Loved this article, I would say as someone who does own a house in the suburbs something I do enjoy is seeing is that there are some people who do walk through the neighborhood. I especially like seeing the local kids ride their bikes around. Close proximity to a public park (walkable by sidewalks even!) seems to help this occur more often although I'd feel better if my subdivision paid to have speed bumps put down.
Yes. I detect this odd attitude among some older folks where seeing people out doing things feels suspicious. Almost as if crime and amenities are the same thing. I think the best gloss you can put on it was they have a memory of the crime wave era, and that memory, and the narrative around it of escaping to the suburbs, is really burned into their minds. There are less charitable possibilities as well.
I too love to see people out walking, biking, kibbitzing, even having a cocktail while being outside in my neighborhood of West Annapolis. Far from being suspicious it's basically another version of Jane Jocobs' "eyes on the street".
Loved this piece, and it immediately brings to mind LM Sacasas' work on asking deep questions about technology (and accepting that the answers are often uncomfortable, and we should probably take notes of that):
"I do not hate the car. I do not want to “ban cars.” What I would like to see—if it is possible, and I hope it is—is the decoupling of the car from violence and death."
I keep saying that pretty much the most possibly pro-car position is trying to find a way to break this connection, even if it ends up being (very slightly) "anti" car-maximalist...
There are two sayings in the cycling community: 1. There are two kinds of bike riders, those who have been hit by cars and those who will be hit by cars; and 2. If you want to commit the perfect murder, run someone over with a car and drag a bike under them.
While there are some instances of malicious behavior of drivers against people on bikes, I think largely it is not intentional. At best, it is people making bad choices (passing on a blind hill or curve) or trying to squeeze through where they can't really fit and it puts them in a situation where there is no good outcome (the bike rider usually loses). At worst, it's someone who is being aggressive and intimidating without any intention of hurting someone. However, in both situations people just don't think about the consequences of those actions and to a large extent I believe it is because they have never ridden a bike in any similar situation. Most reasonable people would understand how to treat people on bike respectfully, if they had walked (ridden?) a mile in the other shoes. I think a lot of it has to do with the pathological need of drivers to always pass a bike rider. Not sure why this is, impatience or the impending feeling of being held up. Unfortunately, that feeling is outsized far beyond the actual effect, for example being delayed 30 seconds to wait for a place to pass or change lanes etc.
Yes. That impatience is a learned habit, I think. One of the things about being an urbanist is that I realize it's okay to sit in traffic for a bit, or go a little under the speed limit. I was able to teach myself that these are not unbearable injustices.
My sister was almost killed by a woman that turned into the bike lane, hit her, drove off and 14 minutes later, called her insurance company to say she thought she hit a deer. She lied to the police multiple times, tried to repair the damage, lied to the insurance company and she walked free. Oh, she had to tell the county if she left the state. My sister was life flighted to the hospital, had over 300 stitches, a brain bleed, multiple broken bones that cause her pain every day years later. Since the judge stated it was an "accident" and she "would probably be very careful in the future', four felonies disappeared. Now, the insurance company wants my sister to pay back the $100K they paid for her treatment as they cannot go after the woman's insurance.
Car drivers need to be more responsible, responsive, and realize that it is a human being on that bike.
I'm reading this and thinking that it'd be great if you would read Chuck Mahron's book on traffic, and then you caught that interception and ran it into the end zone. Glad you went there! I heartily agree that his take on our car violence is best explained by road design. Our "stroads" are not designed first and foremost for human safety but for speed, efficiency, and costs (!). It's truly disheartening to me that so many of us will sit at red lights for hours (complaining), but we'd balk at the notion of replacing red lights with stop signs despite how it's proven that they create much less irritation, deaths, and inefficiencies. Slower is safer. But then I rattle my head and remind myself that there are also some heartening changes being made even in my city of Lancaster, PA. Thanks, Addison!
This was a really great read! You touch on the dangers of driving, but there are so many other negatives as well: pollution, cost, effect on the built environment, etc. While I doubt we'll ever fully give up cars, reading this makes me wonder if we should be considering it.
It's hard to imagine that world, but I recently wrote about how we never thought smoking rates would decline until a combination of regulation, education, and changing public perception suddenly made smoking rates plummet: https://heathracela.substack.com/p/can-we-solve-this
Could the same happen with cars in a few generations? Reading this makes me think it must.
Loved this article, I would say as someone who does own a house in the suburbs something I do enjoy is seeing is that there are some people who do walk through the neighborhood. I especially like seeing the local kids ride their bikes around. Close proximity to a public park (walkable by sidewalks even!) seems to help this occur more often although I'd feel better if my subdivision paid to have speed bumps put down.
Yes. I detect this odd attitude among some older folks where seeing people out doing things feels suspicious. Almost as if crime and amenities are the same thing. I think the best gloss you can put on it was they have a memory of the crime wave era, and that memory, and the narrative around it of escaping to the suburbs, is really burned into their minds. There are less charitable possibilities as well.
I too love to see people out walking, biking, kibbitzing, even having a cocktail while being outside in my neighborhood of West Annapolis. Far from being suspicious it's basically another version of Jane Jocobs' "eyes on the street".
Loved this piece, and it immediately brings to mind LM Sacasas' work on asking deep questions about technology (and accepting that the answers are often uncomfortable, and we should probably take notes of that):
https://theconvivialsociety.substack.com/p/the-questions-concerning-technology
In particular, ones I find often not sufficiently considered in our American context, at least:
* What are the potential harms to myself, others, or the world that might result from my use of this technology?
* Upon what systems, technical or human, does my use of this technology depend? Are these systems just?
* What would the world be like if everyone used this technology exactly as I use it?
* What risks will my use of this technology entail for others? Have they consented?
* Can the consequences of my use of this technology be undone? Can I live with those consequences?
* Does my use of this technology make it easier to live as if I had no responsibilities toward my neighbor?
* Can I be held responsible for the actions which this technology empowers? Would I feel better if I couldn’t?
Good stuff
"I do not hate the car. I do not want to “ban cars.” What I would like to see—if it is possible, and I hope it is—is the decoupling of the car from violence and death."
I keep saying that pretty much the most possibly pro-car position is trying to find a way to break this connection, even if it ends up being (very slightly) "anti" car-maximalist...
There are two sayings in the cycling community: 1. There are two kinds of bike riders, those who have been hit by cars and those who will be hit by cars; and 2. If you want to commit the perfect murder, run someone over with a car and drag a bike under them.
While there are some instances of malicious behavior of drivers against people on bikes, I think largely it is not intentional. At best, it is people making bad choices (passing on a blind hill or curve) or trying to squeeze through where they can't really fit and it puts them in a situation where there is no good outcome (the bike rider usually loses). At worst, it's someone who is being aggressive and intimidating without any intention of hurting someone. However, in both situations people just don't think about the consequences of those actions and to a large extent I believe it is because they have never ridden a bike in any similar situation. Most reasonable people would understand how to treat people on bike respectfully, if they had walked (ridden?) a mile in the other shoes. I think a lot of it has to do with the pathological need of drivers to always pass a bike rider. Not sure why this is, impatience or the impending feeling of being held up. Unfortunately, that feeling is outsized far beyond the actual effect, for example being delayed 30 seconds to wait for a place to pass or change lanes etc.
Yes. That impatience is a learned habit, I think. One of the things about being an urbanist is that I realize it's okay to sit in traffic for a bit, or go a little under the speed limit. I was able to teach myself that these are not unbearable injustices.
My sister was almost killed by a woman that turned into the bike lane, hit her, drove off and 14 minutes later, called her insurance company to say she thought she hit a deer. She lied to the police multiple times, tried to repair the damage, lied to the insurance company and she walked free. Oh, she had to tell the county if she left the state. My sister was life flighted to the hospital, had over 300 stitches, a brain bleed, multiple broken bones that cause her pain every day years later. Since the judge stated it was an "accident" and she "would probably be very careful in the future', four felonies disappeared. Now, the insurance company wants my sister to pay back the $100K they paid for her treatment as they cannot go after the woman's insurance.
Car drivers need to be more responsible, responsive, and realize that it is a human being on that bike.
I'm reading this and thinking that it'd be great if you would read Chuck Mahron's book on traffic, and then you caught that interception and ran it into the end zone. Glad you went there! I heartily agree that his take on our car violence is best explained by road design. Our "stroads" are not designed first and foremost for human safety but for speed, efficiency, and costs (!). It's truly disheartening to me that so many of us will sit at red lights for hours (complaining), but we'd balk at the notion of replacing red lights with stop signs despite how it's proven that they create much less irritation, deaths, and inefficiencies. Slower is safer. But then I rattle my head and remind myself that there are also some heartening changes being made even in my city of Lancaster, PA. Thanks, Addison!
This was a really great read! You touch on the dangers of driving, but there are so many other negatives as well: pollution, cost, effect on the built environment, etc. While I doubt we'll ever fully give up cars, reading this makes me wonder if we should be considering it.
It's hard to imagine that world, but I recently wrote about how we never thought smoking rates would decline until a combination of regulation, education, and changing public perception suddenly made smoking rates plummet: https://heathracela.substack.com/p/can-we-solve-this
Could the same happen with cars in a few generations? Reading this makes me think it must.