Languish.org

This is why Americans are so fat

https://aeon.co/essays/step-by-step-americans-are-sacrificing-the-right-to-walk

QuoteThe end of walking

In Orwellian fashion, Americans have been stripped of the right to walk, challenging their humanity, freedom and health

by Antonia Malchik

In 2011, Raquel Nelson was convicted of vehicular homicide following the death of her four-year-old son. Nelson, it's crucial to note, was not driving. She didn't even own a car. She and her three children were crossing a busy four-lane road from a bus stop to their apartment building in suburban Atlanta, Georgia. She'd stopped on the median halfway across when her son let go of her hand and stepped into the second half of the road. Nelson tried to catch him but wasn't fast enough; she and her two-year-old daughter were also injured.

The driver admitted to having alcohol and painkillers in his system (and to being legally blind in one eye) and pleaded guilty to the charge of hit-and-run. He served six months in prison. For the crime of walking three tired, hungry children home in the most efficient way possible, Nelson faced more jail time than the man who had killed her son.

I am writing from a position of privilege. Not white or middle-class privilege – although I am both of those things and those facts play a role in my privilege – but rather, the privilege Americans don't realise they've lost in a nearly Orwellian fashion: I can open the door of my home, take my kids by their hands, and meet almost any need by lifting my feet and moving forward. Food, schools, social centres, books, playgrounds, even doctors and dentists and ice cream – nearly everything our family uses daily is within about a mile's walk of home and well-served by wide, uncrowded sidewalks.

This is the kind of privilege that Raquel Nelson, and millions like her, might never experience. I've walked her steps, dealing with cranky children after a long day, worn out, longing for sleep, weighed down with groceries, and then suddenly reaching out with a pounding heart as my littlest one ran into a busy street. Reading her story, I find the inhumanity of Nelson's situation staggering. There's the injustice of her conviction, but beyond that is this: she was walking. There is nothing more human, more natural, more fundamental to our freedom, than transporting ourselves by foot. Nothing more purely instinctive than a child answering the desire of feet, legs, spine, and head, to dart forward in the direction his brain urges him to go.

Human beings evolved to move at a pace of three miles an hour, breathing easily, hands free, seeking food and shade. We tread without thinking, toes pushing off from the soil, cheeks lifted to catch the air, dirt caking in our nostrils. Walking is the first legacy of our post-ape genes, the trait that makes us most human: H. sapiens came only after H. erectus. We walked, and began our intellectual toddle toward the Anthropocene.

Our most basic access to health comes from walking. Walking for just 30 minutes five days a week has been shown to have a significant impact on everything from obesity to depression and colon cancer. A normal day's errands would easily take more than 30 minutes on foot. When we get around by driving instead we're liable to become overweight, insular, edgy. In his book The Story of the Human Body, the evolutionary biologist Daniel E Lieberman dissects the widespread chronic health problems that he thinks are linked to sitting for long periods, including in cars: muscle atrophy, lower-back pain, cardiovascular disease, diabetes. 'We are inadequately adapted to being too physically idle, too well fed, too comfortable,' he says.

But exercise is perhaps the narrowest of considerations. Walking is a complex interconnection of cognitive processes and sensory inputs. The transfer of information from foot to brain, between the inner ear and visual reception, is mind-bogglingly difficult to calculate. Only the most recent neuroscience research is beginning to grasp the bidirectional link between cognitive and motor functions, and the role cardiovascular health plays in our mental wellbeing. Yet walking as a way of life is more out of reach than ever, especially for those in poorer neighbourhoods.

For decades, Americans have been losing their ability, even their right, to walk. There are places in the United States – New York City, for example – where people walk as a matter of habit and lifestyle, commuting in ways familiar to residents of London or Paris. But there are vast blankets and folds of the country where the ability to walk – to open a door and step outside and go somewhere or nowhere without getting behind the wheel of a car – is a struggle, a fight. A risk.

In 2013 more than 4,700 pedestrians were killed, and an estimated 66,000 injured, in what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calls 'traffic crashes'. That's a bite-sized phrase for what is, essentially, people in cars killing and injuring people on foot.

Kate Kraft, the National Coalition Director for America Walks, an advocacy organisation for walkability, says that, ever since towns began removing streetcars, we've undermined transit systems that would support the walker and planned instead for the car. Walking is an impediment to the car culture we revere, an experience we've intentionally designed out of our lives.

It's not just about laziness – in America, cars retain the mystique of freedom, independence, luxury. Think of episodes of the television show Mad Men set in a Cadillac dealership or the factory floors of Detroit, heart of America's motorised fantasies: like the 1960s advertising offices at the centre of the show itself, the automobile showrooms are saturated with the myths of what Americans imagine themselves to be. We are both the person behind the wheel, in complete control, and the open road itself: wealthy, independent, full of potential. Harried commuters stuck in traffic or having to stop for pedestrians have never been part of this image. From subsidised parking to the way transportation authorities plan roads, we encourage car travel and discourage moving on foot. More than discourage it, we criminalise it where deemed necessary.

When her son was killed, Raquel Nelson was jaywalking. 'Jaywalking', the legal definition of which varies slightly by state, is the term for crossing a road at any place without an intersection or designated crosswalk. When Nelson's conviction for vehicular manslaughter was overturned in 2013, the $200 fine for jaywalking stuck. In her shoes – considering the actual crosswalk was about a third of a mile down the street, her apartment building directly across from the bus stop, and her children tired and hungry – I would have done the same. In fact, when I'm with my children, jaywalking feels safer than dragging their wiggly selves down the kind of sidewalk that serves Nelson's neighbourhood, with its stingy concrete almost hugging the highway. And, considering the state of the driver who killed her son and the fact that he had two previous hit-and-run convictions, it is in any case questionable whether Nelson's children would have been safer on the crosswalk.

Jaywalking was once a semi-derogatory term referring to country bumpkins, or 'jays', who inefficiently meandered around American cities; by the 1920s, the term was being used to transfer blame for accidents from motorists to pedestrians. Making jaywalking illegal gave the supremacy of mobility to those sitting behind combustion engines. Once upon a time, the public roads belonged to everyone. But since the ingenious invention of jaywalking we've battered pedestrianism in one of those silent culture wars where the only losers are ourselves.

Walkers lost significant ground during the 'white flight' decades after the Second World War – when Americans with means, mostly white, abandoned the cities and cloistered themselves in suburbs that, over time, lost their neighbourhood amenities and their sidewalks, and then spread further into the countryside, wresting sterile square footage from farmlands and forests. Only New York City (as well as, some would claim, Boston) managed to save itself for pedestrians, assisted by an existing and expansive public transport system and the work of people like the 1960s activist and writer Jane Jacobs, who successfully argued that sidewalks, pedestrians, and public spaces were crucial to healthy, thriving cities.

In most other places, walking became both boring – there's little to look at in the suburbs, and scant shade – and difficult. Take the sad example of the trek to school. When I was in a Montana grade school in the early 1980s, I walked several blocks there and back, on my own, from my second day of kindergarten (my father walked with me the first day). In 1969, 48 per cent of children aged five to 14 walked or cycled to school. By 2009, the number had dropped to 13 per cent; even families still living within a mile of school began driving. The suburbs were too far for most cyclists, much less walkers, and over time the roads became more treacherous for people of all ages, children especially.

The arteries connecting far-flung housing developments to life's necessities are never sleepy country roads or tree-lined neighbourhood streets, but racing two- and four-lane motorways dangerous to drivers and lethal to walkers. Add an inflated sense of crime, and you get a mass exodus of generations hopping from their houses into comfortable, oversized cars, getting everywhere faster with breakfast on the go, and with little use for sidewalks.

We came to scorn walking, to fear it. Real Americans fold themselves into cars, where they feel safe and in control. For exercise, the better-off mimic walkers, bicyclists, hikers, and farmers on stationary machines in health clubs. They and the middle class drive to parks and wilderness preserves for the privilege of walking outside among trees and birds and clean air, and the poor are left with vast wastelands of road and concrete; the advice to 'walk three times a week for your health' easier given than followed when there's nowhere safe to place your foot.

Over the past 80 years, walking simply as a way to get somewhere, let alone for pleasure, has become such an alien concept to Americans that small movements towards making neighbourhoods and communities more walkable are met with fierce, indignant resistance. Much of this fight has to do with who pays for the sidewalks. Once an area has been designed without walkability in mind, it's extremely expensive to reverse the infrastructure. Municipalities and suburbs alike have to consider curbs, gutters, stormwater runoff, ongoing maintenance, and snow removal. I live in Montana, where snow cover from early November to late April is normal. While my town ploughs the roads, homeowners are legally obliged to keep sidewalks adjacent to their properties clear of snow with shovels or snowblowers. It's excellent exercise, but not necessarily fun, especially for the elderly or disabled. In heavy winters shovelling can feel fruitless, and it's not uncommon to see pedestrians giving up on icy sidewalks and shifting to the well-cleared roads.

The resistance to sidewalks, and to walking, often splits along generational lines. People who have come of age and grown old in a car-centric culture have trouble seeing why they should pay to enable walkers. One neighbourhood in suburban Chicago fought sidewalks so bitterly, with long-time residents speaking against sidewalk calls from younger families, that it ended up with a walkway stopping pointlessly halfway down a block. 'Cement companies ... are the only ones who truly benefit,' another long-time resident and opponent of proposed sidewalks on Long Island is quoted as saying in the Wall Street Journal. 'Nobody walks on King Road. Everybody drives.'

Anecdotally, one hears stories of communities where proposed infrastructure that promotes walking brings out grumbles that only the poor, the great unwashed, the criminal and the under-classes have any use for sidewalks and pedestrian-friendly roads.

But at a deeper level, Americans' attachment to private property and individual liberty – which are rife with a history of racial and class tensions – drives us to mistrust walking. 'It's that 'get off my lawn, get off my sidewalk' feeling,' says Kate Kraft. 'People get this fear that "undesirables" will be walking through their neighbourhoods.'

This kind of attitude seems uniquely American. When I lived in Vienna, where walking and public transport are more common than driving, I got used to transporting myself by train and foot, both around town and in the hiking trails of the Alps. In Russia, where I spent stretches of my teens and twenties, walking is a way of life, schoolchildren racing and dour old men trudging around cities and villages in biting sub-zero winters. When I moved back to the US, I never got reaccustomed to the lack of public transport and sidewalks, the assumption that destinations even half a mile away – a 10-minute walk – required a motor vehicle and a seat belt. The car, the distrust of walkers, they've become the hallmarks of an everybody-for-herself, bootstrap-pulling, falsely self-sufficient American culture. Freedom to drive when and how we please is as American as apple pie and a gun holster; freedom to walk is not.

In many parts of the US, pedestrianism is seen as a dubiously counter-culture activity. Gated communities are only the most recent incarnation of the narrow-eyed suspicion with which we view unleashed strangers venturing outside on foot, much less anywhere near our homes. A friend of mine told me recently that a few years ago, when she lived in Mississippi, she was stopped by police constantly simply because she preferred to walk to work. Twice they insisted on driving her home, 'so I could prove I wasn't homeless or a prostitute. Because who else would be out walking?' She finally got tired of the hassle and bought a used bike to commute.

Our world has changed drastically from the age of antiquity, or even Wordsworth and Thoreau, those acclaimed walker-thinkers, if we've reached the point where, in a supposedly post-feminist world, a woman breaking no law can be harassed by the police for the simple act of walking to work.

I'd theorise that America's distrust of the unprotected pedestrian – the No Trespassing signs, the gated communities, the suburban homes with no sidewalks – goes further back, tapping into instincts built long before suburbs and motorways, before human record. Our bipedal ancestors evolved in a paradigm of moving between shelter, which meant protection, to leaving it and searching for food at enormous physical risk. When a carnivore inevitably showed up they had no hard-sided Land Rover to retreat into. From evolution's perspective, danger came in tandem with walking, manifesting in later centuries as laws against loitering and assumptions that a woman walking alone must be a prostitute.

Walking opens us up to the menace of a world outside the built environments that we control. Driving, despite the high risk of crashes, injury, and death, masks itself as freedom: we're not watching our backs. And once we've become unaccustomed to the movement of the air, the rustle of the trees, the sight of other people, they can startle. People who move differently and think differently from us become, from the safety of our fortress-homes and echo-chamber media and car-conduits that feed it all, threats to our way of life. And so we design towns and suburbs, neighbourhoods and cities, unfriendly to the walker, to those who break out of the paradigms we've deemed safe. We do this willingly, even though the personal loss of walking ability is so terrifying that 'Will I ever walk again?' is a reliable trope of television's medical dramas.

Much of the world, thankfully, is unlike the US in this respect. But for how long? America has already exported nutrition-light junk food across the globe, along with its attendant obesity and diabetes epidemics. Why not our aversion to getting places on foot? Oligarchs and politicians in Russia started importing their own flavour of gated communities years ago, usually complete with a guardhouse and guns, and the country's middle class often aspires to the same. The Ramblers in Britain has faced resistance to its use of ancient footpaths and its advocacy for the 'right to roam' since the organisation's inception in 1935. As American approaches to economic policies and social programmes, as well as the craving for elbow-room and large, single-family homes, worm their way into the European psyche, how, too, will the urban and rural landscapes change to reflect Americans' hurried and sedentary lifestyles? What will we lose of ourselves in the process?

In January 2013 the journalist and National Geographic fellow Paul Salopek undertook a seven-year journey on foot, from Ethiopia's Great Rift Valley to Tierra del Fuego in Chile. Called Out of Eden Walk, his trek was structured to follow, literally, in the footsteps of Homo sapiens, those few thousand human beings who ventured out from Africa more than 100,000 years ago to spread their genetic material around the globe. His reasons for walking? To 'relearn the contours of our planet at the human pace of three miles an hour ... I hope to repair certain important connections burned through by artificial speed, by inattentiveness.'

Salopek started his journey because we are losing our ability and our right to walk, but I fear he started it too late. Those of us who walk are finding the paths slipping out from under our feet. What will we become without the means to walk, the desire, the space, the capability? Are we headed, as Daniel E Lieberman asks, 'to a future like the one described in the movie WALL-E in which we balloon into a race of fat, chronically ill weaklings who are dependent on medications, machines, and big corporations to survive?' If so, it will be a future we created willingly, with our complaints that walking is too much work, too boring, too weird. The other day I saw a pickup truck with a bumper sticker proclaiming, 'My other car is a couch!!!' a prospect so exciting it warranted three exclamation marks.

Walkability has attracted more positive attention over the past few years, partly because of tragedies like Raquel Nelson's, but thanks more to the clout of younger, well-off white citizens. These younger generations prefer walking or biking to car ownership, making 'walk scores' valuable commodities for real estate. A slow trickle of walkability initiatives is digging grooves in America's car culture, starting in the cities. In 2014 New York City launched Vision Zero, a programme started in Sweden, that aims to make the roads safer for all users, one of its principles being that human health and life take precedence over mobility. Seattle is experimenting with turning some neighbourhoods into Dutch-style woonerfs, street spaces that all users share equally. Even Los Angeles is trying to shuck its longstanding identity as an auto-dystopia through investment in public transport and public spaces.

And when America Walks announced the launch of its Walking College, which will train people in community-level walking advocacy, they received 80 applications for 20 spots, even though the fellows would have to pay for their training themselves. The irony of a Walking College is not lost on Kate Kraft. 'It's impressive, considering evolution,' she says of America Walks's work. 'Something so simple and so fundamental to being human requiring so much intentional energy.'

Will it be enough? I look at stories like Raquel Nelson's and think the future might look less like WALL-E – in which human beings are at least happy, well cared-for, and oblivious to their condition – and more like Margaret Atwood's Oryx & Crake, where those with means will live in enormous, deceptively serene compounds of cleanliness and innovation, and those without will be left in the decaying cities to get around however they can.

Until then, open your door; go for a walk. Feel the spring in your step, the buoyancy in your spine, the loose-limbed gait, as more than clichés. Take one last, lingering moment to appreciate this miraculous thing before we lose it forever.

In Hong Kong, we plan city development around the underground trains.  Large concrete and steel housing estates are built within walking distance of train stations, and connected with air-conditioned, elevated walkways.  The foundations of these estates contain malls that supply most common goods.  The people are transported by rail to offices that are similarly connected to other train stations.

So lots of people don't need to see surfaces, roads, or sidewalks in their daily lives. 

Quote from: Monoriu on December 10, 2015, 08:00:21 PM
In Hong Kong, we plan city development around the underground trains.  Large concrete and steel housing estates are built within walking distance of train stations, and connected with air-conditioned, elevated walkways.  The foundations of these estates contain malls that supply most common goods.  The people are transported by rail to offices that are similarly connected to other train stations.

So lots of people don't need to see surfaces, roads, or sidewalks in their daily lives.

The organising principle being what, an ant colony?

This article had the makings of a decent point but went off the rails when it started talking about the grave injustice of jaywalking laws.

Quote from: mongers on December 10, 2015, 08:19:04 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 10, 2015, 08:00:21 PM
In Hong Kong, we plan city development around the underground trains.  Large concrete and steel housing estates are built within walking distance of train stations, and connected with air-conditioned, elevated walkways.  The foundations of these estates contain malls that supply most common goods.  The people are transported by rail to offices that are similarly connected to other train stations.

So lots of people don't need to see surfaces, roads, or sidewalks in their daily lives.

The organising principle being what, an ant colony?

To save space, and to separate pedestrian traffic from car traffic, thereby reducing congestion and accidents. 

When I was in school, they used to teach people how to be good pedestrians. Safety and etiquette.

Boil it down and what that woman in the article did was stupid and dangerous. Yeah, it sucked that the crosswalk was .3 miles away, but avoiding erratic actions around drivers operating vehicles is simple common sense.

Car focused city/country design is one of the gravest mistakes of the post war world.

Lame. It isn't like America is Britain where you can't officially walk unless you are in a zebra crossing. What kind of nonsense thought up pedestrians not having the right of way?

You lumpen proletariat can walk. I'll run you over.


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_mpBGa4P5jUo%2FTOk7PtsI3hI%2FAAAAAAAAF6U%2FWh80jWiYCCs%2Fs1600%2Fdeathrace2000f.png&hash=725020b3b4ed86f23f7f5a3b0eaf78101d7d5f6c)

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 10, 2015, 09:18:40 PM
You lumpen proletariat can walk. I'll run you over.


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_mpBGa4P5jUo%2FTOk7PtsI3hI%2FAAAAAAAAF6U%2FWh80jWiYCCs%2Fs1600%2Fdeathrace2000f.png&hash=725020b3b4ed86f23f7f5a3b0eaf78101d7d5f6c)

Can you just run over the bicyclists? Who even likes them?

I wish to subscribe to Garbon's newsletter.

Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2015, 09:21:07 PM
Can you just run over the bicyclists? Who even likes them?

A chick's ass, in bicycle pants, on a bike seat, is heaven on earth.

Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2015, 09:15:48 PM
Lame. It isn't like America is Britain where you can't officially walk unless you are in a zebra crossing. What kind of nonsense thought up pedestrians not having the right of way?

:blink:

Pedestrians here do have the unlicenced right of way to use roads unlike vehicles.
You don't have to use zebra crossings, but are advised to by the highway code, the large majority of its rules relating to walkers are aren't legally binding, only a few are, like not walking on motorways which is covered by specific legislations.

Quote from: mongers on December 10, 2015, 09:23:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2015, 09:15:48 PM
Lame. It isn't like America is Britain where you can't officially walk unless you are in a zebra crossing. What kind of nonsense thought up pedestrians not having the right of way?

:blink:

Pedestrians here do have the unlicenced right of way to use roads unlike vehicles.
You don't have to use zebra crossings, but are advised to by the highway code, the large majority of its rules relating to walkers are aren't legally binding, only a few are, like not walking on motorways which is covered by specific legislations.

Pfft. If a pedestrian in London tries to assert a right of way, outside of a zebra crossing, he gets a torrent of abuse which he will answer more than in kind.

In civilized countries, like say the USA, cars better slow the fuck down when they see a pedestrian crossing. Even in a metropolis like NYC.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 10, 2015, 09:22:38 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2015, 09:21:07 PM
Can you just run over the bicyclists? Who even likes them?

A chick's ass, in bicycle pants, on a bike seat, is heaven on earth.

I like men's asses in tight pants. Doesn't mean I like bicycles on the road. They generally follow no rules of the road and for pedestrians are dangerous as they appear suddenly and quietly...while for cars suck as they appear suddenly and quietly.

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 10, 2015, 09:22:31 PM
I wish to subscribe to Garbon's newsletter.

:hug:

Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2015, 09:27:34 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 10, 2015, 09:23:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2015, 09:15:48 PM
Lame. It isn't like America is Britain where you can't officially walk unless you are in a zebra crossing. What kind of nonsense thought up pedestrians not having the right of way?

:blink:

Pedestrians here do have the unlicenced right of way to use roads unlike vehicles.
You don't have to use zebra crossings, but are advised to by the highway code, the large majority of its rules relating to walkers are aren't legally binding, only a few are, like not walking on motorways which is covered by specific legislations.

Pfft. If a pedestrian in London tries to assert a right of way, outside of a zebra crossing, he gets a torrent of abuse which he will answer more than in kind.

In civilized countries, like say the USA, cars better slow the fuck down when they see a pedestrian crossing. Even in a metropolis like NYC.

London on its own takes up 90% of the country's cunt quota. Film at 11.

Pedestrians have right of way on sidewalks.  Vehicles have right on way on motorways.  If a pedestrian tries to cross a vehicle road that is not, say, a zebra crossing, he needs to give way to cars. 

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
Pedestrians have right of way on sidewalks.  Vehicles have right on way on motorways.  If a pedestrian tries to cross a vehicle road that is not, say, a zebra crossing, he needs to give way to cars. 

Well I was always told the pedestrian always has the right of way regardless of how illegally they may be jaywalking.

Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 01:21:09 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
Pedestrians have right of way on sidewalks.  Vehicles have right on way on motorways.  If a pedestrian tries to cross a vehicle road that is not, say, a zebra crossing, he needs to give way to cars. 

Well I was always told the pedestrian always has the right of way regardless of how illegally they may be jaywalking.

Then I suggest, for the sake of your health, you change your mindset when you visit Hong Kong/China :contract:

You've already told us about the Chinese proclivity toward hit and run.

While I generally respect pedestrians, I have learned to hate those who like to lean off the curb in anticipation of crossing and make drivers like me nervous they're going to fall into the roadway.  :mad:

Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 01:21:09 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
Pedestrians have right of way on sidewalks.  Vehicles have right on way on motorways.  If a pedestrian tries to cross a vehicle road that is not, say, a zebra crossing, he needs to give way to cars. 

Well I was always told the pedestrian always has the right of way regardless of how illegally they may be jaywalking.

Really? That seems strange and potentially quite lethal.  :huh:

Under Polish law, pedestrians only have a right of way on zebra crossing. That does not mean the driver cannot be held liable for injuring a jaywalking pedestrian but for that you would either need to prove intent or recklessness (the latter meaning that the driver was essentially breaking the law somehow, e.g. by speeding or DUI).

So wait, I misread the original article Tim posted. Was the woman crossing a busy road with her kids *not* on a zebra crossing? What a cunt. Even if noone was hurt, she should be charged with reckless endangerment and have social services take her kids away from her.

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
Pedestrians have right of way on sidewalks.  Vehicles have right on way on motorways.  If a pedestrian tries to cross a vehicle road that is not, say, a zebra crossing, he needs to give way to cars.

I agree with Mono. What kind of nonsense would give pedestrians the right of way outside of zebra crossing.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 10, 2015, 08:30:40 PM
When I was in school, they used to teach people how to be good pedestrians. Safety and etiquette.

Boil it down and what that woman in the article did was stupid and dangerous. Yeah, it sucked that the crosswalk was .3 miles away, but avoiding erratic actions around drivers operating vehicles is simple common sense.

Yeah. She should petition her local authorities to build a crossing near the bus stop (preferably a high raise crossing so it does not interfere with the traffic).

Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2015, 01:53:48 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
Pedestrians have right of way on sidewalks.  Vehicles have right on way on motorways.  If a pedestrian tries to cross a vehicle road that is not, say, a zebra crossing, he needs to give way to cars.

I agree with Mono. What kind of nonsense would give pedestrians the right of way outside of zebra crossing.

The term "jaywalking" is rarely used, and there is no law preventing such an act. In England, Wales and Scotland it is legal to cross (or indeed, walk along) all roads except motorways (where pedestrians and slow vehicles are not permitted), and roads with the "No Pedestrians" sign displayed. The Highway Code contains additional rules for crossing a road safely, but these are recommendations and not legally enforceable, although as with other advisory parts of the Highway Code compliance or otherwise can be used to establish liability in civil law proceedings such as insurance claims.

When crossing a road, pedestrians are advised to wait until it is safe to cross. If a pedestrian is crossing the road across a side street where a car is about to turn, vehicles should give way to the pedestrian. In UK schools children are taught to cross roads safely through the Green Cross Code. British children are taught to "Stop, Look, Listen and Think" before crossing a road, as demonstrated in the Arrive Alive campaign.


Apparently we do here in Britain (in a specific circumstance anyway.)

Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 01:21:09 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
Pedestrians have right of way on sidewalks.  Vehicles have right on way on motorways.  If a pedestrian tries to cross a vehicle road that is not, say, a zebra crossing, he needs to give way to cars. 

Well I was always told the pedestrian always has the right of way regardless of how illegally they may be jaywalking.

I don't think that's the case. I mean drivers aren't allowed to hit pedestrians but pedestrians still aren't actually allowed to just cross the street however/whenever they want.

Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2015, 01:50:47 AM
So wait, I misread the original article Tim posted. Was the woman crossing a busy road with her kids *not* on a zebra crossing? What a cunt. Even if noone was hurt, she should be charged with reckless endangerment and have social services take her kids away from her.

That was the entire point of the article. To show how we have made walking, a crazy hard thing to do.

Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2015, 07:11:29 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 01:21:09 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
Pedestrians have right of way on sidewalks.  Vehicles have right on way on motorways.  If a pedestrian tries to cross a vehicle road that is not, say, a zebra crossing, he needs to give way to cars. 

Well I was always told the pedestrian always has the right of way regardless of how illegally they may be jaywalking.

I don't think that's the case. I mean drivers aren't allowed to hit pedestrians but pedestrians still aren't actually allowed to just cross the street however/whenever they want.

True...but that is what I said. Drivers are supposed to yield to pedestrians no matter what. Pedestrians can still be ticketed for jaywalking.

Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2015, 01:50:47 AM
So wait, I misread the original article Tim posted. Was the woman crossing a busy road with her kids *not* on a zebra crossing? What a cunt. Even if noone was hurt, she should be charged with reckless endangerment and have social services take her kids away from her.

Your calls for blood and vengeance towards people who have done you no harm always puzzles me.

Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2015, 07:16:09 AM
That was the entire point of the article. To show how we have made walking, a crazy hard thing to do.

It has always been a crazy hard thing to do.  The point of the article was to display hysteria in the hopes of getting clicks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFn7MiJz_s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFn7MiJz_s)

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2015, 09:24:40 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2015, 07:16:09 AM
That was the entire point of the article. To show how we have made walking, a crazy hard thing to do.

It has always been a crazy hard thing to do. 

Not in civilized countries that put cross walks near bus stops.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2015, 10:48:14 AM
Not in civilized countries that put cross walks near bus stops.

Well generally it considered the job of the city of plan out crosswalks and bus stops.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2015, 10:48:14 AM

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2015, 09:24:40 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2015, 07:16:09 AM
That was the entire point of the article. To show how we have made walking, a crazy hard thing to do.

It has always been a crazy hard thing to do. 

Not in civilized countries that put cross walks near bus stops.

I have been to a number of countries and I have yet to see one that has a crosswalk at every bus stop along busy four lane highways in the suburbs.

Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 09:15:55 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2015, 07:11:29 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 01:21:09 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
Pedestrians have right of way on sidewalks.  Vehicles have right on way on motorways.  If a pedestrian tries to cross a vehicle road that is not, say, a zebra crossing, he needs to give way to cars. 

Well I was always told the pedestrian always has the right of way regardless of how illegally they may be jaywalking.

I don't think that's the case. I mean drivers aren't allowed to hit pedestrians but pedestrians still aren't actually allowed to just cross the street however/whenever they want.

True...but that is what I said. Drivers are supposed to yield to pedestrians no matter what. Pedestrians can still be ticketed for jaywalking.

Well are there many civilized places that just let drivers hit pedestrians? Presumably one is supposed to always try to avoid hitting someone.

Quote from: Agelastus on December 11, 2015, 07:03:02 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2015, 01:53:48 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on December 11, 2015, 01:11:43 AM
Pedestrians have right of way on sidewalks.  Vehicles have right on way on motorways.  If a pedestrian tries to cross a vehicle road that is not, say, a zebra crossing, he needs to give way to cars.

I agree with Mono. What kind of nonsense would give pedestrians the right of way outside of zebra crossing.

When crossing a road, pedestrians are advised to wait until it is safe to cross. If a pedestrian is crossing the road across a side street where a car is about to turn, vehicles should give way to the pedestrian. In UK schools children are taught to cross roads safely through the Green Cross Code. British children are taught to "Stop, Look, Listen and Think" before crossing a road, as demonstrated in the Arrive Alive campaign.


Apparently we do here in Britain (in a specific circumstance anyway.)

The same provision exists in Spain.

Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2015, 11:06:58 AM
Well are there many civilized places that just let drivers hit pedestrians? Presumably one is supposed to always try to avoid hitting someone.

I hear in China the m.o. is to back over them to make sure the pedestrian is dead so you don't have to pay their hospital bills.

Quote from: alfred russel on December 11, 2015, 10:53:19 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2015, 10:48:14 AM

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2015, 09:24:40 AM

Quote from: Grey Fox on December 11, 2015, 07:16:09 AM
That was the entire point of the article. To show how we have made walking, a crazy hard thing to do.

It has always been a crazy hard thing to do. 

Not in civilized countries that put cross walks near bus stops.

I have been to a number of countries and I have yet to see one that has a crosswalk at every bus stop along busy four lane highways in the suburbs.

ok.  But when you travel you really should try to do more than carry out a detailed survey of suburban cross walk practices.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 11, 2015, 11:34:34 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on December 11, 2015, 10:53:19 AM
I have been to a number of countries and I have yet to see one that has a crosswalk at every bus stop along busy four lane highways in the suburbs.

ok.  But when you travel you really should try to do more than carry out a detailed survey of suburban cross walk practices.

One of the two of you should, and it's not him.  ;)

Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2015, 01:55:44 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 10, 2015, 08:30:40 PM
When I was in school, they used to teach people how to be good pedestrians. Safety and etiquette.

Boil it down and what that woman in the article did was stupid and dangerous. Yeah, it sucked that the crosswalk was .3 miles away, but avoiding erratic actions around drivers operating vehicles is simple common sense.

Yeah. She should petition her local authorities to build a crossing near the bus stop (preferably a high raise crossing so it does not interfere with the traffic).

Seriously?
While she's at it, she should pray to Zeus, and do the hokey-pokey -about as effective.

What you guys are missing is that there are many places in the US where little accommodation is made for pedestrian traffic - there may be one crossing per mile.  This is a deliberate decision and local governments in this places have zero interest spending more tax money to fix it.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2015, 12:09:16 PM
What you guys are missing is that there are many places in the US where little accommodation is made for pedestrian traffic - there may be one crossing per mile.  This is a deliberate decision and local governments in this places have zero interest spending more tax money to fix it.

Yeah, I haven't traveled extensively in the US but I've been to a number of places that were pretty poorly laid out for the purposes of walking compared to what I'm used to. It seems pretty obvious that those were deliberate design choices - like not putting a pedestrian crosswalk at a traffic light at all, or like only having sidewalks and other walking paths connecting buildings to parking lots, but not connecting buildings to buildings.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2015, 12:09:16 PM
Seriously?
While she's at it, she should pray to Zeus, and do the hokey-pokey -about as effective.

What you guys are missing is that there are many places in the US where little accommodation is made for pedestrian traffic - there may be one crossing per mile.  This is a deliberate decision and local governments in this places have zero interest spending more tax money to fix it.

Are you saying that people who ride buses generally count for less in the political equation than people who drive cars?  Say it ain't so, Joe!

I grew up in Ann Arbor, where traffic must yield to pedestrians under almost all circumstances.  It made driving a huge pain in the ass, which was, I suppose, part of the point.  However, it also made taking the bus a huge pain in the ass.  Still, it is a more pleasant town by far than most, in part because you can walk.

Glad 'we' got there in the end.

Maybe the discussion here was forced to take a two page detour to the nearest logical crossing point due to the usual argument traffic?

Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2015, 12:21:02 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2015, 12:09:16 PM
What you guys are missing is that there are many places in the US where little accommodation is made for pedestrian traffic - there may be one crossing per mile.  This is a deliberate decision and local governments in this places have zero interest spending more tax money to fix it.

Yeah, I haven't traveled extensively in the US but I've been to a number of places that were pretty poorly laid out for the purposes of walking compared to what I'm used to. It seems pretty obvious that those were deliberate design choices - like not putting a pedestrian crosswalk at a traffic light at all, or like only having sidewalks and other walking paths connecting buildings to parking lots, but not connecting buildings to buildings.

In Atlanta at least the suburbs have been seriously (and successfully) fighting expanding public transportation in their communities for years on the basis it will enable poor people to live there. Not hard to imagine the same thought processes with pedestrians.

Quote from: alfred russel on December 11, 2015, 01:42:29 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 11, 2015, 12:21:02 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 11, 2015, 12:09:16 PM
What you guys are missing is that there are many places in the US where little accommodation is made for pedestrian traffic - there may be one crossing per mile.  This is a deliberate decision and local governments in this places have zero interest spending more tax money to fix it.

Yeah, I haven't traveled extensively in the US but I've been to a number of places that were pretty poorly laid out for the purposes of walking compared to what I'm used to. It seems pretty obvious that those were deliberate design choices - like not putting a pedestrian crosswalk at a traffic light at all, or like only having sidewalks and other walking paths connecting buildings to parking lots, but not connecting buildings to buildings.

In Atlanta at least the suburbs have been seriously (and successfully) fighting expanding public transportation in their communities for years on the basis it will enable poor people to live there. Not hard to imagine the same thought processes with pedestrians.

AR, that's not an attractive picture you paint there.

Heh, in some very wealthy areas in Toronto, the local rich folks have successfully lobbied to avoid repairing the potholed streets, to discourage any but residents from driving through there.  :D They do however need public transit - how else would the nannies and maids get there, if they aren't live-in?  ;)

Quote from: mongers on December 11, 2015, 01:43:55 PM
AR, that's not an attractive picture you paint there.

It isn't, but the situation is more complicated than it seems. There is heavy concentrated poverty in the city, and most importantly schools are shockingly awful both in terms of safety and education. Parents in the middle class and above rarely send their kids to those schools.

They have two options: private schools, which are expensive, or the suburbs where schools are good (prominently mentioned in any home listing is the school district the kids will be in). So many middle class parents, unable to afford private schooling, have moved to the suburbs. The problem is there is no public transportation there, and the roads are inadequate to accommodate all the people in the suburbs, so the commutes into the city can take hours (the average commute in Atlanta has been measured at longer than anywhere in the US). The obvious thing to do is to build trains into the city from the suburbs, even right next to the roads that are choked with gridlock every rush hour, but the suburbs fight that tooth and nail, out of concern that the schooling problems they have escaped will just move to where they are now.

I live in the city, but am single. Lots of people in the city have no kids, there is a large gay community, and there is a lot of affluence. There are not many middle class families with kids.

Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 09:17:33 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2015, 01:50:47 AM
So wait, I misread the original article Tim posted. Was the woman crossing a busy road with her kids *not* on a zebra crossing? What a cunt. Even if noone was hurt, she should be charged with reckless endangerment and have social services take her kids away from her.

Your calls for blood and vengeance towards people who have done you no harm always puzzles me.

There are few things that piss me off more than stupid people having kids. It's the world's worst vicious cycle - and, as far as humanity's follies go, the belief that everybody has a right to be a parent and to raise their own biological kids is probably one of the dumbest and at the same type the hardest to change. We have made amazing strides in almost every other way when it comes to separating ourselves from the state of nature and developing a civilization, but this primitive and harmful belief still somehow eludes us as a race.

Quote from: Martinus on December 12, 2015, 01:13:50 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 09:17:33 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2015, 01:50:47 AM
So wait, I misread the original article Tim posted. Was the woman crossing a busy road with her kids *not* on a zebra crossing? What a cunt. Even if noone was hurt, she should be charged with reckless endangerment and have social services take her kids away from her.

Your calls for blood and vengeance towards people who have done you no harm always puzzles me.

There are few things that piss me off more than stupid people having kids. It's the world's worst vicious cycle - and, as far as humanity's follies go, the belief that everybody has a right to be a parent and to raise their own biological kids is probably one of the dumbest and at the same type the hardest to change. We have made amazing strides in almost every other way when it comes to separating ourselves from the state of nature and developing a civilization, but this primitive and harmful belief still somehow eludes us as a race.

:rolleyes:

I'm wondering if he read Plato'so Republic lately

Is that why you've voluntarily taken yourself out of the gene pool, for the good of humanity?  :hmm:

Quote from: alfred russel on December 11, 2015, 01:59:19 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 11, 2015, 01:43:55 PM
AR, that's not an attractive picture you paint there.

It isn't, but the situation is more complicated than it seems. There is heavy concentrated poverty in the city, and most importantly schools are shockingly awful both in terms of safety and education. Parents in the middle class and above rarely send their kids to those schools.

They have two options: private schools, which are expensive, or the suburbs where schools are good (prominently mentioned in any home listing is the school district the kids will be in). So many middle class parents, unable to afford private schooling, have moved to the suburbs. The problem is there is no public transportation there, and the roads are inadequate to accommodate all the people in the suburbs, so the commutes into the city can take hours (the average commute in Atlanta has been measured at longer than anywhere in the US). The obvious thing to do is to build trains into the city from the suburbs, even right next to the roads that are choked with gridlock every rush hour, but the suburbs fight that tooth and nail, out of concern that the schooling problems they have escaped will just move to where they are now.

I live in the city, but am single. Lots of people in the city have no kids, there is a large gay community, and there is a lot of affluence. There are not many middle class families with kids.

Thanks for that, AR.

Just want to clarify one thing, the Atlanta commute is longest in distance, not time.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 12, 2015, 07:34:34 AM
Just want to clarify one thing, the Atlanta commute is longest in distance, not time.

I thought I saw at some point that it was the longest in terms of time too, but maybe not. The different surveys have different results. I did find this from Forbes citing Atlanta as having commuters spend the second most time stuck in traffic behind LA, and as the #1 worst city for commuters, and 13% spend more than an hour getting to work (this was from 2008):

http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/24/cities-commute-fuel-forbeslife-cx_mw_0424realestate3_slide_11.html

I finally read this article. It was stupid.

Quote from: alfred russel on December 11, 2015, 01:59:19 PMThe obvious thing to do is to build trains into the city from the suburbs

But Marchetti  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchetti's_constant)says that would just lead to enabling even farther sprawl as people get as far away as they can and still maintain the same commute.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 12, 2015, 05:24:56 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on December 11, 2015, 01:59:19 PMThe obvious thing to do is to build trains into the city from the suburbs

But Marchetti  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchetti's_constant)says that would just lead to enabling even farther sprawl as people get as far away as they can and still maintain the same commute.

But we are talking about communities that have commute times well in excess of Marchetti's constant (even if the overall commute time for the metro area is in line). I think I saw somewhere that roughly 19% of commutes one way in Atlanta are an hour or more. The problem is that they are all jammed up on the same handful of roads into the city every morning. I know some of these people, and they don't feel it is a lifestyle choice--they feel they have no other options. One guy in this spot just took a lateral move to Tampa when he could have been promoted here, primarily to get away from the commute.

Quote from: Martinus on December 12, 2015, 01:13:50 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 09:17:33 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2015, 01:50:47 AM
So wait, I misread the original article Tim posted. Was the woman crossing a busy road with her kids *not* on a zebra crossing? What a cunt. Even if noone was hurt, she should be charged with reckless endangerment and have social services take her kids away from her.

Your calls for blood and vengeance towards people who have done you no harm always puzzles me.

There are few things that piss me off more than stupid people having kids. It's the world's worst vicious cycle - and, as far as humanity's follies go, the belief that everybody has a right to be a parent and to raise their own biological kids is probably one of the dumbest and at the same type the hardest to change. We have made amazing strides in almost every other way when it comes to separating ourselves from the state of nature and developing a civilization, but this primitive and harmful belief still somehow eludes us as a race.

So who are these geniuses who should be raising the children? You? I don't see you adopting all these stupid people babies :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2015, 03:14:03 AM
I'm wondering if he read Plato'so Republic lately

He is upset he was not raised in a Soviet-controlled Creche designed to destroy Polish culture and make him a good worker and soldier in the glorious Soviet Union.

So a fairly interesting topic, gets derailed by monkey shit flinging.  <_<

Quote from: mongers on December 12, 2015, 10:45:13 PM
So a fairly interesting topic, gets derailed by monkey shit flinging.  <_<

What? Did you sign some kind of contract that forbids you from responding to a post two posts above the most recent one or something?

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2015, 11:32:07 PM

Quote from: mongers on December 12, 2015, 10:45:13 PM
So a fairly interesting topic, gets derailed by monkey shit flinging.  <_<

What? Did you sign some kind of contract that forbids you from responding to a post two posts above the most recent one or something?

This is mongers, remember?  He can't see that post up from way atop that high horse.

Quote from: mongers on December 12, 2015, 10:45:13 PM
So a fairly interesting topic, gets derailed by monkey shit flinging.  <_<

Hey, I haven't even posted yet.

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2015, 10:39:36 PM

So who are these geniuses who should be raising the children? You? I don't see you adopting all these stupid people babies :hmm:

He will follow the Toronto lawyer way. -_-

As always, plenty of photos and embedded links here.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-a-dead-millionaire-convinced-dozens-of-women-to-have-as-many-babies-as-possible/

Quote

How A Dead Millionaire Convinced Dozens Of Women To Have As Many Babies As Possible

By David Goldenberg

On Oct. 31, 1926, Charles Vance Millar, a well-known and wealthy Canadian lawyer, died at age 73. Halloween was a fitting day for him to go; Millar loved practical jokes and spent far too much time doing silly things like dropping dollar bills on the sidewalk and then hiding to see who would pick them up. But that was just a warm-up. In death, Millar unleashed his biggest prank ever — a last will and testament that was basically a giant social experiment. By promising a vast sum of money to the Toronto family that could have the most babies in a 10-year period, Millar set off a race to give birth the moment he died.

Millar described his will as "necessarily uncommon and capricious" because he had "no dependents or near relations." What Millar lacked in heirs, though, he made up for in cash and property. In addition to his work as a lawyer, Millar amassed a net worth of more than $10 million (in today's Canadian dollars)1 through a series of investments, including the property that would eventually be used for the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, one of the busiest crossings between the United States and Canada. He wanted to give that wealth away.

But he wanted to do it in as roguish a way as possible. Millar started off by giving shares in a jockey club to gambling opponents and shares in a brewery to teetotalling religious leaders. Then he left his house in Jamaica to three men who hated one another, on the condition that they own it together. But those were just a prelude to the big finish. In clause 10, Millar revealed a biology and math challenge that would change the lives of dozens of Toronto families. The remainder of his fortune — about $9 million — would be bequeathed a decade later to "the mother who has since my death given birth in Toronto to the greatest number of children as shown by the registrations under the Vital Statistics Act." If there were a tie, he wanted his fortune to be divided equally among the winners.

Millar probably thought he was being clever; after all, childless people aren't often responsible for baby booms. He may have even been making a wry statement in support of birth control — he was known to think that using contraception shouldn't be the taboo it was. But he probably wasn't thinking about what would happen to the losers and all the new mouths they would have to feed, and he certainly wasn't thinking about the Great Depression, which would soon envelop Canada and the rest of the world. That historical coincidence drove an ever-larger and ever-more-desperate group of women to try to win Millar's fortune. Soon the local papers, led by the Toronto Daily Star and The Evening Telegram, anointed it the Stork Derby.

As the years passed, the Derby faded into history, leaving behind just enough scraps for Snopes-verified chain emails. In 1994, a graduate student at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, named Elizabeth Wilton wrote her master's thesis on the Derby and for the first time dug up and compiled the relevant court records. Wilton's thesis was eventually used as source material for an overwrought Canadian TV drama, but many of the details she unearthed are a previously untold gold mine for those of us trying to figure out how an extreme fertility contest could have played out.

In its most ruthless interpretation, the Stork Derby was a mathematical and biological challenge for the participating families. How could they maximize the number of babies they had?

For the past 170 years or so, much of the industrialized world has undergone what researchers call the historical fertility transition, as economic incentives and labor practices changed to favor smaller families. The fertility rate has dropped precipitously during that time. Families went from having five or six kids in the 1800s to only about two today. Canada's current total fertility rate is only 1.59, well below replacement level.2 (The rate in the U.S. is 1.87.) In 1926, Canadian families averaged 3.36 children each. But when the Depression set in, the fertility rate dropped, to 2.80 by 1934 — much faster than the historical fertility transition would have predicted. According to University of Minnesota economist Larry Jones, fertility rates dropped more during the Depression than during any other era in history, which is why he refers to those years as the "Baby Bust."

If a woman could have had a baby the day the contest was announced and every nine months for the next decade, she would have ended up with 14 babies. But, of course, human reproduction doesn't work that way. As Jane Frederick, medical director of HRC Fertility, a clinic in Orange County, California, explained, conception is difficult, especially for new mothers. The likelihood of getting pregnant again depends on "if she breastfeeds and how much time her uterus is given to recover," Frederick said. Many Derby contestants presumably weren't breastfeeding regularly, as lactation often prevents ovulation; one study found that it's as effective as condom usage in preventing pregnancy for the first six months postpartum. And Stork Derby contestants weren't resting their uteri for several months after each birth — many had two babies within a 12-month span. That meant the likelihood of miscarriage was higher.

Even if the uterus has time to recover, 10 percent to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriages (and even more conceptions spontaneously abort before the woman knows she's pregnant). Frederick emphasized that most of these miscarriages, especially among younger women, occur randomly. "The most common reason is genetic problems with the embryo; there's not enough genetic information for it to go full term," she said.

When I asked Frederick how many babies a woman who was trying to maximize her fertility could expect to have in a decade without using modern fertility treatments, she said four to five if the woman was breastfeeding and up to seven if not.

Of course, there's a shortcut to having lots of babies — have more of them at once. Nadya Suleman, for example, had 14 kids (including one set of octuplets) in just nine years, from 2001 to 2009, using in vitro fertilization. Back in the 1930s, though, there was no IVF and no Clomid or other fertility-increasing drugs. That meant that not only were there no chemical ways to increase the odds of getting pregnant, but women also were less likely to have twins (or triplets) than women are today. Based on pictures and newspaper articles from the time, very few of the Derby contenders appeared to have had multiple births.

So what techniques could the Derby participants have used to increase their fertility? Besides mothers skipping breastfeeding, there were a few other ways to optimize the chances of getting pregnant, Frederick said. "Back in the 1920s, they didn't know what the hormones were, but they did know that women cycled," Frederick said. Shahin Ghadir, a fertility specialist at the Southern California Reproductive Center, said this information would have given the families a crude sense of when they were most fertile. As for the men in the Derby families, Frederick said they could have increased their fertility by abstaining from sex and masturbation for the five days before intercourse. But even if a family had done everything it could to conceive as fast as possible, it comes down to whether the people trying to have a baby are a particularly fertile combination, Frederick said.

It's unknown how many families decided to try to win Millar's fortune. While there were a few mentions in the press early on, news coverage of the Derby didn't really pick up until 1932, when the Ontario government tried to have the will nullified and the money given to the University of Toronto. After a huge public outcry — the Toronto Daily Star accused the government of resorting to "communism in the raw" — the government's claim was withdrawn. At that point, several other women seem to have realized that their family size put them in contention and started to compete as well. By the deadline in 1936, more than two dozen Toronto families had welcomed at least eight babies during the previous decade.

The Stork Derby eventually became a huge news story, perhaps since it provided an outlet from the miseries of the Depression. Those miseries were manifold. The Depression hit Canada almost as hard as it hit the United States. Unemployment hit 19 percent. Total earnings in Toronto's province dropped 38.5 percent from 1929 to 1933. By 1935, more than 25 percent of Toronto families relied on government relief.

Many of the major Canadian papers covered the intricacies of the Derby, from new births among the leading families to the courtroom machinations of the Millar relatives as they aimed to stop the circus and keep the cash for themselves. Very few articles, though, focused on the toll that the contest would have on the desperately poor families trying to win. Newsweek, for example, first referred to participant Lillian Kenny as a contender for the Derby before noting that one of her babies had recently died from rat bites while living in ghastly poverty.

Ten years after Millar's death, 32 lawyers showed up to an initial hearing to claim a share of the fortune for the families they represented. After some quick record scanning, though, the presiding judge, William Middleton, cleared out everyone who didn't have at least nine kids younger than 10. That left six families.

But some mothers who had more than nine kids still weren't allowed a shot at the prize. Pauline Clarke was one of them; she had 10 children within the timeline — the first five with her former husband and the second five with a different man, one she lived with after her separation from her husband. Middleton was not impressed. "'Children,' when used in any testamentary document, always means legitimate children," he wrote in his judgment. Instead of $9 million, Clarke was eventually given a settlement of just over $200,000, and that came only after a lengthy lawsuit.

As for the Kenny family, it eventually settled for the same amount that Clarke did. Although Lillian Kenny gave birth to 11 children, her claim was dismissed on the grounds that three of the babies were stillborn.3 "A child born dead is not in truth a child," Middleton wrote. "It was that which might have been a child." With that, three of Kenny's babies were scratched from the ledger. The youngest was named Charles Vance Millar Kenny, after his would-be benefactor.

Four other families with nine young children — the Timlecks, the Nagles, the Smiths and the MacLeans — were each awarded the equivalent of about $2 million. While she was in the midst of the Derby, Lucy Timleck took a moment to tell a reporter that raising a big family isn't easy. "I think birth control is a wonderful thing," she said in an article called "'Dark Horse' in 'Stork Derby' Now Believes in Birth Control." "I am sorry, in one way, that birth control information wasn't available years ago. I know mothers who would have welcomed such knowledge."

Kevin Timleck, 52, is the son of Edward Timleck, who was Lucy's youngest child. Kevin lives in Vancouver and told me that he has more than 100 first cousins spread out across the country. While many of his relatives have kept up the Timleck Irish Catholic tradition of having large families, Kevin has only two children. Why? "There's no money involved in it," he said.

The Toronto Lawyer way? I like that, it implies Malthus is partially responsible.  :P

Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2015, 12:17:17 AM

Quote from: mongers on December 12, 2015, 10:45:13 PM
So a fairly interesting topic, gets derailed by monkey shit flinging.  <_<

Hey, I haven't even posted yet.

:lol:

Quote from: Razgovory on December 13, 2015, 12:17:17 AM

Quote from: mongers on December 12, 2015, 10:45:13 PM
So a fairly interesting topic, gets derailed by monkey shit flinging.  <_<

Hey, I haven't even posted yet.

:lol:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 13, 2015, 08:04:29 AM
The Toronto Lawyer way? I like that, it implies Malthus is partially responsible.  :P

:hmm:

Quote from: Malthus on December 13, 2015, 01:00:24 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 13, 2015, 08:04:29 AM
The Toronto Lawyer way? I like that, it implies Malthus is partially responsible.  :P

:hmm:

At least up until the headboard breaks.

Always comforting to see the Languish Empathy Brigade maintain its operational combat readiness.

I read this article a few months ago when it came out, it's a trash piece.

Lot of really poor arguments and falsehoods in it.

It's not illegal to walk, but we've created a system where pedestrians on major roads need to walk on sidewalks, and cross at crosswalks. On side roads pedestrians normally can cross as they please, as long as they use good judgment to watch for any oncoming traffic. Are there some residential neighborhoods that have high-speed roads going through them and inconveniently few cross walks? Sure, that happens. That's a local planning problem and obviously should be fixed, but that doesn't "criminalize" walking. In fact, it makes you walk more--because you're going to cover more ground than you otherwise would. Not saying that is ideal, but a "less efficient" pedestrian transportation system actually increases walking distance to get things done which increases activity time. It'll obviously also lead some people to not walk at all, but that's a personal choice.

Laws against jaywalking are a public safety matter, and not some grave inhumanity, or part of a broad campaign to ban walking. Pedestrians got ran over by horses and wagons all the time, and in many cities a private coach driver might be nice enough to scream at you and crack his whip at you to make a pedestrian jump the fuck out of his way--or they may just roll over you and both they and society would take the view of "fuck you, should've been watching."

As grumbler first pointed out--walking has always carried risks, all modes of transportation do.

Most of the areas with poor walkability in the United States are rural or suburban. And frankly, the closest store to a rural home may be 3+ miles away so no one who lives out there much plans on walking to it anyway. Suburban housing developments frequently do have sidewalks, largely for kids to ride bikes on or people to walk on, but the closest places to shop/do other errands are far enough away that a good system of crosswalks is irrelevant, because people aren't walking 2-3 hours round trip to grab dinner or go to the optometrist. The reason for this is some people have made a choice to live in places where they can buy more land for less money, with the trade off being less density of commercial development and decreased easy walking access to such businesses and services, the "urban poor" who genuinely live in places where it's hard to walk are pretty rare. Poor neighborhoods in urbanized areas often lack the nicer restaurants and service providers, and have poorly maintained sidewalks, but they do usually have a bus line. But the decay of those neighborhoods is largely a function of the ruling political class not caring about infrastructure for poor neighborhoods versus gentrifying ones, it's not part of some malicious plan to discourage walking.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 15, 2015, 08:35:06 AM
Always comforting to see the Languish Empathy Brigade maintain its operational combat readiness.

We can mark that as a "T" then on the battle training matrix.

Quote from: Martinus on December 12, 2015, 01:13:50 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 11, 2015, 09:17:33 AM

Quote from: Martinus on December 11, 2015, 01:50:47 AM
So wait, I misread the original article Tim posted. Was the woman crossing a busy road with her kids *not* on a zebra crossing? What a cunt. Even if noone was hurt, she should be charged with reckless endangerment and have social services take her kids away from her.

Your calls for blood and vengeance towards people who have done you no harm always puzzles me.

There are few things that piss me off more than stupid people having kids. It's the world's worst vicious cycle - and, as far as humanity's follies go, the belief that everybody has a right to be a parent and to raise their own biological kids is probably one of the dumbest and at the same type the hardest to change. We have made amazing strides in almost every other way when it comes to separating ourselves from the state of nature and developing a civilization, but this primitive and harmful belief still somehow eludes us as a race.

No system is perfect, but thankfully it at least worked in your case.

A good friend of mine once spent a year in Savannah Georgia on a work assignment.  She did not own a car in Vancouver and was, and is, a determined walker.  But she found trying to get around Savannah on foot practically impossible and she was forced to lease a car for that year.  Apparently there is a distinct lack of sidewalks and crosswalks there.  Perhaps it was the area she was living in?

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 03:35:29 PM
A good friend of mine once spent a year in Savannah Georgia on a work assignment.  She did not own a car in Vancouver and was, and is, a determined walker.  But she found trying to get around Savannah on foot practically impossible and she was forced to lease a car for that year.  Apparently there is a distinct lack of sidewalks and crosswalks there.  Perhaps it was the area she was living in?

No she is basically correct. At least here. Not that getting around in a car is great or anything.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2015, 03:45:30 PM
Not that getting around in a car is great or anything.

It beats the heck out of the alternative.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 16, 2015, 03:51:04 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2015, 03:45:30 PM
Not that getting around in a car is great or anything.

It beats the heck out of the alternative.

Having a well designed road system able to handle the traffic? I guess I will have to disagree with you there.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 03:35:29 PMPerhaps it was the area she was living in?

The southeast and most of the rest of the us? Then yes, i agree, just the area.

Probably the most pedestrian and public transport place in georgia is atlanta. Aside from poverty related reasons, everyone i know has a car. Occassionally a coworker moves to atlanta from overseas and thinks he can get by without one. Inevitably, within a few months, a car is obtained.

I cant speak to why parts of canada may be different, but if you look at growth in the southeast since 1920 or so, it has just exploded to the point everywhere has been effectively city planned in the era of the car. America was affluent enough that everyone worth planning for (ie, not black people) had a car.

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2015, 03:58:54 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 16, 2015, 03:51:04 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2015, 03:45:30 PM
Not that getting around in a car is great or anything.

It beats the heck out of the alternative.

Having a well designed road system able to handle the traffic? I guess I will have to disagree with you there.

The alternative to getting around in a car is completely redesigning the road system? Wow, you must have more pull in the government than I thought.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 16, 2015, 04:27:57 PM
The alternative to getting around in a car is completely redesigning the road system? Wow, you must have more pull in the government than I thought.

No the alternative to it not being horrible to get around in a car. As it is every form of transportation around Austin pretty much sucks ass.

Quote from: alfred russel on December 16, 2015, 04:18:13 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 03:35:29 PMPerhaps it was the area she was living in?

The southeast and most of the rest of the us? Then yes, i agree, just the area.

Probably the most pedestrian and public transport place in georgia is atlanta. Aside from poverty related reasons, everyone i know has a car. Occassionally a coworker moves to atlanta from overseas and thinks he can get by without one. Inevitably, within a few months, a car is obtained.

I cant speak to why parts of canada may be different, but if you look at growth in the southeast since 1920 or so, it has just exploded to the point everywhere has been effectively city planned in the era of the car. America was affluent enough that everyone worth planning for (ie, not black people) had a car.

It was the same here but since about the early 90s civic planners have aggressively designed much more pedestrian and bike friendly infrastructure.  My own neighbourhood, which is a suburb of sorts, is crisscrossed with recently constructed bike and foot paths.  It is actually quicker to walk to some places then it is to take the car because a more direct route can be taken through the walking paths built independent of the road system.

Maybe it is just that Austin sucks ass? :whistle:

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 04:37:38 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on December 16, 2015, 04:18:13 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 03:35:29 PMPerhaps it was the area she was living in?

The southeast and most of the rest of the us? Then yes, i agree, just the area.

Probably the most pedestrian and public transport place in georgia is atlanta. Aside from poverty related reasons, everyone i know has a car. Occassionally a coworker moves to atlanta from overseas and thinks he can get by without one. Inevitably, within a few months, a car is obtained.

I cant speak to why parts of canada may be different, but if you look at growth in the southeast since 1920 or so, it has just exploded to the point everywhere has been effectively city planned in the era of the car. America was affluent enough that everyone worth planning for (ie, not black people) had a car.

It was the same here but since about the early 90s civic planners have aggressively designed much more pedestrian and bike friendly infrastructure.  My own neighbourhood, which is a suburb of sorts, is crisscrossed with recently constructed bike and foot paths.  It is actually quicker to walk to some places then it is to take the car because a more direct route can be taken through the walking paths built independent of the road system.

One thing that might explain the difference is that since our health care is publicly funded there is a significant economic incentive for government to fund infrastructure that will get more people out of cars and more active.

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2015, 04:38:21 PM
Maybe it is just that Austin sucks ass? :whistle:

Um yes that is what I was saying. Our transportation scheme is a disaster. Do I need to repost this a few more times?  :lol:

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 04:48:01 PM
One thing that might explain the difference is that since our health care is publicly funded there is a significant economic incentive for government to fund infrastructure that will get more people out of cars and more active.

How do you think the causation works in this case?

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2015, 06:33:42 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 04:48:01 PM
One thing that might explain the difference is that since our health care is publicly funded there is a significant economic incentive for government to fund infrastructure that will get more people out of cars and more active.

How do you think the causation works in this case?

One way to cut down on medical expense is prevention.  Getting people out of cars and onto their feet is a good way to improve the general health of the population.

As an example,

QuoteThe authors examine the magnitude of health benefits from urban design characteristics that are associated with increased walking. Using geocoded travel diary data from Portland, Oregon, regression analyses give information on the magnitude and statistical significance of the link between urban design variables and two-day walking distances. From the coefficient point estimates, the authors link to the health literature to give information on how many persons would realize health benefits, in the form of reductions in mortality risk, from walking increases associated with urban design changes. Using a cost-benefit analysis framework, they give monetized estimates of the health benefits of various urban design changes. The article closes with suggestions about how the techniques developed can be applied to other cost-benefit analyses of the health benefits of planning projects that are intended to increase walking.

http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/27/3/341.abstract

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 06:41:54 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2015, 06:33:42 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 04:48:01 PM
One thing that might explain the difference is that since our health care is publicly funded there is a significant economic incentive for government to fund infrastructure that will get more people out of cars and more active.

How do you think the causation works in this case?

One way to cut down on medical expense is prevention.  Getting people out of cars and onto their feet is a good way to improve the general health of the population.

As an example,

QuoteThe authors examine the magnitude of health benefits from urban design characteristics that are associated with increased walking. Using geocoded travel diary data from Portland, Oregon, regression analyses give information on the magnitude and statistical significance of the link between urban design variables and two-day walking distances. From the coefficient point estimates, the authors link to the health literature to give information on how many persons would realize health benefits, in the form of reductions in mortality risk, from walking increases associated with urban design changes. Using a cost-benefit analysis framework, they give monetized estimates of the health benefits of various urban design changes. The article closes with suggestions about how the techniques developed can be applied to other cost-benefit analyses of the health benefits of planning projects that are intended to increase walking.

http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/27/3/341.abstract

Yeah I understand the health benefits part :)

What I meant was how do you figure the people making the planning decisions - primarily city planners and mayors I expect - were incentivized to prioritize walkable urban planning by the existence of universal healthcare? I have a hard time seeing the concrete motivation of those actors unless there were specific health based incentives for walkable urban planning?

Quote from: Valmy on December 16, 2015, 05:03:08 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2015, 04:38:21 PM
Maybe it is just that Austin sucks ass? :whistle:

Um yes that is what I was saying. Our transportation scheme is a disaster. Do I need to repost this a few more times?  :lol:

No, I meant on the whole  - not just transportation. :P

My little sis tries to get buy without using a car (she doesn't have a license).  It's extremely inconvenient.  It takes her an extra hour or two a day to do what she needs to do.

I've managed about 16 years without a car, though I live in a country about the size of a medium US state, I've a train station 9.5miles away and coaches/buses leaving from 520 yards away.  :bowler:

Wouldn't like to try that in the US or Canada.

I run over poors.

Quote from: garbon on December 16, 2015, 07:43:03 PM
No, I meant on the whole  - not just transportation. :P

That is true as well. This place is a hell hole and anybody even thinking about moving here better have second thoughts.

Quote from: mongers on December 16, 2015, 08:19:50 PM
I've managed about 16 years without a car, though I live in a country about the size of a medium US state, I've a train station 9.5miles away and coaches/buses leaving from 520 yards away.  :bowler:

Wouldn't like to try that in the US or Canada.

It's doable in Canada in one of the larger cities. I managed for 20 years without a car in Vancouver, for example. Wouldn't want to not have a car now that I have a kid, though.

I didn't have a car in DC.  I was fine.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 03:35:29 PM
A good friend of mine once spent a year in Savannah Georgia on a work assignment.  She did not own a car in Vancouver and was, and is, a determined walker.  But she found trying to get around Savannah on foot practically impossible and she was forced to lease a car for that year.  Apparently there is a distinct lack of sidewalks and crosswalks there.  Perhaps it was the area she was living in?

Almost certainly, yes--Savannah proper has sidewalks on essentially every street. Maybe she lived in the suburbs or well away from the city center, but I've been to Savannah for vacations and such a few times (we've vacationed on Tybee Island a couple times, and Savannah is a quick 20 minute drive away.) Savannah's downtown is very tourist-friendly and has tons of little shops and walk-up street attractions.

Most actual cities in America you can get by fine without walking. But America isn't a place where it's easy to travel 20 miles if you don't have a car, there's simply not demand for robust non-driver transportation systems for local trips like that outside of a few cities. Also in America families have very little interest living in the inner city, gentrification in most American cities is being pushed by middle class and affluent young people, couples with no children, gay couples etc. So someone in a "family" mindset will find it hard to imagine how to live in the city center without all the family-oriented amenities. But the answer is the people who live there do not desire those amenities, they don't have kids, don't care too much about the quality of local schools and etc.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2015, 12:58:05 AM
Most actual cities in America you can get by fine without walking. But America isn't a place where it's easy to travel 20 miles if you don't have a car, there's simply not demand for robust non-driver transportation systems for local trips like that outside of a few cities. Also in America families have very little interest living in the inner city, gentrification in most American cities is being pushed by middle class and affluent young people, couples with no children, gay couples etc. So someone in a "family" mindset will find it hard to imagine how to live in the city center without all the family-oriented amenities. But the answer is the people who live there do not desire those amenities, they don't have kids, don't care too much about the quality of local schools and etc.

Interesting. In my local Canadian experience there are plenty of child- and family- amenities in or near the city centres. Not so much right in the business district, but in the residential areas there are plenty of community centres, daycares, playgrounds etc.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 10, 2015, 07:33:25 PM
This is why Americans are so fat

https://aeon.co/essays/step-by-step-americans-are-sacrificing-the-right-to-walk

Quote-snip-

You know what else we're losing?  The ability to do independent research.  I'm having a hard time finding the trial judgment, but I just read the appeal judgment giving the green-light to her retrial.

1) She and her children were jaywalking.  There was a crosswalk 150-feet away that they weren't in because she testified she didn't like going the extra distance.
2) It was 9:15 at night, and the section of street wasn't lit, so on top of jaywalking, you're jaywalking across a dark, multi-lane highway.  Parenting skills are starting to come into question here.
3) Not explicitly stated in the appeal judgment, but she got the 2nd vehicular homicide conviction at a retrial that she chose voluntarily instead of one year of probation.  I don't think I'd ever before heard of a sweetheart deal like that, where the judge and the prosecutor went "we think the jury was too harsh on you, we'll let you do one year probation or we can move for a retrial."  In going for the retrial instead of the slap on the wrist, I'd call her an idiot of the highest caliber.

To come back to the author, who is admittedly "writing from a position of privilege," no, I don't see Georgia v. Nelson as trampling pedestrians' rights (pun not intended); it's a cascade failure of common sense.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2015, 12:58:05 AM
Most actual cities in America you can get by fine without walking. But America isn't a place where it's easy to travel 20 miles if you don't have a car, there's simply not demand for robust non-driver transportation systems for local trips like that outside of a few cities. Also in America families have very little interest living in the inner city, gentrification in most American cities is being pushed by middle class and affluent young people, couples with no children, gay couples etc. So someone in a "family" mindset will find it hard to imagine how to live in the city center without all the family-oriented amenities. But the answer is the people who live there do not desire those amenities, they don't have kids, don't care too much about the quality of local schools and etc.

Well at least Austin has that going for it. Downtown is an amazing place to live. The schools are excellent and there are tons of things for kids to do.

If only I was rich.

In the UK there is no jaywalking law and pedestrians have right of way, and roads are designed to support that with different sorts of crossing.

http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/learn-to-drive/crossings.php (http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/learn-to-drive/crossings.php)

The highway code for pedestrians:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35 (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35)

Quote from: Brazen on December 17, 2015, 09:08:22 AM
The highway code for pedestrians:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35 (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-pedestrians-1-to-35)

Those seem like tips rather than rules. If those are actual codes than your laws are much more restrictive than ours.

QuoteIn the UK there is no jaywalking law and pedestrians have right of way, and roads are designed to support that with different sorts of crossing.

Yeah pedestrians have the right of way here as well.

"Here lies Winsor McKay,
Claimed to have the right of way."

Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2015, 09:22:27 AM
"Here lies Winsor McKay,
Claimed to have the right of way."

Indeed.  :ph34r:

Quote from: Brazen on December 17, 2015, 09:06:08 AM
In the UK there is no jaywalking law and pedestrians have right of way, and roads are designed to support that with different sorts of crossing.

http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/learn-to-drive/crossings.php (http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/learn-to-drive/crossings.php)

I'm going to soften my position somewhat.

Here's the appeal judgment: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1610830.html

I've also sussed out the site and looked around it on Google, but I'll only share that with the morbidly curious via PM since I'm not about doxxing people (since the accident occurred right by her residence).  Some thoughts:

QuoteThere was no crosswalk in the portion of the roadway between the bus stop and the apartment complex, but there were sidewalks leading to crosswalks at intersections located approximately 50 yards away from the bus stop.   Nelson testified that on a prior occasion, she had walked to one of the intersection crosswalks, but she did not like walking the extra distance.

Somebody confused her with the questioning.  There are crosswalks that close, true, but they cross the cross streets, not the highway.  The nearest crosswalk crossing the highway was ~1700 feet away (a third of a mile!), more than 3 times as far as the trial court had "established."

That seems like a significant factor in assessing the risk of crossing where she did.

QuoteSignificantly, however, the trial court's exercise of its discretion in granting a new trial based upon its finding that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence differs from a judgment of acquittal holding that the evidence is legally insufficient.

We're all sick of my IANAL disclaimers, but I'm confused as to what legal judo went on that allowed the judge to discard the jury's verdict.  How is OCGA 5-5-40(h) even legal?  It may not technically violate double jeopardy because it makes acquittals ineligible, but there's nothing stopping a prosecutor and a sympathetic judge from throwing trial after trial at a defendant until they get what they see as a firm enough punishment, making it a de facto double jeopardy violation, not to mention a potential end-run around the right to a speedy trial.

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2015, 07:08:43 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 06:41:54 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 16, 2015, 06:33:42 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 16, 2015, 04:48:01 PM
One thing that might explain the difference is that since our health care is publicly funded there is a significant economic incentive for government to fund infrastructure that will get more people out of cars and more active.

How do you think the causation works in this case?

One way to cut down on medical expense is prevention.  Getting people out of cars and onto their feet is a good way to improve the general health of the population.

As an example,

QuoteThe authors examine the magnitude of health benefits from urban design characteristics that are associated with increased walking. Using geocoded travel diary data from Portland, Oregon, regression analyses give information on the magnitude and statistical significance of the link between urban design variables and two-day walking distances. From the coefficient point estimates, the authors link to the health literature to give information on how many persons would realize health benefits, in the form of reductions in mortality risk, from walking increases associated with urban design changes. Using a cost-benefit analysis framework, they give monetized estimates of the health benefits of various urban design changes. The article closes with suggestions about how the techniques developed can be applied to other cost-benefit analyses of the health benefits of planning projects that are intended to increase walking.

http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/27/3/341.abstract

Yeah I understand the health benefits part :)

What I meant was how do you figure the people making the planning decisions - primarily city planners and mayors I expect - were incentivized to prioritize walkable urban planning by the existence of universal healthcare? I have a hard time seeing the concrete motivation of those actors unless there were specific health based incentives for walkable urban planning?

A portion of municipal funding for infrastructure comes from the Provincial and Federal level.  Want a grant or funding for your pet project Mr. Mayor - lets talk about your community plan.  In addition municipalities pay directly for some of the cost of first responders such as fire fighters (who are likely to be the first on the scene to most medical emergencies)  Those are the direct costs and benefits that come immediately to mind.  Then there are the indirect benefits.  If less money is spent on health care at the Federal and Provincial levels that will leave more funding for other things that would benefit Municipalities.   

Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2015, 01:25:29 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2015, 12:58:05 AM
Most actual cities in America you can get by fine without walking. But America isn't a place where it's easy to travel 20 miles if you don't have a car, there's simply not demand for robust non-driver transportation systems for local trips like that outside of a few cities. Also in America families have very little interest living in the inner city, gentrification in most American cities is being pushed by middle class and affluent young people, couples with no children, gay couples etc. So someone in a "family" mindset will find it hard to imagine how to live in the city center without all the family-oriented amenities. But the answer is the people who live there do not desire those amenities, they don't have kids, don't care too much about the quality of local schools and etc.

Interesting. In my local Canadian experience there are plenty of child- and family- amenities in or near the city centres. Not so much right in the business district, but in the residential areas there are plenty of community centres, daycares, playgrounds etc.

Yeah, but that is a recent (20 year or so) transformation.  Vancouver's inner city used to be much like what he described, and probably worse given the amount of light and heavy industry that used to be here (think of what Yale town was before it was developed).  But now you are quite right. It is very family friendly.  Again part of the deliberate civil design plan to increase the amount of bike and pedestrian trips within the city, and surrounding suburbs, and reduce the amount of trips made by car.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 17, 2015, 12:07:27 PM
Yeah, but that is a recent (20 year or so) transformation.  Vancouver's inner city used to be much like what he described, and probably worse given the amount of light and heavy industry that used to be here (think of what Yale town was before it was developed).  But now you are quite right. It is very family friendly.  Again part of the deliberate civil design plan to increase the amount of bike and pedestrian trips within the city, and surrounding suburbs, and reduce the amount of trips made by car.

Yeah I think this is the style these days. As I said Austin has done this as well. And its great for those who can afford to live in city centers.

Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2015, 09:27:34 PM
In civilized countries, like say the USA, cars better slow the fuck down when they see a pedestrian crossing. Even in a metropolis like NYC.

Not really. In NYC, if you run someone over with your car and kill them, it is very unlikely that anything will happen to you as a result.

Freakonomics did an episode on this a while back. Possibly the best way to murder someone and get away with it is to run them over with a car in NYC. It is nearly impossible to actually legally charge a driver for a fatal accident in any meaningful way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pedestrian-deaths-auto-strikes-rise-nyc-article-1.1577396

The article linked has two different examples of people killed by drivers. Neither were charged with anything more than misdeamenors, like "Failure to yield".

Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2015, 12:48:19 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 10, 2015, 09:27:34 PM
In civilized countries, like say the USA, cars better slow the fuck down when they see a pedestrian crossing. Even in a metropolis like NYC.

Not really. In NYC, if you run someone over with your car and kill them, it is very unlikely that anything will happen to you as a result.

Freakonomics did an episode on this a while back. Possibly the best way to murder someone and get away with it is to run them over with a car in NYC. It is nearly impossible to actually legally charge a driver for a fatal accident in any meaningful way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pedestrian-deaths-auto-strikes-rise-nyc-article-1.1577396

The article linked has two different examples of people killed by drivers. Neither were charged with anything more than misdeamenors, like "Failure to yield".

That may have been the case until very recently, but I think de Blasio introduced some changes to make it easier to charge someone who kills a pedestrian.  I'm not sure what the practical effect is, though.

That is good to hear...

I wish I had known when driving in the city. :weep:

Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2015, 12:48:19 PM
Not really. In NYC, if you run someone over with your car and kill them, it is very unlikely that anything will happen to you as a result.

Freakonomics did an episode on this a while back. Possibly the best way to murder someone and get away with it is to run them over with a car in NYC. It is nearly impossible to actually legally charge a driver for a fatal accident in any meaningful way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pedestrian-deaths-auto-strikes-rise-nyc-article-1.1577396

The article linked has two different examples of people killed by drivers. Neither were charged with anything more than misdeamenors, like "Failure to yield".

They probably didn't have any evidence of motive for the murder charge.

Quote from: Berkut on December 17, 2015, 12:55:33 PM
That is good to hear...

Yeah here is the companion article to your link from the end of 2014.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-pedestrian-traffic-deaths-hit-record-nyc-article-1.2060325

Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2015, 01:25:29 AMInteresting. In my local Canadian experience there are plenty of child- and family- amenities in or near the city centres. Not so much right in the business district, but in the residential areas there are plenty of community centres, daycares, playgrounds etc.

We may have that in places like NYC, but it's almost an outlier in comparison to the United States at large. Most American cities have such poor school systems versus the surrounding suburbs that only very low income parents will live inside the city limits because they simply aren't willing to subject their kids to a very bad educational system. Thus, you see less stuff in the cities catering to children.

Education is probably the single biggest reason American cities have low % of families with children. It's tied in with the frankly retarded mechanism by which school districts are funded and ran.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 17, 2015, 12:07:27 PMYeah, but that is a recent (20 year or so) transformation.  Vancouver's inner city used to be much like what he described, and probably worse given the amount of light and heavy industry that used to be here (think of what Yale town was before it was developed).  But now you are quite right. It is very family friendly.  Again part of the deliberate civil design plan to increase the amount of bike and pedestrian trips within the city, and surrounding suburbs, and reduce the amount of trips made by car.

To resurrect a lot of American cities for families you need to dramatically alter the way the educational system is funded and operated, bike paths and crosswalks just ain't what's wrong. Those are nice to haves, but parents who have options will never live where the schools are terrible.

Quote from: Valmy on December 17, 2015, 08:32:05 AMWell at least Austin has that going for it. Downtown is an amazing place to live. The schools are excellent and there are tons of things for kids to do.

If only I was rich.

Austin has the dual social/economic benefits of having a huge university downtown and the State Capital, that makes it well positioned. Although to be honest I was in Austin maybe two years ago and stayed in the Embassy Suites on South Congress and just a short walk away from my hotel it was a pretty gross city, so you may be overstating Austin a bit. It'd be a cool place to live if I was 25-30 with no wife or kid but I wouldn't want to live downtown.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2015, 03:39:50 PM
Austin has the dual social/economic benefits of having a huge university downtown and the State Capital, that makes it well positioned. Although to be honest I was in Austin maybe two years ago and stayed in the Embassy Suites on South Congress and just a short walk away from my hotel it was a pretty gross city, so you may be overstating Austin a bit. It'd be a cool place to live if I was 25-30 with no wife or kid but I wouldn't want to live downtown.

Harsh. Well I disagree. But to be fair we rarely agree so there is that :P

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2015, 03:36:23 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 17, 2015, 12:07:27 PMYeah, but that is a recent (20 year or so) transformation.  Vancouver's inner city used to be much like what he described, and probably worse given the amount of light and heavy industry that used to be here (think of what Yale town was before it was developed).  But now you are quite right. It is very family friendly.  Again part of the deliberate civil design plan to increase the amount of bike and pedestrian trips within the city, and surrounding suburbs, and reduce the amount of trips made by car.

To resurrect a lot of American cities for families you need to dramatically alter the way the educational system is funded and operated, bike paths and crosswalks just ain't what's wrong. Those are nice to haves, but parents who have options will never live where the schools are terrible.

Sure, urban renewal is a complicated issue.  But the bike and walking trails I was talking about are in the burbs as well as the city.  Amenities, shops, restaurants etc are all built in mixed use zoning areas in the burbs to create mini town centres that are within walking and biking distance.  One is relatively close to our house and is built in such a way that there is minimal parking so that it is much more convenient to simply spend a few extra minutes and walk rather than bother with the car.  That in turn generates a lot more pedestrian traffic for the shops etc in the area.

Lots of interesting data linked to this page:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/pedestrians_and_cyclists_unprotected_road_users/walking_and_cycling_as_transport_modes_en.htm (http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pedestrians/pedestrians_and_cyclists_unprotected_road_users/walking_and_cycling_as_transport_modes_en.htm)

Especially this pdf report by OECD, a direct link:
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/24000/24400/24472/2103492.pdf

Still haven't found any figures along the lines of pedestrian per 1million/1billion miles/km of journeys which would be a better indicator of pedestrian safety, as opposed to the more common pedestrian deaths per million population.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 17, 2015, 12:00:49 PM
A portion of municipal funding for infrastructure comes from the Provincial and Federal level.  Want a grant or funding for your pet project Mr. Mayor - lets talk about your community plan.  In addition municipalities pay directly for some of the cost of first responders such as fire fighters (who are likely to be the first on the scene to most medical emergencies)  Those are the direct costs and benefits that come immediately to mind.

I see what you mean. I wonder to what degree that played out, i.e. to what degree the people negotiating the funding and grants had that among their priorities, but it's an interesting theory.

QuoteThen there are the indirect benefits.  If less money is spent on health care at the Federal and Provincial levels that will leave more funding for other things that would benefit Municipalities.

Or cutting taxes or funding other projects. It's so easy to spend money... but yeah, in the abstract that makes some sense.

Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2015, 05:52:45 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 17, 2015, 12:00:49 PM
A portion of municipal funding for infrastructure comes from the Provincial and Federal level.  Want a grant or funding for your pet project Mr. Mayor - lets talk about your community plan.  In addition municipalities pay directly for some of the cost of first responders such as fire fighters (who are likely to be the first on the scene to most medical emergencies)  Those are the direct costs and benefits that come immediately to mind.

I see what you mean. I wonder to what degree that played out, i.e. to what degree the people negotiating the funding and grants had that among their priorities, but it's an interesting theory.

QuoteThen there are the indirect benefits.  If less money is spent on health care at the Federal and Provincial levels that will leave more funding for other things that would benefit Municipalities.

Or cutting taxes or funding other projects. It's so easy to spend money... but yeah, in the abstract that makes some sense.

As I recall it there was also a lot of pressure being put on civic planners to design more socially responsible living areas by doctors organizations and various NGOs so its obviously a lot more than just the economic incentive.  But I think it does play at least some role. 

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2015, 03:34:12 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 17, 2015, 01:25:29 AMInteresting. In my local Canadian experience there are plenty of child- and family- amenities in or near the city centres. Not so much right in the business district, but in the residential areas there are plenty of community centres, daycares, playgrounds etc.

We may have that in places like NYC, but it's almost an outlier in comparison to the United States at large. Most American cities have such poor school systems versus the surrounding suburbs that only very low income parents will live inside the city limits because they simply aren't willing to subject their kids to a very bad educational system. Thus, you see less stuff in the cities catering to children.

Education is probably the single biggest reason American cities have low % of families with children. It's tied in with the frankly retarded mechanism by which school districts are funded and ran.

The good school districts in NYC are so expensive that only the super-rich can afford to live in them anyways in an apartment sufficiently large enough to house a family.

Quote from: Valmy on December 17, 2015, 03:53:45 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 17, 2015, 03:39:50 PM
Austin has the dual social/economic benefits of having a huge university downtown and the State Capital, that makes it well positioned. Although to be honest I was in Austin maybe two years ago and stayed in the Embassy Suites on South Congress and just a short walk away from my hotel it was a pretty gross city, so you may be overstating Austin a bit. It'd be a cool place to live if I was 25-30 with no wife or kid but I wouldn't want to live downtown.

Harsh. Well I disagree. But to be fair we rarely agree so there is that :P

Well like I said, if I was younger and had no kids, Austin would be great. But as a middle aged parent and husband, I just don't see us living there for many of the same reasons I'd think it's a great place to live if I were 10-15 years younger.

And to me that is, to a degree, what is great about America. If you want to live on a big piece of land with minimal services and few neighbors, we've got tons of it and it's relatively affordable. If you want to live in an inner city where you can walk to tons of restaurants, shops, the market etc in a few minutes time we offer that as well. If you want to live somewhere in between, where you can have a decent sized yard, a larger house, and quick (but car-based) access to shops/restaurants/services, we have that as well. Where I get het up is when people decide that one of those modes of living is intrinsically and morally correct, and the others wrong. That's very troubling to me.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 17, 2015, 05:25:48 PMSure, urban renewal is a complicated issue.  But the bike and walking trails I was talking about are in the burbs as well as the city.  Amenities, shops, restaurants etc are all built in mixed use zoning areas in the burbs to create mini town centres that are within walking and biking distance.  One is relatively close to our house and is built in such a way that there is minimal parking so that it is much more convenient to simply spend a few extra minutes and walk rather than bother with the car.  That in turn generates a lot more pedestrian traffic for the shops etc in the area.

Eh, there's more trails for biking, walking and even horseback riding around here than you can shake a stick at. But they may not be immediately beside your house, they might be a short car-ride away, where you park and then go onto the trail. That's very common here.

I've also ran into a few suburbs like what you describe. Dublin, OH where the PGA Memorial Tournament is held is one example like that, a "bedroom" community, where it's a suburb of Columbus but instead of being comprised solely of housing developments and shopping centers connected via arterial roads, it's centered on a small little walkable town center that many of the homes in town can walk to for a little miniature city experience. I've seen a few places like that in New York as well but the name of the towns escapes me at the moment. Those are rare though--but yeah, I'd definitely be cool with more of that happening, no problems with it, in fact.

I'm a free market guy, but I'd also love it if cities found a way to make the neat gentrifying city centers a realistic living option for people who don't make $125k+ per year and have no dependents to worry about. I think it's unfortunate just as many major American cities are undergoing a renaissance the poor people that have  always been residents are being pushed out and largely don't get to enjoy said renaissance, while the white hipster class largely raised by parents who were part of the white flight movement are swooping in.