4 ms·

So very sad. I personally think the world would be a much better place if cars were relegated to intercity travel and walking/biking/public transit were the on

by rufugee 13y ago

So very sad. I personally think the world would be a much better place if cars were relegated to intercity travel and walking/biking/public transit were the only means of intracity movement. The world would be cleaner and in all likelihood much healthier, and needless accidents like this would be avoided. RIP.

JonSkeptic 13y ago
Unfortunately, this is not remotely feasible in many of the most populated cities of the US, nor many of the rural cities. [0] It's a nice thought, but not one that could ever happen. Till we learn to drive responsibly and be aware of our environment as a matter of course, these accidents will continue to happen. RIP. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/05/commuting-in-the-u-s-is-long-and-hellish-but-at-least-it-hasnt-gotten-worse/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/05/c...
- bluepen44 13y ago
  "JonSkeptic"..not surprised by the sentiment of your comment. I think it is feasible..certainly not in all cities and maybe not in any established cities..but some small cities could implement such a solution. That or entirely new cities could be created with this design. Just require cars to be parked when entering city limits and traded for a golf cart or Segway or something of the sort. The boundaries could be expanded as the city grows if the idea was popular..
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    An incremental alternative would be to impose a congestion tax for people who choose to drive their cars into the city. The tax would create an incentive not to drive and could be used to fund things like transit and bike sharing.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Even if you start designing new small cities to accommodate no automobiles, you will not be able to eliminate automobiles outside those cities, nor will you be able to force everyone to live in them. You'd basically just be building a car-less retirement community and hope that young people opt into it.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      Build light rail in existing cities, build parking lots for people who need to drive to a light rail station, and start charging a toll for people who drive in places where light rail could take them. Slowly but surely you can turn a city built around cars into a city built around public transit. This is possible in small and large cities and would reduce congestion, pollution, and the danger to pedestrians and cyclists.
- betterunix 13y ago
  How is public transit not remotely feasible in large cities? At one time, many US cities (large and small) had extensive streetcar systems that were far more efficient than cars. We are now left with just a handful of such systems, not because automobiles are technically superior but because of the intersection of business and politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... The executive summary is this: car companies took advantage of stupid laws to destroy almost all American streetcar systems. The sooner we undo that damage, the better. Cars make a lot of sense in rural areas and for a few very niche uses in suburban and urban areas, but they are a dangerous, polluting, and inefficient way for people to commute to work.
smsm42 13y ago
Not every place on Earth looks like your immediate neighborhood. For example, large chunks of Silicon Valley (not the most remote or undeveloped place in the world) are effectively inaccessible other than by car - unless you are willing to spend 3 hours commuting in each direction and are ready to subjugate your whole life to extremely sparse and inconvenient schedule of public transportation. Like it or not, cars are the only way people can get from place with reasonable costs of living to place where it is reasonable to situate offices/industry buildings in numbers and with speed that is required by modern economy.
- lutorm 13y ago
  I think the implication was that we should make public transportation better along with decreasing the amounts of cars.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Well, of course, if you could make it better - sure, go ahead. Do you think I like driving 30 mins twice a day? I'd rather spend the same time in a bus reading a book. But I don't have such option and do not foresee it happening anytime soon. You can say "we should" as many times as you like, but in reality it's not happening - and I'm not sure it's even feasible to cover an area of San Jose size with adequate public transport and keep the costs reasonable. But if you know how to do it - sure, let your plan be known to the San Jose city council, I support it a lot. I'm sure amount of cars would decrease once you pull it off - I'd gladly give up my daily commute if I had an alternative. But not before the alternative is there.
jlgreco 13y ago
This is very sad, but not every tragedy requires a corrective response. "5 Whys" is great, but expecting a solution to everything that happens is unreasonable; at a certain point we just have to say "shit happens" instead of incrementally covering the world in bubblewrap.

by rufugee 13y ago

JonSkeptic 13y ago

Unfortunately, this is not remotely feasible in many of the most populated cities of the US, nor many of the rural cities. [0] It's a nice thought, but not one that could ever happen. Till we learn to drive responsibly and be aware of our environment as a matter of course, these accidents will continue to happen. RIP. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/05/commuting-in-the-u-s-is-long-and-hellish-but-at-least-it-hasnt-gotten-worse/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/05/c...

bluepen44 13y ago
"JonSkeptic"..not surprised by the sentiment of your comment. I think it is feasible..certainly not in all cities and maybe not in any established cities..but some small cities could implement such a solution. That or entirely new cities could be created with this design. Just require cars to be parked when entering city limits and traded for a golf cart or Segway or something of the sort. The boundaries could be expanded as the city grows if the idea was popular..
- MartinCron 13y ago
  An incremental alternative would be to impose a congestion tax for people who choose to drive their cars into the city. The tax would create an incentive not to drive and could be used to fund things like transit and bike sharing.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Even if you start designing new small cities to accommodate no automobiles, you will not be able to eliminate automobiles outside those cities, nor will you be able to force everyone to live in them. You'd basically just be building a car-less retirement community and hope that young people opt into it.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    Build light rail in existing cities, build parking lots for people who need to drive to a light rail station, and start charging a toll for people who drive in places where light rail could take them. Slowly but surely you can turn a city built around cars into a city built around public transit. This is possible in small and large cities and would reduce congestion, pollution, and the danger to pedestrians and cyclists.
betterunix 13y ago
How is public transit not remotely feasible in large cities? At one time, many US cities (large and small) had extensive streetcar systems that were far more efficient than cars. We are now left with just a handful of such systems, not because automobiles are technically superior but because of the intersection of business and politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... The executive summary is this: car companies took advantage of stupid laws to destroy almost all American streetcar systems. The sooner we undo that damage, the better. Cars make a lot of sense in rural areas and for a few very niche uses in suburban and urban areas, but they are a dangerous, polluting, and inefficient way for people to commute to work.

smsm42 13y ago

Not every place on Earth looks like your immediate neighborhood. For example, large chunks of Silicon Valley (not the most remote or undeveloped place in the world) are effectively inaccessible other than by car - unless you are willing to spend 3 hours commuting in each direction and are ready to subjugate your whole life to extremely sparse and inconvenient schedule of public transportation. Like it or not, cars are the only way people can get from place with reasonable costs of living to place where it is reasonable to situate offices/industry buildings in numbers and with speed that is required by modern economy.

lutorm 13y ago
I think the implication was that we should make public transportation better along with decreasing the amounts of cars.
- smsm42 13y ago
  Well, of course, if you could make it better - sure, go ahead. Do you think I like driving 30 mins twice a day? I'd rather spend the same time in a bus reading a book. But I don't have such option and do not foresee it happening anytime soon. You can say "we should" as many times as you like, but in reality it's not happening - and I'm not sure it's even feasible to cover an area of San Jose size with adequate public transport and keep the costs reasonable. But if you know how to do it - sure, let your plan be known to the San Jose city council, I support it a lot. I'm sure amount of cars would decrease once you pull it off - I'd gladly give up my daily commute if I had an alternative. But not before the alternative is there.

jlgreco 13y ago

This is very sad, but not every tragedy requires a corrective response. "5 Whys" is great, but expecting a solution to everything that happens is unreasonable; at a certain point we just have to say "shit happens" instead of incrementally covering the world in bubblewrap.