> Yep, the entire concept of jaywalking was invented for the convenience of car owners and the car industry, and pedestrians were alienated from the street surface.
In a venn diagram "pedestrians" and "car owners" would be nearly a perfect circle. Singling them out as opposing groups with conflicting interests isn't helpful.
America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests, it got to be car-centric because cars work very well for our use case. Consumers and voters (another near perfect Venn circle) have expressed their preference continuously for nearly a century.
> In a venn diagram "pedestrians" and "car owners" would be nearly a perfect circle.
Nonsense. The ability to walk doesn't a pedestrian make" in the context of the discussion, and having to walk from the parking lot to the store and back isn't a pedestrian activity.
> Singling them out as opposing groups with conflicting interests isn't helpful.
I didn't decide of the historical events of a hundred years ago mate.
> America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests, it got to be car-centric because cars work very well for our use case. Consumers and voters (another near perfect Venn circle) have expressed their preference continuously for nearly a century.
Even worse, completely ahistorical, nonsense. Long-term infrastructural decisions are rarely decided directly by voters (as Robert Moses knew and leveraged), and furthermore can often be swayed by short terms concerns.
> In a venn diagram "pedestrians" and "car owners" would be nearly a perfect circle. Singling them out as opposing groups with conflicting interests isn't helpful.
I live in a city where almost 40% of households do not own cars but our public space has been massively reconfigured to prioritize car owners, not just with traffic lanes and signal priority but also huge subsidies for car storage at the expense of other potential use of public space.
Despite this, any time someone tries to make something better the public planning process will inevitably have car owners loudly complaining about being discriminated against if something will remove even a single parking space or suggest that they pay market rates.
> In a venn diagram "pedestrians" and "car owners" would be nearly a perfect circle. Singling them out as opposing groups with conflicting interests isn't helpful.
Only in an environment where public infrastructure is designed to require a car for social participation. The venn-diagram is substantially less circular when public infrastructure accommodates and encourages other modes of transport, like walking and metros.
> America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests, it got to be car-centric because cars work very well for our use case. Consumers and voters (another near perfect Venn circle) have expressed their preference continuously for nearly a century.
Again, only true if you ignore the wider context. US infrastructure policy for the past 50 years has basically made car ownership an absolute necessity. It doesn’t matter what one’s personal preference is, if you wish to participate in US society, you must own a car.
For concrete examples of these policies, look at US zoning policy. It basically requires that only single family homes are built, and makes it almost impossible to build new dense housing. Despite the fact that historical sense housing in walkable areas is currently some of the most expensive real estate in the US, showing clear and strong demand for such housing.
Further US road policy prioritises automotive speed above all other factors. Pedestrian accessibility, or accessibility in general, pedestrian safety, is given little to no thought at all. An approach that is now rearing its ugly head in the US pedestrian fatality rate, which is far high than almost any other developed nation.
It's crazy how all the zoning policies were hand crafted by the General Motors board of directors. Oh wait, they weren't, they were decided by the municipalities.
US zoning policies are the way they are because that's the way the people in those cities wanted to live. Have you been to a city council meeting in a US city where they've discussed zoning changes? Tons of local people will come out against denser housing and against public transit and against protected bike lanes, and then there's usually only the builder from out of town or the transit authority arguing for it. Single family housing in far flung suburbs is built out so much because that's what a lot of voters want.
> Tons of local people will come out against denser housing and against public transit and against protected bike lanes,
This is true in almost every city in the world. But not because that “what the people want”, but rather only those who hold very strong opinions ever bother to turn up to planning meetings. Most people only have strong negative opinions about public infrastructure, especially public infrastructure that’s seen “take something from them”. Public infrastructure that works well is mostly ignored, with the vast majority of people being entirely indifferent to changes to the infrastructure. Unfortunately it means that making any attempt to improve infrastructure, where that improvement isn’t “more of the same please”, is difficult because the only people who hold strong opinions are experts who have studied the problem, and people that hate change. Which, as it happens, is exactly the mix of people you say are in these meetings.
If you want to get a real understanding of peoples views on walkable areas, bike lanes etc. you need to build it, then survey the locals a year or so after the work has completed. Only then can you remove the selection bias seen in city meetings, and also remove peoples initial dislike for change, before they’ve had any opportunity to realise the positives brought by that change.
It turns out, that if you actually do all that leg work, most people like being able to venture outside and do things, without getting in a car and driving first.
So you're arguing the government should act against the wishes of the people being governed and ignore the desires of the people who care enough to actually vote?
I'd argue we need more people showing up to these kinds of public planning meetings who do want these things which are supposedly incredibly popular online and actually vote for candidates who say they'll do these things.
> America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests
Why make up a history when there's a real one? There were real people that did real things to push a reluctant culture in a particular way. I think you're using Panglossian reasoning here.
> America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests, it got to be car-centric because cars work very well for our use case
Orr it could actually be that they paid for advertisements and politicians just to do that. If you don't want to read about it, here's a video that explains it:
In a venn diagram "pedestrians" and "car owners" would be nearly a perfect circle. Singling them out as opposing groups with conflicting interests isn't helpful.
America got to be car-centric not because of nefarious car companies or other special interests, it got to be car-centric because cars work very well for our use case. Consumers and voters (another near perfect Venn circle) have expressed their preference continuously for nearly a century.