Just note that you will also need the Xreal Beam if you want the virtual screen to stay fixed in space while you move your head (it's too uncomfortable to use without it IMO).
You can plug them directly into your laptop (as long as it supports DP Alt mode, which I understand is common - my Thinkpad does). But, the virtual monitor will be in a fixed position relative to your head. Which is really not comfortable. In order to get the virtual screen to stay fixed in space while you move your head, you need the Beam.
I use the Xreal Air 1 with the Beam on my Thinkpad X1 and it's great. I really recommend it for flights. I don't understand why it hasn't gotten more popular. I can use my laptop comfortably for many hours, which makes long flights a lot more tolerable.
I only use them for laptop productivity. Not sure about VR stuff.
I strongly agree. That's what the European system is like, as others have mentioned. Even the 2 years of fundamental science preparation. In Spain, what I would say is the academic equivalent of high-school ends at 16. 16-18 is then spent in "baccalaureate", an optional university preparation program, which is more rigorous and ends in nationally-administered university preparedness exam. A prospective medical student would need to do the science-based variant of this program.
Wow, that seems so short then. In Europe medical school is 6 years, with a 7th year spent on preparing for residency. At least in Spain. And it doesn't start off easy. All student are required to have spent the last 2 years of high school in a science-focused baccalaureate program, which in my experience is similar to early American undergraduate in terms of academic rigour.
Obviously no one is talking about "stopping matrix multiplication globally". But setting limits on the supply of and access to hardware, in a way that would meaningfully impede AI development, does seem feasible if we were serious about it.
Also, Eliezer is not claiming this will definitely work. He thinks it ultimately probably won't. The claim is just that this is the best option we have available.
> There is no such thing as "English pronunciation". English does not have a regulatory body like Spanish or German have.
Oh come on. The fact that there is no regulatory body doesn't mean we can't meaningfully talk about "English pronunciation" in a general way. And Spanish and German have different dialects , accents and pronunciations too.
> The English spelling is guided by meaning, not by sound
I moved from Spain to the US, and I often find myself trying to explain to people back home just how miserable and even humiliating the pedestrian experience is here.
Here are some other examples of things that I think contribute to the hostile walking experience in the US:
* Cars parked in short driveways often extend all the way across the sidewalk. Even if you can easily step off onto the road to walk around them (not all pedestrians can), it just feels like a slap in the face to have to do that.
* Cars have much higher and stronger headlights, with the high beams often left on, and drivers are generally much less mindful of them. As a pedestrian walking at night on under-lit streets, you are constantly getting blinded.
* Tinted windows (even the mild level of tint that most cars in the US have). The whole experience of being a lone vulnerable pedestrian among a sea of cars is made even worse when you can't see the people in the cars (but you know they can see you).
* Often the only option to get food late at night are fast food places, which become drive-thru only after a certain time. Having to go through the drive-thru on foot is obviously a terrible experience, and they will often refuse to even serve you.
> I often find myself trying to explain to people back home just how miserable and even humiliating the pedestrian experience is here.
Same. I’ve lived in Los Ángeles and Amsterdam, and it is impossible to explain to my friends and family just how awful the quality of life is in LA precisely because of the difference in attitudes and priorities over cars. Perhaps some have “nicer” (aka bigger) houses in LA than they would have in Ámsterdam, but once they leave their front door everything is objectively worse
Every time a politician anywhere in the world suggests adding more freeways or more lanes to freeways, I think they should be forced to live in LA for a year and do a ~1 hour commute each way in traffic.
They need to see first hand what happens when you just add more freeways and more lanes. It's not good.
I had a conversation recently with someone lamenting that we didn't have roads like LA here in Boston. Saying their ideal road was 3 lanes, plus a bike lane, plus a bus lane in each direction. Imagine being a pedestrian trying to cross that!
I really don't understand someone who looks at that traffic disaster and wants to build the same thing here at home.
They're a car-centric person who wants the "nuisance" of bikes and busses out of their way while still pretending to have progressive values. People who only drive from garage to shopping center and back, never having to experience the dehumanizing impact of 6+ lanes affecting other transport modes.
This seems pretty counter intuitive but this is often the other way around. The safest streets in Europe are where cars, bikes and pedestrian mix together. It force focus on the driving task instead of doing something else. If you are interested, Freakonomics have an episode: "Why the U.S. so good at killing pedestrian". It's an interesting discussion with no simple answer.
It's because US streets are designed much wider than equivalent European streets. US design standards have wider LOS than Europe so they design for faster vehicle travel and higher throughput, which puts pressure on slower modes. This comes at a financial costs (better pavement, wider roads) but the US gladly pays a fortune for roads.
As an equal-parts driver, biker, e-scooter rider and pedestrian, this is horrible. Yes, you have to focus on the driving, or walking, or scooting, but you're in constant stress because you can accidentally hit someone coming from any direction. Or they can hit you.
It's far better to have separate spaces, and cross only when you really have to.
Maybe you should be stressed? The point might be that environments where you're not stressed because they lull you into a false sense of security tend to kill more pedestrians.
You're moving tons of metal at high speeds. Don't get too comfortable doing that.
Why do you assume I'm the driver in this case? I'm stressed as a pedestrian too.
You really think it's healthy to be stressed all the time?
I live in Israel and we've had pro-democracy demonstrations in a main intersection in Tel Aviv, every Saturday for the past 30 weeks. There are people and bikes all around but no cars and no motorcycles. It's ridiculous how calming it is to be on the street and not have to worry about hitting someone or getting hit.
Also, when I'm on the freeway, though I'm moving tons of metal are even higher speeds, I'm somehow less stressed. I'm alert, I'm actively driving, but less stressed - because the frequency of surprising events happening is low. In the city there are jaywalkers, kids, tiny bikes with no lights, e-scooters, buses pulling in and out of stations, gas scooters cutting you off. It's completely different.
I have also seen cars go 60+ km/h through traffic-calmed cul-de-sacs where children were playing on the street. Are you saying that only cyclists emulate Carmageddon in real life?
In that area you will find highways, surface streets, bike paths, pedestrian walkways, trams, commuter trains and other kinds of transportation in a way that comes across as elegant, at least to me.
Or maybe better the cognitive load? There are various studies that show removing white lines and navigation furniture to make junctions more of a puzzle, decreases speeds and increases attention and safety.
That's someone who's never actually had to drive in LA traffic. I only had to visit once for the experience of 3 straight hours of gridlock traffic just to get across the city to be seared into my brain.
I’ve lived in LA for five years now and lived in Boston for seven years prior. They’re both uniquely terrible.
LA’s roads are easy to imagine because it’s synonymous with huge interstates, congestion, and long commutes.
Boston is terrible because it’s layout makes zero intuitive sense and looks like spaghetti when viewed from the sky. Of course Boston predates the automobile, so I understand why.
I do enjoy the prevalence of bike culture in Boston. It’s just the right size to pedal most places and there are fairly good accomodations for cycling, like bike lanes.
But hey, at least I don’t live in Philadelphia. By far the worst driving experience each time I visit. :)
Funnily I live in LA and have a one-hour commute each way. But I drive a Vespa and am therefore limited to taking the side streets.
I don’t mind it all that much, aside from the distance. One thing that helps is that motor bikes are permitted to split lanes and thus I can flow through congested traffic quite easily. It’s quite fun and I find that it allows me to enter a flow state more readily and it takes some of the edge off of the whole traffic experience because I get to keep moving.
Try Massachusetts. You drive just as far, there are hardly any businesses to patronize on your commute (except for maybe two Dunkin Donuts), sometimes traffic is going 95 mph at 1am in the morning on Rt 128 in heavy rain, and it snows.
The reason LA doesn't have bike lanes is that LA City Councilmembers have fought back bike lanes for years. It's zero sum thinking. The Councilmembers think that making driving worse for cyclists hurts the dominant mode so hurts the most people, even though many of the arterials in LA just cannot be expanded because of existing businesses, homes, and ROWs.
I lived in a place for most of my life that refused to build freeways "because they didn't want to become like LA" meanwhile more people moved there, traffic got worse. Going "across town" about 15 miles was a burden. You hated to do it. I then moved to a town that had a few freeways and 15 miles away was considered close. The town I grew up in, finally built some cross town roads, and travel time improved.
I think you can have too many freeways, but you can definitely have to few
I think the problem with the town you grew up in is that they didn't build any good modes of transportation and not that they didn't build freeways. Sure freeways can fix the problem of people getting from point A to point B, but they're probably one of the worse ways to go about it. Street cars, bus rapid transit, metros, etc., are all better across the board even for the people who do want to drive because it allows non-drivers to get to point B without a car, thereby clearing up traffic for the drivers.
In a town that is very forward out, almost any form of public transportation is worse than cars.
And while I agree that public transportation helps. My current turn has horrible transportation abs more freeways and it is far easier to get around in than my old town.
I grew up in a similar place, which had too few freeways around it and navigating anywhere was a major headache. Now I live in a highly walkable town near a few freeways, and it’s much nicer; I can avoid driving altogether and walk/bike around town, or I can easily get to the nearby city by car. There’s a happy medium to be found.
I'd say split it half and half, 6 months LA to learn the pain of the wrong way, then 6 months in a place with proper transit like Amsterdam or Seoul, then they come back with a vision of what could be.
LA is by no means the worst that America has to offer. At least within a 1 hour radius you have a staggering population and amount of commerce available. People visiting LA from "average" places in the U.S. will note that it's really dense, about as dense as the outer boroughs of New York City. If it's "sprawling" it is not because it is uneconomical in the use of space but because the whole area that is habitable is crammed with people.
In Southern New Hampshire people drive almost as far although there is hardly anything to drive to. The confluence of Route 101 and I-93 south of Manchester is as bad as anything you'll find in a city 100 times Manchester's size leaving the question of where the hell all these cars are coming from and where they are going.
(The answer is that the population is dispersed over a large area with a hierarchical road network that, as much as possible, wants to be like your lungs. Thus you always get stuck in traffic at several bottlenecks on your drive that you can't avoid.)
Subjectively worse, not objectively worse. I think driving is much more convenient and nice for most things I like to do. The only exceptions I can think of are if I were a kid in a car-centric area (strangely, the thinking in the US is usually reversed, kids supposedly need to be in the burbs), or if I was drunk. I don't often get drunk, so I'd prefer to drive for everything from minor groceries to outdoor activities ~100% of the time.
Jesus it's objectively worse. NY/Chicago/London/Paris/Tokyo you can conceivably and easily nip out to a grocer's, bodega, cafe or pub within 10 minutes of where you are. LA? Outside of certain certain pockets like DTLA, KTown, WeHo or similar walking is tough and if your friend is across town you're SoL without a car.
But I don't want to! I literally just walked to the store and it was in absoute perfect conditions - we wanted to go for a walk anyway, the weather is perfect (sunny but not hot), the store is 10min walk from my house, the neighborhood is nice and not drive-thru so there is ~0 non-local traffic. The plan was we go for a walk, and pop by a store and get one item. But as usual it never ends up being that way, so we had one paper bag of items - 6 pack of beer, some cheese, box of blueberries, nothing very heavy.
I am pretty fit, like I deadlift 280lbs :) and still walking with this stupid bag ruined the whole walk back. And it wasn't even much - if I replaced beer with food it would be like, 2-3 days worth.
I would have rather just finished the walk, then drove 3mins to the same store. In the most perfect conditions imaginable, with minimal amount of groceries. And what if it was 100F, or 32F, or raining, or I didn't want to go for a walk, or I needed to get some large items like sugar or rice or a gallon of milk or a lot of beer for a party?
Walking to a store is simply not an advantage at all. And if you go to even a poor country you can see most people agree - as soon as they can they start driving to big box stores, and small local stores die.
And regardless, even if (which I wouldn't grant) the majority would prefer to walk rather than drive, it's still SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. A ton of people prefer to drive.
Not gonna lie, having a 10 minute walk ruined by carrying a bag home sounds like you maybe need to deadlift less and cardio more or something. Or maybe get better bags?
Walking to stores is an advantage because it allows for a density of services unavailable if parking lots are a serious consideration for businesses. I can go to my local convenience store, and my barber, and a no-waste shop, and my local bar, all in one pleasant morning… plus I don’t have to worry about a dui!
Yeah if you're going to walk with groceries, use a mesh or canvas bag with handles, or a grocery basket/cart if you're buying more than a few items. Carrying paper bags sucks because you have to hold them in your arms and support the bottom of the bag.
In many countries adults just continue to wear backpacks. One of the things I keep in my backpack is a big IKEA bag, meaning I'm pretty set for shopping on foot (or bike, which is more common for me). Medium sized purchases go in the backpack, larger things go in the IKEA bag.
I mountaineer too, it's just a chore to walk with groceries, esp. if the weather is bad and you have to do it every 3 days given how little one can carry.
I think I mentioned the drinking aspect in the original comment. I could do all of these things by car, probably faster too... except drinking. So I guess it depends on how often one drinks :)
As a mountaineer, you no doubt have a wonderfully ergonomic high volume backpack that is great for a week of shopping. Two if your diet is basic meat and veg not processed food in lots of packaging.
Same to the OP. You should own a decent feckin' shopping bag. It's basic adulting where I live. You have observed the problem yet not doing anything about which is just really weird.
>You have observed the problem yet not doing anything about which is just really weird.
They observed the problem and simply have a different solution than you. I'm sure there's a number of other factors they didn't mention that make it preferable to simply use their perfectly working car.
> I'm sure there's a number of other factors they didn't mention that make it preferable to simply use their perfectly working car.
I'm sorry but when one is willing to put that much effort to try to justify using a car to avoid a 10 mn walk, that's only because one is way too lazy and privileged...
You treat the walk as the default and car as something that needs to be justified. That's BS. I think you are too privileged to live in a safe neighborhood, in good climate, to be healthy enough to walk with load, and to own a good backpack :P
To me car is the default solution, it's simply better in every way for most people. Making one's life better doesn't need to be "justified".
It is! Just like not having surgery, not using AC/heating, or not wearing glasses, etc. All those things are unnatural and some are expensive, but luckily we are not hunter-gatherers anymore ;)
The paper bags they give you are terrible, they're barely fit to walk to the car with. They always fall apart on the walk home, and the ergonomics suck too. But with any reasonable bag I find it's not a big deal.
I'm of the impression paper bags are not meant to be carried. As long as I've been alive, they always break.
I suspect they're simply supposed to be a bundling device so you can stack them for loading in one of those foldable vertical bring-your-own-grocery-cart like old ladies in urban areas use. They certainly can't carry all that crap in-hand either, but this is the only way I've seen paper-bagged groceries make it more than a block without drama.
Not particularly. I'd love to be able to walk a block down the street if all I need is a haircut and some milk. I just recognize that that isn't possible in my situation without spending a significant amount of time/energy (that I already lack) in doing so. I simply prefer that over the urban hellscape that is my local downtown (and well, the rural area where it's the worst of both worlds). It's also cheaper, so that helps.
There are other solutions to this if we don't only consider walking. e.g. public transportation. But my nearest bus stop is a quarter mile in the opposite direction. And only a quarter mile if you decide to hop the train tracks (which comes hourly, I am conveniently enough a mile from my local Amtrak); it's a half mile to do "safely".
I actually do agree that some of the tips here could improve even this short minor route I described to get to a bus, but suburbs don't exactly care much to begin with. When everything is far, everything is unwalkable, so why bother (in the minds of these small city planners).
> I just recognize that that isn't possible in my situation without spending a significant amount of time/energy
I'd argue the main reason it is isn't possible is because of poor town planning decisions made by governments over the last 50-60 years. It is still possible in many (most?) European town/cities, and is possible in the inner-city (but still pleasant and largely residential) suburb I live in, but I'd acknowledge there's far too few such suburbs in most Australian cities, and from what I've seen the US is similar.
> And what if it was 100F, or 32F, or raining, or I didn't want to go for a walk, or I needed to get some large items like sugar or rice or a gallon of milk or a lot of beer for a party?
As a New Yorker, you just described daily life here? It’s really not a big deal — things are so close you can take multiple trips if you need to. Get some canvas bags. Plus since everything is so close you end up just doing smaller trips every day or so. If the shop is longer than 10-15 minutes and I’ve got more than, say, 40 pounds of groceries I might get a car back home, but that’s a rare trip. And honestly I’ll probably just walk it back anyway.
Maybe we just have a higher tolerance for pain here — I’ve certainly had people visit who think of themselves as fit and they get gassed out by regular New York walking life.
> I’ve certainly had people visit who think of themselves as fit and they get gassed out by regular New York walking life
It's interesting how things become normal once you do it every day. I used to live in a fifth floor apartment without lift. Quite a few stairs to climb. Three things come to my mind.
a) You very quickly learn not to forget anything when leaving the house.
b) There is some perverse sense of satisfaction in having guests over and walking up the stairs together; and purposefully keeping a calm breath whilst the guests are wheezing and complaining.
c) Some tradesman was working on one of the floors. I will never forget the sight of him carrying something heavy up those stairs whilst practically breathing through the cigarette in the corner of his mouth.
For very legitimate reasons life like this is not for everybody. But I would say for able-bodied healthy people it would be good to have a bit of regular forced exercise like that.
> I will never forget the sight of him carrying something heavy up those stairs...
Oh man, absolutely. I still have a vivid memory of moving out of a 5 floor walk-up with a narrow stairwell and as I was walking back into the building out comes the guy bear hugging my Fender Rhodes electric piano. It's gotta be around 150 pounds and very bulky. He was walking like it was nothing.
You can still drive perfectly well in walkable cities.
And maybe it's just a TV trope, but do your paper bags lack handles? In Europe essentially all grocery bags have handles and are easy to carry. The amount of food you bought sounds easy to me to carry home, and I don't even lift.
It's a tradeoff - the argument is about car vs walking infrastructure, and while it's nice to have both I'd prefer to lose the latter if I had to make a choice. Driving in Amsterdam is... inconvenient. At least in central areas, I've never been far out.
They have handles, it's still just inconvenient to carry and makes a nice walk into a chore, vs driving with much more groceries per trip.
What about electric cars with nuclear power or renewables? In any case the argument is not about that. It's one thing to say "we cannot sustain the CO2 emissions / we cannot build enough highways for everyone so sorry, we cannot have some of the nice things anymore", but that's not what the above says.
It is also ok to express an opinion that car-free living is better for some people, or argue that most people prefer it, although I think that is self-evidently incorrect, cause as per IMF data I linked somewhere here, one of the first things people all over the world do when they get any richer (like, $2.5k-10k per capita income) is buy a lot of cars.
But the above is saying it's OBJECTIVELY better. Other than just being wrong, that betrays the kind of "I know exactly how everyone should live their lives, and I would make them if I could" attitude that I hate.
I agree with your general point about the romanticization of no-car life. I grew up without a car in a walkable city. It was nice but there are legitimate trade offs.
My mom used a wheelie cart to do our shopping growing up. As a kid I thought it was embarrassing but now I get it. Cargo bikes are another good option. Having to carry home groceries without some sort of cargo apparatus like that does suck, even in nice weather.
If all the externalities involved in having everyone use cars for every trip where they don't feel like walking are managed (including health impacts from pollution, sedentary lifestyles etc., time wasted sitting in rush hour traffic, dominance of cityscape by infrastructure dedicated to automobile traffic etc. etc.) then sure, driving is objectively better. I've yet to come across anywhere in the world that's true though.
I mean, this thread argues that the environment in Amsterdam/Tokyo/New York/... is "objectively better" than in LA to live in.
"sedentary lifestyles" is not a real externality and anyway is also easy to achieve with transit; "time wasted in traffic" is simply false (far more time is wasted on transit given how fast it is to drive for an average trip, and sometimes even in rush hour), "dominance of cityscape by infrastructure dedicated to automobile traffic" by itself is a subjective aesthetic preference.
Now as for the actual real externalities, I said elsewhere, it's one thing to say "most people reveal the preference to drive (and I disagree with them OR because driving is just better), however they cannot all have what they want because of pollution / global warming /...". That could be correct, although it would also imply this is a technological problem - they mostly solved pollution from cars, and if we e.g. had cheap fusion or solar energy and electric cars we could all go back to driving.
It's quite another to pretend that people need to switch to the inferior (by their own revealed preference around the world) lifestyle because it is "objectively better".
I basically waste no time at all travelling - I do it mostly by bike which is obviously beneficial health wise, and if I do take a train or bus I use the time to read etc. (plus walking to/fro stations/stops is, again, a positive use of time).
The objective downsides in the amount of infrastructure dedicated to allowing everyone to drive everywhere is surely seen in the cost of maintaining it, and the impacts it has on housing affordability etc. Not to mention the environmental damage caused.
I certainly don't want people feeling like they're being forced into making inferior choices - just that we make an effort to design our towns and cities so that the choice to walk/bike/use transit is a realistic one that compares favourably with driving.
Cycling commuting distances/speeds, especially European-style, only counts as exercise for very sedentary people. Walking is barely exercise at all.. in the same time one could drive and also do some real exercise. Reading does make transit less bad, but usually only works on a familiar (no need to check for stops), transfer-free commute that's not very crowded. Otherwise if you time overhead vs reading (I've actually done it once in a place with bad traffic and relatively good buses, sadly I had a transfer) you can maybe get 30-40% of your commute as focused reading time and driving will still be faster in most places. Interestingly I think for that, transit is actually better on long inter-city trips, like someone I know commutes from Tacoma to Seattle during rush hour, it's I think 1:10 by train with no interruptions, or a 50min drive from hell. In that case I'd prefer transit :)
I think people just don't realize on gut level how fast driving is... someone mentioned Edinburgh as a place where it would never occur to them to drive. As it happens it was 5:30pm there when I plotted a random trip out of the city center to some residential area, it was 25min in "red" traffic vs 43min by transit, not counting overheads of waiting of course - so realistically x2 faster and that's from a city center. That was also my experience almot everywhere I lived or visited... you'd look at "terrible traffic" and wince, then you look at transit directions and drive/call a cab cause it's way faster anyway :)
> Cycling commuting distances/speeds, especially European-style, only counts as exercise for very sedentary people.
Which I'd wager includes a sizeable fraction of the population. I also remember seeing a study in Germany some years ago where they found that exclusive car commuters had the highest average BMI and bike commuters the lowest. Granted, it was not a massive (ahem) difference, but definitively a few kilos…
When you live closer to grocery stores, you buy less food more often. I live two blocks away from the grocery store, I go fairly frequently, and I never have an issue with the weight I’m carrying. And I deadlift the same as you
That's because 10 minutes away is too far, that's almost a mile, and it becomes a chore.
I live a block from a store, and its much, much easier and more plesant than going to the effort of getting the car out, driving somewhere, having to find a parking spot, etc... Driving's a pain in the arse.
A decently walkable suburb/city would have a store within a block or two, maybe a five minute walk.
The US is too far gone for this to make sense. “Walking to get groceries”, I mean jeez this means something utterly different in the US vs Europe.
Here, walking to get groceries means depending on what I need, I walk down the road to get some daily fresh produce, or a few minutes more to get more variety of non perishables, cleaning products etc. It’s a lovely walk, it’s relaxing, and I come back with at most 3-4kg. I do this regularly, and I can do it on my way home when I take the metro for whatever.
In the US, it’s literally something you have to plan for. No kidding you don’t want to walk; one of the goals is to minimise time spent especially if it’s not relaxing time.
I can't speak for all people in the US but my family is not content with selection in a single store. We buy different kinds of items in different stores. And I mean big stores, with big parking lots and dozens of isles. It is also not very clear that you spend less time shopping: you cannot possibly live off 3-4kg of food for a week or two so you must shop very frequently.
If you don't understand the core differences between how to even buy shopping and the influence this has on how you live your life… it's not possible to explain that, actually yeah, it's possible to never do shopping by car, even to feed a whole family.
I am sorry, the sentence with the "buy shopping" does not make sense to me. I completely understand this arrangement, I grew up in the USSR, where people had been carrying a net bag in their pocket (advised several times in this thread), calling it "what-if" bag ("авоська") and just going to the store every day and getting whatever was sold there, thinking the idea to plan to buy the exact things you need is ridiculous.
Grew up in the city and yeah you get used to it. We had our own bags my mom sewed or mesh bags. If we bought something like beer it wasn’t in 6 packs but one or two bottles at a time. Also we had decent public transportation, we’d hop on a trolleybus (electric buses) even for a few stops if the bags got heavy.
At the same time I agree that it wasn’t fun and I didn’t enjoy it as a kid. If we could have an option to have a car, drive it and fill the trunk with groceries and drive back we would have.
It's tragically hilarious to me that the car brain imagination can only consider moving a multi tonne large dangerous vehicle around in order to simply ease the discomfort of the small bag of groceries. Most people use little wheeled carts that are light and foldable and easy to push or pull around.
Yeah, most people thru history were also subsistence farmers and it's "tragically hilarious" that "civilized brain" only considers I dunno, engineering or science or art to make a living, or whatever when you could be subsistence farming for reliable and easy to produce food.
I didn't drive until I was 29-30 and lived mostly in walkable areas so I can easily consider the alternatives. They are just, as I found out when I tried car-dependent lifestyle, inferior. One might even say, "objectively worse"...
Walking to the store is great when it’s a habit to do so every day, so you’re just picking up some fresh meat and produce for whatever dinner you’re making that night. It’s a very pleasant (and healthy) lifestyle. For trips where you need to make larger and heavier purchases, it’s also very enjoyable to bike.
I'm an anti-car urbanist, but this kind of comment makes me embarrassed to be one. Different people like different things. The fact that something is bad for the climate doesn't magically make it unpleasant for everyone. That remains true even if they accept the climate impacts.
It's true that the inevitable conclusion is that we can't rely on individual voluntary actions to solve climate change, but the obvious plan B is government regulation, not vigilantism.
From my comment: "Now, you could argue that global warming is bad / enough freeways cannot be built / etc., sure. Maybe we cannot have nice things.
But don't argue that people want to live in urban paradise and some contrived system is simply not giving them what they want. "
I just don't like the hypocrisy.
However, it's the comments like this that make me think that for any equivalent level of far-, left is worse than right. The right wants to decide how you should live your life; so does the left, but the left does it in this vindictive, holier-than-thou ninny kind of way ;)
I'm sorry this person was rude to you, but I think you're extrapolating far too much. People on the right have their own infuriating comments they make, I would hazard a guess you may not notice them because they aren't directed at you.
One I've had tossed at me during a discussion is, "if you aren't a socialist when you're 20, you have no heart, but if your still a socialist when you're 50, you have no head." This isn't "holier than thou" per say, but it serves the same rhetorical role, it's smug nonsense from someone thinking that they just know so much better than you that time's steady march will make their argument for them (and so they don't have to address what you've said or treat you ).
Frankly, I also see people using the same tropes as in your comment mischaracterize substantive points as being whining or moralizing.
I would say the problem is that as a society, we don't understand how to conduct a productive discourse. I'm pretty sure we never have and have just been muddling through for millenia.
Believe me, I'd love it if being left wing meant the people I disagreed with online weren't frequently rude or vindictive, but I'm afraid I share your experience.
>eople on the right have their own infuriating comments they make, I would hazard a guess you may not notice them because they aren't directed at you.
Based purely on forum internet discourse: when talking about "micro discussions" (a kind term for "flame war between 2-3 people that go on for dozens of comments), the most negative Left-leaning language tends to be "personal", while the most negative Right-leaning language tends to be "internal". That is to say, in very wide swaths it seems like left leaning people tend to argue in a way that attacks the character "you're being X, you lack a soul if you don't Y", etc.), while a right leaning person tends to argue from a place of authority ("I'm right", "this is the truth", "Everyone knows X"). This can mean that a right leaning person at worst can feel like a prick. But a left leaning person can feel like a nag.
It's the difference between walking past the oddly loud fellow on the street vs. walking away from the person poking you. The latter will probably stick with you longer because while the poker may have done less damage overall, they were clearly targeting you. While the loud person wasn't targeting anyone in particular, it may not have even looked in your direction.
Again, it would be fun if I never had to deal with people implying my views implied I was actually a bad person, but it's not the case. I also see this in lots of conversations that aren't political, so I think it's more of an online discourse thing. People get nasty to each other online.
> This can mean that a right leaning person at worst can feel like a prick. But a left leaning person can feel like a nag.
What I'm trying to tell you is, these are the same thing wrapped up packaged with different aesthetics.
This brush is just too darn broad. If you're gunnuh judge by flame wars, everyone is gunnuh come out smelling like poo.
>This brush is just too darn broad.If you're gunnuh judge by flame wars, everyone is gunnuh come out smelling like poo.
I did warn beforhand. I agree judging an entire political paradigm based on its worst actors is pretty much the worst way to approach said paradigms. But at the same time that is unfortunately becoming more and more commonplace.
I'd need much more than 2 paragraphs if we want to fully dive into the psychology of the internet, anonymity, negativity bias, and modern discourse. Everyone does indeed smell like poo here, but the kinds of comments that lead to flame wars are rarely the perfectly civil technical answers.
>I also see this in lots of conversations that aren't political, so I think it's more of an online discourse thing. People get nasty to each other online.
It can certainly happen in places like media, yes. But oftentimes it comes from applying some political topic to what seems tame on the outside. That's how we got here, since talking about Walkability lead to talking about environmentalism. And next thing we know we have a person talking about slashing tires because a single commenter mentioned how they would have preferred using a car to carry groceries after their walk.
> I did warn beforhand. I agree judging an entire political paradigm based on its worst actors is pretty much the worst way to approach said paradigms.
Then don't do that. One person got frustrated and said something about slashing tires (and was immediately corrected by another urbanist). Don't turn that into a mountain.
With all due respect, I feel you started the molehill by replying to someone who was (also) frustrated by getting a reply about someone slashing their tires because of a small life choice (one that they DIDN'T do, in this instance. Just wished they could in the future).
I just wanted to touch into the why's and hows of the frustration. It feels like similar results, but had different causes. If you aren't interested, I apologize.
Well, from my perspective, I was trying to say it was a mole hill, and you were saying, from this angle it looks like a mountain.
I think maybe I didn't communicate tone well enough in my previous comment, I don't mean it to come off as berating you to stop or something. I was saying that, if you understand that painting with a broad brush doesn't work, I'm confused why I see a brush in your hand.
Do you not think it's likely, if left wing people changed the language they used or otherwise addressed these reasons you highlighted (or likewise if right wing people did the equivalent), that because there was still profound polarization and disagreement, people would kinda find other things to complain about?
If you accept that premise, then does it really matter what things the people who you disagree with do that grind your gears and what it is you find grating about them?
Isn't it more important to try and have a productive dialog, despite finding the people you disagree with grating?
I think almost always when there is something about the way someone expressed themselves that bothers you, it's more a reflection on your preferences than anything else, and it's best to set it aside and try to hear them out anyway. There's no obligation to do so, I'm just suggesting it's the pragmatic and productive thing to do.
> NY/Chicago/London/Paris/Tokyo you can conceivably and easily nip out to a grocer's, bodega, cafe or pub within 10 minutes of where you are.
This keeps coming up on HN but it's not as absolutist as it's made to be.
There are lots and lots of suburban places in the US where you can walk to things as you describe. NY/Chicago/London/Paris/Tokyo do not have a monopoly on walkability.
I live in very suburban (approaching on rural, but still suburban) area in the outskirts of silicon valley. Within 10 minutes I can walk to two supermarkets, several cafes and two pubs. Also to movie theaters, library, two drug stores, many restaurants, child care, a department store and many other businesses.
But unlike Manhattan, within 10 minutes (ok maybe 12) I can also walk to an open space forest where I can hike, mountain bike and go camping. Unlike in Manhattan, I can road bike many tens of miles of rural low-to-no-traffic roads out of my front door. We have many open soccer fields within easy walk (kid loves soccer so this is great).
Suburbs can be very walkable and have more variety of amenities within easy reach than a dense city.
I think people are criticizing "American suburbia", not a a truly suburban form which is more urban than a rural form and less urban than an urban form. I live in what I call a "bike suburb". While the grocery and a couple other businesses are a 7-8 min walk away on a multi use path, the rest of the town opens up in a 5 min bike. Likewise I'm a 15-20 min drive away from tons of nature, and if we do need to drive around it's not as convenient as it is in suburbia but not too difficult either.
But a lot of suburbia is completely inaccessible or hostile by foot and unbikeable. Since you're in Silicon Valley, you can probably think of tons of places like that. Mixed use zoning and infill developmental priorities are what create this urban form. This is the important bit, not squabbling over which city is better than the other.
> Since you're in Silicon Valley, you can probably think of tons of places like that.
I sort of can't, which is why I always express doubt about these suburbs where one must supposedly drive 30 minutes to the nearest store (not a quote from this thread, but one that I've seen many times on HN).
I've lived also in south San Jose, Cambpell and Cupertino. In all those I could also walk to supermarkets and many other businesses.
San Leandro, Union City, Fremont, and further East like Danville and Pleasanton can be pretty bad to walk around in. The West part of the Bay has generally been wealthier and historically had more pedestrian affordances. I'm pretty sure all of these factors go into making the Bay as a whole such an expensive and desirable place to live.
Also, when grocery shopping using a car, I can carry a shit-ton more than I can on foot, so I don't have to go shopping nearly as often. In a pedestrian-centric town, grocery shopping is a daily chore. Using my car, I only have to go once a week or so.
This is exactly why I lived in Santa Monica when I lived in LA. One of the few walkables cities in the area (not all of SaMo mind you. Just talking about the area between Ocean and say 7th or 8th)
I've visited, although didn't spend much time in the city itself. I think it's not amazing for me cause other amenities LA has are not the type of stuff I need or enjoy, and there's a huge number of people who do need and enjoy them making the place really crowded. On the other hand, Amsterdam wouldn't be my first choice for similar reason (I've visited a couple times).
If choosing between areas that either are less crowded, or have all the stuff I enjoy, I'd prefer an LA-like one to an Amsterdam-like one.
I find I'd much rather drive to the mountains, or a lake, or at least a nice big park, and recreate there. Walking to a store in Amsterdam or Munich or Vancouver or Moscow was neither much fun nor a lot of exercise.
I am not talking about spending the leisure time but the amount of movement we need every day just to keep our bodies healthy. Sitting all the time is detrimental to us.
As a European who owns both a car and a bike, regularly driving somewhere just to do a bit of walking there feels like a complete waste of resources to me. I use my car for work related travel, at distances over 5 miles or to move heavy stuff. For anything else the default choice (which includes grocery shopping) is walking or biking. Amsterdam has great bike paths, I’d probably cycle even more there.
> I find I'd much rather drive to the mountains, or a lake, or at least a nice big park, and recreate there.
This is not a sustainable solution to population level health needs, even if maybe in your particular situation you do actually get enough vacation days and free time on weekends to be able to do this (I also doubt this).
Well, a more sustainable solution is everyone exercising at home whenever they want in the way they want, or going for a run around the block. Going to the store by car + going for a run, is still faster and more convenient than walking to the store (per unit of exercise - e.g. driving to the store 10 times and running 2 miles vs walking 0.2 miles to the store).
A gym is a great example of how we tend to support parts of life communally when we can live more densely.
For me the competing requirements are space for gym equipment and space for a workshop. I could have space for both if I lived further out, but then all other aspects of life would get worse. I'd have to drive constantly, to work, to social outings, to fun weekend stuff, it'd be a drag.
As you are pointing out though, we all have our tradeoffs we make. My only counterpoint would be that most cities are doing a terrible job of offering options to people who do want the more dense, "less car" communities.
I'm not sure you noticed you actually said you'd rather have enjoyable but infrequent events in one place than basic mundane and recurring chores.
A honest, objective comparison would be between going to a store in, say, LA or Amsterdam, and going to a lake or nice big park in LA or Amsterdam.
In Amsterdam, you can go to stores on foot without any issue. Not in LA.
In LA you need to drive for hours to go to any of the nice spots you listed. In Amsterdam you can walk to a nice park or a nice lake, and for the same amount of time you need to drive in LA to reach any decent spot, in Amsterdam you can actually reach at least two different countries, and by train you can reach spots like Paris.
Going to the store - I'd prefer to drive in LA on an average day of the year.
For the mid-range activities we have to compare like with like. For some low-mid range activity (like a local park) indeed, walking in Amsterdam would be more convenient. Something more remote/infrequent (e.g. a specialized gym like a climbing gym or a large pool), I'd prefer to drive rather than take transit.
As for the surrounding area it doesn't really depend on the city itself, LA is surrounded by desert and mountains, Amsterdam is in one of the most historically agriculturally productive (and so, densely populated for centuries) and flat areas in Europe. If LA was built like Amsterdam, it'd still take forever to get anywhere interesting outside of the city.
Personally I don't even like driving :) To me it's a minor annoyance, like washing the dishes. But it's just SO much more convenient, so it's worth it.
> I think driving is much more convenient and nice for most things I like to do
Sure…is that because driving is inherently more convenient than walking, or because your city was designed so driving was more convenient than walking?
A thought exercice: would you enjoy living in a 3x bigger house and drive a small cart from room to room ? with a well adapted house it could be more convenient. Would it be nicer ?
I don't think this is very relevant. I would prefer to live in a 3x bigger house, but it would still be walkable.
A reverse (also not very relevant) thought experiment - would you prefer to live in one room that is office/bedroom/bathroom/kitchen, just because you don't have to walk at all, everything is so close, why sprawl? :)
European and asian cities pretty much feel like a 10x - 20x bigger house for many.
You walk down 2 blocks to get some milk and bread for the breakfast, post office is 3 blocks in the other direction, 1 block another way and you have fruits and vegetable. Basically you can treat the immediate surroundings as an extension of your house where you just "go" without a modal distinction of getting into a car, parking, back into the car, parking again.
Even taking a bus or train feels less of a discontinuation as you just walk in walk out and at no point have to switch to a "driver" mode.
I dunno, I used to feel this friction (I didn't use to drive until I was ~30), how driving is a thing and not driving is frictionless, but I think it was just psychological. It feels reverse now - the only frictionless places for ~everyone are grocery stores and such, cause they are everywhere. And maybe things you consciously live next to, like if you decide to live next to an olympic pool facility or a nightclub. Transit has pretty high fixed cost of getting anywhere, even in transit friendly placed like Munich or Moscow.. everything takes at least 30-40 minutes given to/from and wait times, any time of day. And that's if you don't have any transfers. I used to take it for granted but now when I look up transit directions it just weird to think it used to take so long and I thought it was normal.
Whereas if you drive you can choose when to go and so make it convenient - like I go to a climbing gym at 6am in winter, no traffic and less people. Also, many things you don't even need to leave the house for - even with a relatively small house (1100sqft) I have room for a weight rack and home office, no need to go to a real office or to a gym.
This is why I personally prefer biking. I'm about to bike to the climbing gym. The one I like to go to is a 15 min bike ride away, so I'm already warmed up by the time I get to the gym. Likewise I can go whenever I want to avoid crowds.
I own a car in London and there are many cases in which it's objectively superior for me to use it purely based on time savings. Generally any journey that's more than about 3-4 miles from the absolute centre of town.
It's also more comfortable, private, has AC, I don't need to wear headphones to listen to music, can carry more, etc.
It's just fundamentally better. If the UK had an equivalent of LA I'd move there in a heartbeat.
The only people I hear who are rabidly anti-car are those who ideologically prefer not to use one. They're generally not people who tried it and found it lacking.
Almost certainly autocorrect. Bilingual devices sometimes forget (or mistake) the language you’re typing in. I’m typing this on a Spanish keyboard, for example.
Reminds me of the runin I had with someone from San Rafael north of SF. They corrected me when I pronounced it as the spanish name it is. Apparently it's officially pronounced ra-fell, and they're adamant about it.
Our town is Buena Vista, the first word is pronounced "Bew-nuh" -- and it's not strictly local, horse saddles were produced here in the early 1900s until I guess sometime before WW2, and old-timers who worked horses in the surrounding states know the local pronunciation!
The conflict aversion way to pronounce it is "BV" :P
Tinted windows are such a pet peeve of mine. I get it in the tropics but in most of America the individual benefits of dark tint seem like they’d be outweighed by the collective good of better visibility through cars, enabling eye contact with drivers, etc.
The SUV craze is really to blame - in general many US states don’t allow dark tint on traditional cars but do on SUVs. And since rear windows on vans and light trucks (aka SUVs) are exempted from window tint restrictions, pull up to a typical intersection in the US and look around and you can’t see worth a damn.
Somehow it’s ok for a Subaru Crosstrek to have dark tint but not an Impreza that is the same car but lower? There are even more weird situations like the Mercedes Benz GLA compact CUV which typically has tinted windows, but not the top-of-the-line AMG trim because that one has a lowered suspension, making it a “car” instead of a “light truck”.
I was surprised by SUVs being able to have more window tint, and I looked it up, and you’re right [1]. For windshield and drive side windows it’s the same as a sedan, but for rear windows it can be darker for passenger comfort.
Apparently in Alabama at least, the manufacturer determines the designation [2]. So you might be able to call Subaru about the Impreza and have them call it “an SUV” to get that sweet rear window tint.
In most states (all?) it's illegal to have a tinted front window, yet people still have them, because it's not enforced. IMO cops should be citing people left and right for tinted windows and tinted license plate covers. You'd think they'd already be taking advantage of such an easy revenue source.
They do though. It's one of those things you'll get cited for if you're already being cited for something else, or they need a reason to pull you over to begin with (seatbelt law). See how many people complain about this on tuner forums, especially in hot/sunny places like Arizona and California.
Sometimes they'll let you tear off the tint and avoid the citation.
Technically they should be ticketing everyone that doesn't use turn signals either but there are only so many cops, so many hours in the day, and more-pressing issues to deal with (accident reports, domestic disputes, etc.).
Cops are understaffed and overworked in any major city. They have bigger fish to fry than worrying about stuff like window tint or really most traffic infractions that aren't just totally reckless driving.
Basically, if it's something that would just be a ticket and a fine, and not an arrestable offense, chances are good they have something more urgent to deal with. Even if it's something they could make an arrest for, if the prosecutor is just going to dismiss the case, why bother?
Chickens are coming home to roost after the last few years.
Perhaps, then, those officers could get safer jobs doing something else, if they are unable to perform their duties. Or perhaps it could be harder to drive around freely with and conceal a deadly weapon. We have a lot of options other than "just let people break the law, I guess".
> Nope. “Let people break the law” is the new standard.
First of all cops in America don't have to do nothing. Being robbed or murdered? Nah, let's look other way. Mass shooter on the prowl? But he can shoot at me better hide. White person in expensive car, nothing happened, nothing to see. But as soon there is money to be made through civil forfeiture, every cop is all of sudden a brave law defender. There is no money in law enforcement, but a lot in legalised theft.
> Perhaps, then, those officers could get safer jobs doing something else, if they are unable to perform their duties.
Do you have this same energy for every hazardous occupation? Like when workers protest dangerous working conditions? Do you also advocate they "could get safer jobs?"
There are many issues facing the US, but consistently unsafe working conditions doesn't seem to me to be one of them. Can you explain why you think there's widespread opposition to workplace safety in the US?
SUVs having different rules is bizarre, but I'm confused as to how this impairs your ability to make eye contact with drivers since it doesn't apply to the front windows.
So now individuals get dark tint on windshields and front side windows, which would have really stood out 40 years ago but now is just another dark window in a sea of dark automotive glass. That’s my theory anyhow.
People in this thread are really talking past each other. I've been to the nice Asian mega cities with great and clean subways and buses. And I've lived in the American suburbs. You can't make the American suburbs like the mega cities by just making them walkable.
Everything in a mega city works together to make transit work. Those tall buildings? They provide great shade no matter how sunny it is which is critical for walking to bus stops and subway stations. Also, the walk itself is so much more interesting, random stores to stop at and places to eat and go to. Density makes transit work.
You can't just put random stores in a suburb and make it "walkable" and expect the same thing. Just as everything in a mega city works together to make transit work, everything in a suburb works together to make cars work.
We need to give up on the mass transit solutions that work for dense cities (subways and buses) for suburbs. It's a waste of money and completely the wrong solution. It hasn't worked for decades and never will.
Shut down bus systems for suburbs and use the government funds to give out ride sharing (either Uber or government run) credits for everyone to use (low income can get more credits). That's what a suburb is designed for, point-to-point travel such as cars. And invest massively in real protected, useful bike lanes and stop trying to kill e-bikes with regulations (which a lot of cities are trying to do). e-bikes are finally a real alternative to cars in suburbs, it has just the right amount of travel speed and ease to challenge the car, but it's already under attack. Ride sharing credits and e-bikes, these are the solutions for suburbs. Stop trying to fit a square peg (buses and subways) into a round hole.
> The whole experience of being a lone vulnerable pedestrian among a sea of cars is made even worse when you can't see the people in the cars (but you know they can see you).
It's even worse than that. You don't know they can see you, you know they could see you but you cannot know if they do see you. That's terrible for pedestrian safety.
Adding even MORE to the insult is this part from the article: "many agencies will simply remove pedestrian facilities to reduce the cost of compliance". I see that so often: having to cross the damn intersection three times just to continue across, and all the light timings favor cars. It's a big middle finger.
I see this all the time. It makes me SO angry. They do the same thing for construction. "Oh, sorry, the bike lane is closed for the next 2 years. Sorry, sidewalk closed. Walk 10 more minutes for the next 2 years."
I live in the US in a "platinum rated" bike city (so there are a relatively high amount of bike commuters) and have gone through drive throughs on my bike a handful of times. Every time I have been served but told not to do it again.
Pedestrians are not served at drive-through windows at least in part because they are more dangerous to the workers. A driver at a drive-through window can't open their door, the window is very close to the drive-through kiosk but the kiosk is usually much higher (in a sedan) making it hard to climb out through the car window...they've also got a license plate.
During the pandemic most fast food places locked their lobbies and only did drive-through, which meant truckers couldn't get food because workers wouldn't serve them due to policies the companies refused to adjust.
I remember some police departments were volunteering to go through the drive-throughs for truckers.
The nightmare is being shot through a drive-through window and not even being able get a license plate. I've never had a car driver's license (only motorcycle) and I completely get it.
They're not staffed the same way at night as they are during the day.
As much as the political salesmen love to emphasize the differences, Soviet style bona fide government central planning and American style corporate central planning have many commonalities.
I've had some luck asking a stranger in a car to trip the sensor and then back up so I can order and walk though. Once your order is in its more work to say "no" than it is to say "yes but don't do it again"
Some cities like Portland, Oregon have made it a violation of city code to refuse to serve pedestrians and bicyclists through the Drive Through window if the lobby is closed.
There are still some businesses that violate this, but at least you can report it and they will be fined, and threatened with revocation of their business license.
Good. Let's make this federal law. These restrictions are ridiculous and we stand no chance of eliminating car culture without eliminating them. I wish I was kidding, and I wish it were just a trollish joke to say "you should be able to bike through Taco Bell at 2am", but if we're gonna eliminate car culture in the US, we can't just do it in the downtown cores of Chicago, NYC, Seattle, SF, etc. We gotta do it everywhere, and a lot of "everywhere" in the US is drive-thru this and drive-thru that, especially once you get out into the boonies (which of course need more infrastructure work to become bike friendly in their current states, but also, rural bike trails can and should exist, but there'll be little reason to use them if you can't stop anywhere along the way to take a break - and the rabbit hole continues from here)
After 9 or 10 PM that's exactly how it is here in TN, USA. Dine in is closed and the drive through won't take you on foot or on a bike. I think most franchises have a blanket policy against serving people without a car to intentionally exclude... Certain People.
But why? They would have to allow these same “Certain People” in their lobby from 7am until 9pm when their most affluent patrons are probably coming in for lunch, after soccer practice, etc. At the drive through there is barely any interaction between staff and customer much less between customers.
I would assume the homeless, certain income ranges, etc. That's the real reason to close the lobby but keep the drive through right, so people aren't hanging around in it and resting at night?
just how miserable and even humiliating the pedestrian experience is here
I ended up talking to some woman yesterday who mentioned she loved to come back to Oakland because of how walkable it is compared where she is now in the central valley. I was amused at the whole exchange because while Oakland and San Francisco do a decent job, they're by no means great.
Cars parked in short driveways often extend all the way across the sidewalk.
Even if you can easily step off onto the road to walk around them (not all
pedestrians can), it just feels like a slap in the face to have to do that.
One of the big things I noticed when comparing the pedestrian experience in Manhattan (and to a lesser extent the outer boroughs) to San Francisco is that New York lacks the curb cuts that encourage this kind of behavior. You spend a lot less time walking around parked cars or having to keep an eye out for someone who's in a hurry to exit "their" driveway.
In San Francisco, at least, there's a big tug of war about where your driveway ends and the curb begins. Suffice to say blocking the curb is one of those things that's almost never enforced.
Tokyo is very oriented towards pedestrian traffic, considering shinkansen and most rail service - yet satellite suburban sites, like Saitama, etc have tiny residential rows that literally don't fit both a car and a pedestrian. And that's where most people live. Yet Japan is highly pedestrian.
Now, South America. Most if not all urban centers of 1M are extremely well covered by bus networks. And they have to, since most of the population cannot afford a car. However, the moment you step off the old city centers, you are literally walking on the main road, sharing space with speeding cards and buses driving like maniacs. You will often find a major road has literally no sidewalk, only dirt, weeds and sewage.
Compared to those situations, the US is a walking paradise.
The problem of distance is very different from the problem of safety and confort in the US
You can find a ton of much worse examples than the US, but the US is just vastly far behind Europe (i.e. Spain, to which OP was comparing the US to).
Plus, it's worth mentioning that while Tokyo has a lot of mixed-traffic streets, the streets are small, have very low speed limits, and have strong restrictions on the size and type of car that can actually be within the city. It's less like you're walking in traffic and more like the car is intruding on a pedestrian space.
> It's less like you're walking in traffic and more like the car is intruding on a pedestrian space.
As far as I can see, this is essential to ant attempt a truly "walkable" city (assuming that is your goal). City streets designed & optimized around car usage are basically inconsistent with pedestrian spaces that really work well.
> Unpopular opinion: We (US) should stop subsidizing Europe's security
It's cheaper to subsidize European defense than to let them arm up and start fighting again. The lack of large militaries in the second half of the 20th century has lead to the longest period of peace in Europe in about 1500 years.
What would be smart, as has been shown by the invasion of Ukraine, would be to integrate the NATO supply chains more deeply (for the same reason we do multipath and redundant routing). This wouldn't threaten US jobs or safety, but instead make the whole system more resilient.
(Honestly I don't know why supply chain people don't talk to networking people and consider multipath, bufferbloat, and the like. The finance people wicked down those supply chains and have resulted in too many single points of failure.)
US is defending its interests in Europe, not Europe itself. This benefits GoldmanSacks, rather than it is for the benefit of Nathan the Romanian plumber.
Europe is the largest affluent market outside US. They’ve considered purchasing tech from China, they’considered taxing internet tech companies based on revenue instead of profit, and each time US convinced them not to.
Without really reading the article, I think maybe the parent's point is that the US basically pays for large portions of defense and security of Europe, especially when it comes to the need for blue water navies to protect trade. That frees up a lot of time, money, and manpower for them to spend on not defense, and spend instead on infrastructure and nice things. It's also nice that another effect Pax Americana has contributed to is that the majority of Europe has stopped starting progress-destroying wars with each other every two decades.
The US doesn't get that benefit as the self-employed enforcer, and I'm sure we're all aware of how insanely massive the defense budget is.
So the argument is actually that the US can't have livable cities because they spend all that money defending Europe? Because of the implicit assumption that European-style cities are more expensive in upkeep than current US cities?
I think the assumption is more that us Europeans can afford such decadent, livable cities because we don’t need to spend as much money on defense (?!) So car-oriented hellscapes are somehow the default, "normal" situation, because of course what you have accustomed to feels subjectively normal to you! Then Europe is some sort of a fairy-tale Disneyland that doesn’t need to face the Realities thanks to the US. Anyway, a nice claim but building and maintaining all that sprawling infrastructure is actually vastly more expensive than a denser, more sustainable urban fabric…
It can be both that in America we value sprawl and car-centered culture at great cost to ourselves, and that maybe it'd be nice if we pulled back on being world police a bit and invested more financially back at home. Maybe we could use all that money being spent on destroyers and forward bases to tear down all the stroads in the country and replace them with walkable mixed-use developments connected by rail.
In real life though, it's never that simple. Those destroyers and bases are being used for something even if it's stupid, and if they are no longer there, then things may change in unexpected ways.
Correct. People in these EU countries never understand how large the US is. it has the 3rd highest population but is almost 10 times less dense than Japan, 9 times less dense than the UK. There's so much dang land here. And until modern industrialism so much of it sucks to build a proper community around. mountainous, extreme weather, disaster prone, simply infertile. Much of western US doesn't have hundreds of miles of view into the horizon; you're going to get cut off maybe 5, 10 miles off by some mountain (or you live in a valley). It's very hard to "just build denser cities" in the same way the EU could.
That's what makes China really impressive (losgistically speaking). it's really large AND very dense population wise (I don't know about the land quality).
I just spent the last 2 months i Europe and on many side streets there is no place to safely stop a car which means pulling into the sidewalk is the only option. So I frequently had to step into the street to walk around a stopped delivery van or similar.
You're probably not supposed to stop a car in those places, and when you do, you're supposed to stop on the road, never on the sidewalk. Steep fines for that in Belgium at least, though the odds of getting caught are slim.
It's illegal in the US to block the sidewalk with a car and it's one of the few things cities will actually enforce aggressively -- if they don't, they can be sued for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
At least in San Francsico this is very rarely enforced. What I've seen professionally and personally is that cities will ticket the easy stuff. Street cleaning is at the top of that list followed by time-based red zones.
I’ve never heard the experience described as “humiliating,” which is incredibly surprising because just seeing that written out (and your thoughtful elaboration) made a lot of things click into place for me.
Actually, the tinted windows worry me because I don't know whether the drivers do see me. Vanishingly few drivers would deliberately run over a pedestrian, but plenty are distracted or otherwise inattentive.
It is illegal in most places to park a car on the sidewalk.
I don't know of anyone, at least the big chains, that will serve a pedestrian in a drive thru. If you live in a more walkable part of town there is usually an all night diner.
>If you live in a more walkable part of town there is usually an all night diner.
Oh I wish. On the contrary, it feels most everything closes around 9pm here and it hurts as a night owl. Heck, so many cafes seem to close around 6-7pm.
