.
  - crackercrews 2y ago
    Do you think people who previously drove into NYC are now walking from NJ? Or are they working remote? The photos of carless streets I've seen don't seem to be packed with pedestrians.
- redman25 2y ago
  Minneapolis, Chicago, a lot of less temperate cities have protected walking tunnels, either underground or protected by buildings.
philwelch 2y ago
Forcing people into a 19th century standard of living is not good for their well being.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  "Walking" is not some outdated concept. Lordy.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    To the vast majority of Americans it unfortunately is.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    No but living in a world without automobiles absolutely is. I’m sick and tired of this deranged notion that it’s somehow virtuous to deliberately impoverish ourselves by giving up things like cars that, empirically, human beings from every culture rich enough to afford them prefer to use.
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      Let's not ignore the negative externalities of cars. Separately: In a small town, it's objectively nicer to have certain areas that are walkable without navigating traffic.
      - philwelch 2y ago
        > In a small town, it's objectively nicer to have certain areas that are walkable without navigating traffic. Sure, I don't have a problem with that.