8 ms·

"It's strange to imagine now, but prior to the 1920s, city streets looked dramatically different than they do today. They were considered to be a public space:

"It's strange to imagine now, but prior to the 1920s, city streets looked dramatically different than they do today. They were considered to be a public space: a place for pedestrians, pushcart vendors, horse-drawn vehicles, streetcars, and children at play." I think this point is very important. After the automobiles took over, the street slowly ceased to be the #1 public space where people hangout, shop, play or shoot the bull. Fast forward to today's US, spending an extended time on the street is associated with being poor, homeless or conducting criminal activity. Streets' sole purpose is for travel and commute. Countries with less developed economy still enjoys a vibrant street life much like the pre 1920 US (i.e. Mexico, Brazil, Turkey, China, Thailand etc). As they get richer and purchase more automobile though, the same street transformation is happening again. One can notice a big difference if one visited China in 2000 vs today. They are in some dire need for parking lots. Of course, there are definitely developed wealthy countries in Europe that also enjoy vibrant street life. However car ownership there is not as widespread as in the US due to a number of economic constraints (space cost, gas price, taxes).

rebootthesystem 12y ago
One of the funniest things was to see a bicycle pile-up in Amsterdam when a tourist walked into the bike lanes. OK, well, it wasn't funny at the moment. This jay walking thing is dangerous, cars or not. I am all for personal responsibility. However, here in the US the driver would get sued to hell and back if a person were to jaywalk and get hit. Going back to the Netherlands, it was interesting to take tours of windmills and find no safety barriers between the tourists and the internal mechanism. Here in the US we'd probably add a full plexiglass barrier to prevent accidents. So I have to wonder how much of this is due to differences in the laws around the world.
- mcv 12y ago
  Oh god, jaywalking tourists on bike paths! It's totally fine to cross the bike path, but you really should watch before you cross. Pedestrians can behave very erratically, and it can be incredibly hard for a cyclist to predict what you're going to do (though I've gotten pretty good at it over the years). Fortunately such collissions are rarely serious.
nightcracker 12y ago
> However car ownership there is not as widespread as in the US due to a number of economic constraints (space cost, gas price, taxes). It's not just economic constraint here in the Netherlands. A lot of people can reach anything they need using their bike and public transport (you can take your bike on the train). If you don't need a car, why bother getting and maintaining one?
mcv 12y ago
Old city centers often still have some vibrant street life, and in some places, particularly the shopping districts, cars are banned completely or at least strongly discouraged. Much of Amsterdam is far too narrow for two-way traffic, so often it's one-way anyway, and so bumpy and twisty that it's just not very practical for cars. These are places where you can still see people walking in the streets. Some years ago, Netherland changed the default blame in car-pedestrian collisions back to the car. Even if you have right of way, if you hit a pedestrian, you're still at fault. > However car ownership there is not as widespread as in the US due to a number of economic constraints (space cost, gas price, taxes). Compared to the US, the primary difference is space. It's just hard to find a place to park a car in Amsterdam, and you can get everywhere in the city by bike or public transport (and why would you ever want to leave the city?). Outside the city, car ownership is much more common, and poverty becomes the primary reason not to own a car. By the way, I once heard that 75% of New Yorkers also don't have a car. Again primarily because space is simply scarce in a city.
saraid216 12y ago
The interesting thing about this is that it's very nearly a First Amendment infringement on the right to assemble. In order to assemble on a street–a fairly obvious place to do so, for a protest, since it has good exposure and visibility–you have to ask the police to explicitly redirect traffic on your behalf. That's not a small hurdle.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Only if you interpret the 1st as absolute.
  - dreamdu5t 12y ago
    It is absolute if you aren't a weasel or have a political axe to grind (the supreme court): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      So you believe incitement to violence, death threats, defamation, and false advertising should be protected, and the FCC is unconstitutional? And even more specifically, anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a weasel or has ulterior motives?
- dtech 12y ago
  I assume the US has parks and squares too.
  - whoopdedo 12y ago
    Parks are considered private property owned by the city/state/federal government and police can charge you with trespassing.
mineshaftgap 12y ago
I am not sure where you are getting your info but in my neighborhood kids play in the street all day and move when a car comes.
- mbrameld 12y ago
  I don't know what country you're in but in the US something like 80% of the population lives in urban areas where playing in the street is essentially impossible.
  - mineshaftgap 12y ago
    I live in the US. If you had been there and not just read some statistic you would have a better idea what you are talking about. The majority of the US live on quiet suburban streets. It is quite humorous how confused people get about America.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I don't know what "quiet suburban streets" you grew up on, but on mine the speed limit was 25 mph and people would zoom around at 35.
    - mbrameld 12y ago
      I've lived in the US my whole life other than 2 years in Belgium and 1 year in Afghanistan, I have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. The article is specifically about city streets, it even says so right in the article if you had bothered to read it.
    - killerdhmo 12y ago
      um. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stat... It is very urbanized, with 81% residing in cities and suburbs as of 2014 (the worldwide urban rate is 54%)
      - barrkel 12y ago
StandardFuture 12y ago
>prior to the 1920s, city streets looked dramatically different than they do today. Just to support your point and provide video showing everyone just how the main street in San Francisco looked in 1906: http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs
317070 12y ago
> However car ownership there is not as widespread as in the US due to a number of economic constraints (space cost, gas price, taxes). As someone living in one of those cities (not owning a car), I can say that the reason is certainly not the cost. It's just that 99% of the time taking the bike or using public transport is way more comfortable. For the remaining transports to the country side (where the public transport is insufficient), car sharing fills my needs just fine.
acchow 12y ago
StandardFuture, your post is marked dead. Reposting for you: Just to support your point and provide video showing everyone just how the main street in San Francisco looked in 1906: http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  Wow, bicycles look basically the same, and still ride out right in front of you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1RvgfoXGTs#t=1m8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1RvgfoXGTs#t=1m8s
- oldspiceman 12y ago
  Reminds me walking through the streets of Saigon. You just slowly start crossing and the motorbikes 10-20 deep on main streets magically separate around you. Traffic doesn't move more than 40km/h anywhere in the city.
  - jkyle 12y ago
    Saigon isn't that bad today. A very modern, metropolitan area. Hanoi on the other hand...
rospaya 12y ago
> Countries with less developed economy still enjoys a vibrant street life much like the pre 1920 US You're connecting the dots wrong. Most European cities lead urban planning so that mixed zones are vibrant and busy, sometimes banning or punishing cars from city centers. It's intentional policy that (in Europe) is a result of policy, so is lowering car ownership in Denmark or the Netherlands. Bigger wealth doesn't indicate that everyone will follow the US and create unwalkable suburb monstrocities.
- arnarbi 12y ago
  This. In some European countries (e.g. UK, Scandinavian countries) there is no such thing as jaywalking. Pedestrians always have the right of way, except on motorways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Europe
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    When I lived in Lausanne, the local police were definitely giving tickets to pedestrians for crossing against the light. So its not all European countries (though the Swiss are more law and order than most).
  - rmvt 12y ago
    I guess I might not be interpreting you correctly, but pedestrians have no right of way. AFAIK, if someone is crossing the street you must stop your vehicle (which seems obvious because if not, you'd run them over). This doesn't mean that you can just cross the street wherever and whenever you may please, neither does it mean that you can actually walk in the street. Still focusing on Europe, it's not that uncommon to see drivers disrespect the law and not stop at a crosswalk when there's someone trying to cross it.
    - arnarbi 12y ago
      > This doesn't mean that you can just cross the street wherever and whenever you may please, neither does it mean that you can actually walk in the street. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I couldn't find it when this discussion was going on, but last time I looked at the Swedish law it said something like this about pedestrians: Pedestrians may travel wherever and whenever, except on motorways. If there is a dedicated pedestrian walkway nearby, it is recommended to use it. If there is a pedestrian crossing signal, and it is red, it is strongly recommended not to cross. I.e. pedestrians have right of way always, outside motorways, and may walk on the street as they please.
nitrogen 12y ago
Quoting a dead comment: StandardFuture 1 hour ago | link [dead] >prior to the 1920s, city streets looked dramatically different than they do today. Just to support your point and provide video showing everyone just how the main street in San Francisco looked in 1906: http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs . IMO there are better copies of that streetcar ride out there that lack the music. One of the prior posts on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2413891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2413891
trhway 12y ago
and once we get flying car (more specifically - an octocopter scaled up to carry 2-4 peoples, not that big of a problem if you take time to look into it), we'll be able to get back to the situation, and even better - the streets can be more like park style space and of irregular shape (with some bike paths for short distance travels using bike or something like golf-cart). The massive asphalted/concreted surfaces will become a thing of the past. The only main roads/highways will be left for self-driving cargo-trucks.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  more specifically - an octocopter scaled up to carry 2-4 peoples, not that big of a problem if you take time to look into it An octocopter will have even worse range than a normal helicopter, so you cant get very far, and everyone having flying cars based on pushing air will not be able to use them from the street due to the problem of blowing pedestrians over. Flying cars as envisioned in sci-fi require reactionless drives, at least if you want to be able to take off from the street without endangering everyone.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >An octocopter will have even worse range than a normal helicopter, so you cant get very far not really. Octocopters are much easy for a scheme with tilting of a couple of rotors and thus having efficient plane style horizontal flight than tilting the whole machine like helicopter. As result - higher speed, longer range. > and everyone having flying cars based on pushing air will not be able to use them from the street due to the problem of blowing pedestrians over. You statement is true for helicopters. The octocopters are much efficient with pushing of the air. Google e-volo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzP0Zqxam7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzP0Zqxam7E (or the old work - Piasecki VZ-8 Airgeep - much less of airwash effect)
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Trust me on this. Blade efficiency is not only a swept area game, but also the middle of the blade is extra useless due to horrible vortex effects. One big blade massively outperforms eight little ones. And you cannot get away from the fact that you are hovering around a minimum of a ton. Either you have a really big cross sectional area of downwash from massive blades, or everyone falls over.

rebootthesystem 12y ago

One of the funniest things was to see a bicycle pile-up in Amsterdam when a tourist walked into the bike lanes. OK, well, it wasn't funny at the moment. This jay walking thing is dangerous, cars or not. I am all for personal responsibility. However, here in the US the driver would get sued to hell and back if a person were to jaywalk and get hit. Going back to the Netherlands, it was interesting to take tours of windmills and find no safety barriers between the tourists and the internal mechanism. Here in the US we'd probably add a full plexiglass barrier to prevent accidents. So I have to wonder how much of this is due to differences in the laws around the world.

mcv 12y ago
Oh god, jaywalking tourists on bike paths! It's totally fine to cross the bike path, but you really should watch before you cross. Pedestrians can behave very erratically, and it can be incredibly hard for a cyclist to predict what you're going to do (though I've gotten pretty good at it over the years). Fortunately such collissions are rarely serious.

nightcracker 12y ago

> However car ownership there is not as widespread as in the US due to a number of economic constraints (space cost, gas price, taxes). It's not just economic constraint here in the Netherlands. A lot of people can reach anything they need using their bike and public transport (you can take your bike on the train). If you don't need a car, why bother getting and maintaining one?

mcv 12y ago

Old city centers often still have some vibrant street life, and in some places, particularly the shopping districts, cars are banned completely or at least strongly discouraged. Much of Amsterdam is far too narrow for two-way traffic, so often it's one-way anyway, and so bumpy and twisty that it's just not very practical for cars. These are places where you can still see people walking in the streets. Some years ago, Netherland changed the default blame in car-pedestrian collisions back to the car. Even if you have right of way, if you hit a pedestrian, you're still at fault. > However car ownership there is not as widespread as in the US due to a number of economic constraints (space cost, gas price, taxes). Compared to the US, the primary difference is space. It's just hard to find a place to park a car in Amsterdam, and you can get everywhere in the city by bike or public transport (and why would you ever want to leave the city?). Outside the city, car ownership is much more common, and poverty becomes the primary reason not to own a car. By the way, I once heard that 75% of New Yorkers also don't have a car. Again primarily because space is simply scarce in a city.

saraid216 12y ago

The interesting thing about this is that it's very nearly a First Amendment infringement on the right to assemble. In order to assemble on a street–a fairly obvious place to do so, for a protest, since it has good exposure and visibility–you have to ask the police to explicitly redirect traffic on your behalf. That's not a small hurdle.

sliverstorm 12y ago
Only if you interpret the 1st as absolute.
- dreamdu5t 12y ago
  It is absolute if you aren't a weasel or have a political axe to grind (the supreme court): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    So you believe incitement to violence, death threats, defamation, and false advertising should be protected, and the FCC is unconstitutional? And even more specifically, anyone who doesn't agree with you is either a weasel or has ulterior motives?
dtech 12y ago
I assume the US has parks and squares too.
- whoopdedo 12y ago
  Parks are considered private property owned by the city/state/federal government and police can charge you with trespassing.

mineshaftgap 12y ago

I am not sure where you are getting your info but in my neighborhood kids play in the street all day and move when a car comes.

mbrameld 12y ago
I don't know what country you're in but in the US something like 80% of the population lives in urban areas where playing in the street is essentially impossible.
- mineshaftgap 12y ago
  I live in the US. If you had been there and not just read some statistic you would have a better idea what you are talking about. The majority of the US live on quiet suburban streets. It is quite humorous how confused people get about America.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I don't know what "quiet suburban streets" you grew up on, but on mine the speed limit was 25 mph and people would zoom around at 35.
  - mbrameld 12y ago
    I've lived in the US my whole life other than 2 years in Belgium and 1 year in Afghanistan, I have a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. The article is specifically about city streets, it even says so right in the article if you had bothered to read it.
  - killerdhmo 12y ago
    um. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stat... It is very urbanized, with 81% residing in cities and suburbs as of 2014 (the worldwide urban rate is 54%)
    - barrkel 12y ago

StandardFuture 12y ago

>prior to the 1920s, city streets looked dramatically different than they do today. Just to support your point and provide video showing everyone just how the main street in San Francisco looked in 1906: http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs

317070 12y ago

> However car ownership there is not as widespread as in the US due to a number of economic constraints (space cost, gas price, taxes). As someone living in one of those cities (not owning a car), I can say that the reason is certainly not the cost. It's just that 99% of the time taking the bike or using public transport is way more comfortable. For the remaining transports to the country side (where the public transport is insufficient), car sharing fills my needs just fine.

acchow 12y ago

StandardFuture, your post is marked dead. Reposting for you: Just to support your point and provide video showing everyone just how the main street in San Francisco looked in 1906: http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs

ForHackernews 12y ago
Wow, bicycles look basically the same, and still ride out right in front of you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1RvgfoXGTs#t=1m8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1RvgfoXGTs#t=1m8s
oldspiceman 12y ago
Reminds me walking through the streets of Saigon. You just slowly start crossing and the motorbikes 10-20 deep on main streets magically separate around you. Traffic doesn't move more than 40km/h anywhere in the city.
- jkyle 12y ago
  Saigon isn't that bad today. A very modern, metropolitan area. Hanoi on the other hand...

rospaya 12y ago

> Countries with less developed economy still enjoys a vibrant street life much like the pre 1920 US You're connecting the dots wrong. Most European cities lead urban planning so that mixed zones are vibrant and busy, sometimes banning or punishing cars from city centers. It's intentional policy that (in Europe) is a result of policy, so is lowering car ownership in Denmark or the Netherlands. Bigger wealth doesn't indicate that everyone will follow the US and create unwalkable suburb monstrocities.

arnarbi 12y ago
This. In some European countries (e.g. UK, Scandinavian countries) there is no such thing as jaywalking. Pedestrians always have the right of way, except on motorways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Europe
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  When I lived in Lausanne, the local police were definitely giving tickets to pedestrians for crossing against the light. So its not all European countries (though the Swiss are more law and order than most).
- rmvt 12y ago
  I guess I might not be interpreting you correctly, but pedestrians have no right of way. AFAIK, if someone is crossing the street you must stop your vehicle (which seems obvious because if not, you'd run them over). This doesn't mean that you can just cross the street wherever and whenever you may please, neither does it mean that you can actually walk in the street. Still focusing on Europe, it's not that uncommon to see drivers disrespect the law and not stop at a crosswalk when there's someone trying to cross it.
  - arnarbi 12y ago
    > This doesn't mean that you can just cross the street wherever and whenever you may please, neither does it mean that you can actually walk in the street. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I couldn't find it when this discussion was going on, but last time I looked at the Swedish law it said something like this about pedestrians: Pedestrians may travel wherever and whenever, except on motorways. If there is a dedicated pedestrian walkway nearby, it is recommended to use it. If there is a pedestrian crossing signal, and it is red, it is strongly recommended not to cross. I.e. pedestrians have right of way always, outside motorways, and may walk on the street as they please.

nitrogen 12y ago

Quoting a dead comment: StandardFuture 1 hour ago | link [dead] >prior to the 1920s, city streets looked dramatically different than they do today. Just to support your point and provide video showing everyone just how the main street in San Francisco looked in 1906: http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs http://youtu.be/d1RvgfoXGTs . IMO there are better copies of that streetcar ride out there that lack the music. One of the prior posts on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2413891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2413891

trhway 12y ago

and once we get flying car (more specifically - an octocopter scaled up to carry 2-4 peoples, not that big of a problem if you take time to look into it), we'll be able to get back to the situation, and even better - the streets can be more like park style space and of irregular shape (with some bike paths for short distance travels using bike or something like golf-cart). The massive asphalted/concreted surfaces will become a thing of the past. The only main roads/highways will be left for self-driving cargo-trucks.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
more specifically - an octocopter scaled up to carry 2-4 peoples, not that big of a problem if you take time to look into it An octocopter will have even worse range than a normal helicopter, so you cant get very far, and everyone having flying cars based on pushing air will not be able to use them from the street due to the problem of blowing pedestrians over. Flying cars as envisioned in sci-fi require reactionless drives, at least if you want to be able to take off from the street without endangering everyone.
- trhway 12y ago
  >An octocopter will have even worse range than a normal helicopter, so you cant get very far not really. Octocopters are much easy for a scheme with tilting of a couple of rotors and thus having efficient plane style horizontal flight than tilting the whole machine like helicopter. As result - higher speed, longer range. > and everyone having flying cars based on pushing air will not be able to use them from the street due to the problem of blowing pedestrians over. You statement is true for helicopters. The octocopters are much efficient with pushing of the air. Google e-volo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzP0Zqxam7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzP0Zqxam7E (or the old work - Piasecki VZ-8 Airgeep - much less of airwash effect)
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Trust me on this. Blade efficiency is not only a swept area game, but also the middle of the blade is extra useless due to horrible vortex effects. One big blade massively outperforms eight little ones. And you cannot get away from the fact that you are hovering around a minimum of a ton. Either you have a really big cross sectional area of downwash from massive blades, or everyone falls over.