Not that surprising - High emission vehicles tend to be big, noisy, smelly things and getting rid of them makes the streets nicer and safer. I don't like going outside in my city because there's...
Not that surprising - High emission vehicles tend to be big, noisy, smelly things and getting rid of them makes the streets nicer and safer. I don't like going outside in my city because there's so much traffic and I'm hyper alert when cycling because driving standards are going in the bin and there's not enough good infrastructure.
Many studies have shown that the feeling of safety is one of the biggest reasons why more people don't cycle. So it stands to reason that more people will do it (and other outdoor stuff) by making cities more pleasant for humans.
Having more examples of it being true helps build a case for other cities to do something similar, and I hope they do.
Comment box Scope: personal analysis Tone: critical (of society), a bit frustrated Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: some sarcasm Parents wonder why the kids don't go outside anymore. They wonder why...
Comment box
Scope: personal analysis
Tone: critical (of society), a bit frustrated
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: some sarcasm
Parents wonder why the kids don't go outside anymore. They wonder why the kids are addicted to their screens and going through years-long depressive episodes. They wonder why the kids are obese and antisocial, why they don't exercise, why they feel disempowered and hopeless.
But the grownups keep buying houses in isolated/disconnected suburban or exurban neighborhoods, buying bigger and heavier and more dangerous cars, polluting the air at every opportunity with ICEs (despite in most developed places the feasibility of EVs, cost notwithstanding), supporting proposals to widen every single road they drive on (and all the ones they don't) to magically "fix traffic", voting for politicians who could not care less about vision zero or traffic safety, driving their children literally everywhere, etc......
A mystery!
What people don't seem to understand is that the physical action of free and open active movement, especially walking, has a direct psychological impact on kids sense of agency. And if parents are too afraid of their kids getting hit by cars or choking to death because they're asthmatic, the kids aren't going to voluntarily go outside even when they do technically have that agency. It is not pleasant to walk along loud arterial roads breathing in traffic fumes. It probably gives you cancer.
There are lots of empirical studies indicating the health risks of car pollution - the article focuses on gaseous emissions from ICEs but fails to mention tire microplastics, which are an inherent issue with the way we build automobiles. That doesn't go away with low-emissions zones as they're currently legislated. Cars are also ridiculously loud, especially after it's rained, and especially at higher speeds. EVs have less engine noise, but tire noise remains a problem. Why would you want to walk if every walk you could take is unpleasant?
If it were standard to build a network of walking paths through all neighborhoods, paths only accessible by people not driving cars, kids and adults would walk a lot more. If intersections were designed with safety for vulnerable road users (like pedestrians) in mind, walking would be a lot safer. If cars were mandated to drive more slowly (especially through infrastructure making it physically impossible to go fast), walking would be dramatically safer and, due to the decreased noise, much more pleasant!
My 2nd-most upvoted post on this website is titled: "If we want a shift to walking, we need to prioritize dignity." This is an article from Strong Towns arguing that one of the main reasons people don't walk places is because it is extremely unpleasant and undignified to do so in many situations. The article provides several extremely realistic and feasible solutions to this problem.
If it were standard to build bicycle infrastructure on every street the way it's standard to devote millions of dollars/pounds to overly wide car lanes (and too many of them), and the way it has become fairly standard to build pedestrian sidewalks along most streets, kids would be additionally empowered to explore, be social, and learn about the world. You can get much further on a bike than by walking in a given amount of time. Kids can't afford cars and can't legally drive anyway - nor do a lot of them want to: bikes are a great low-cost option. It's up to us to design streets to be safer for them.
We should design our society to give kids more agency earlier in life. The track we're on right now has kids being constantly restricted, closed-off, sheltered, coddled even when they're old enough to handle themselves - with harmful effects on their health and development. That's annoying and dangerous as a child, exhausting as a parent, expensive as a society, and not good for anyone's happiness. An adult-oriented society is always going to alienate the youth. But if we design our built environment in a way that accommodates young people, we all benefit.
Not that surprising - High emission vehicles tend to be big, noisy, smelly things and getting rid of them makes the streets nicer and safer. I don't like going outside in my city because there's so much traffic and I'm hyper alert when cycling because driving standards are going in the bin and there's not enough good infrastructure.
Many studies have shown that the feeling of safety is one of the biggest reasons why more people don't cycle. So it stands to reason that more people will do it (and other outdoor stuff) by making cities more pleasant for humans.
Having more examples of it being true helps build a case for other cities to do something similar, and I hope they do.
Comment box
Parents wonder why the kids don't go outside anymore. They wonder why the kids are addicted to their screens and going through years-long depressive episodes. They wonder why the kids are obese and antisocial, why they don't exercise, why they feel disempowered and hopeless.
But the grownups keep buying houses in isolated/disconnected suburban or exurban neighborhoods, buying bigger and heavier and more dangerous cars, polluting the air at every opportunity with ICEs (despite in most developed places the feasibility of EVs, cost notwithstanding), supporting proposals to widen every single road they drive on (and all the ones they don't) to magically "fix traffic", voting for politicians who could not care less about vision zero or traffic safety, driving their children literally everywhere, etc......
A mystery!
What people don't seem to understand is that the physical action of free and open active movement, especially walking, has a direct psychological impact on kids sense of agency. And if parents are too afraid of their kids getting hit by cars or choking to death because they're asthmatic, the kids aren't going to voluntarily go outside even when they do technically have that agency. It is not pleasant to walk along loud arterial roads breathing in traffic fumes. It probably gives you cancer.
There are lots of empirical studies indicating the health risks of car pollution - the article focuses on gaseous emissions from ICEs but fails to mention tire microplastics, which are an inherent issue with the way we build automobiles. That doesn't go away with low-emissions zones as they're currently legislated. Cars are also ridiculously loud, especially after it's rained, and especially at higher speeds. EVs have less engine noise, but tire noise remains a problem. Why would you want to walk if every walk you could take is unpleasant?
If it were standard to build a network of walking paths through all neighborhoods, paths only accessible by people not driving cars, kids and adults would walk a lot more. If intersections were designed with safety for vulnerable road users (like pedestrians) in mind, walking would be a lot safer. If cars were mandated to drive more slowly (especially through infrastructure making it physically impossible to go fast), walking would be dramatically safer and, due to the decreased noise, much more pleasant!
My 2nd-most upvoted post on this website is titled: "If we want a shift to walking, we need to prioritize dignity." This is an article from Strong Towns arguing that one of the main reasons people don't walk places is because it is extremely unpleasant and undignified to do so in many situations. The article provides several extremely realistic and feasible solutions to this problem.
If it were standard to build bicycle infrastructure on every street the way it's standard to devote millions of dollars/pounds to overly wide car lanes (and too many of them), and the way it has become fairly standard to build pedestrian sidewalks along most streets, kids would be additionally empowered to explore, be social, and learn about the world. You can get much further on a bike than by walking in a given amount of time. Kids can't afford cars and can't legally drive anyway - nor do a lot of them want to: bikes are a great low-cost option. It's up to us to design streets to be safer for them.
We should design our society to give kids more agency earlier in life. The track we're on right now has kids being constantly restricted, closed-off, sheltered, coddled even when they're old enough to handle themselves - with harmful effects on their health and development. That's annoying and dangerous as a child, exhausting as a parent, expensive as a society, and not good for anyone's happiness. An adult-oriented society is always going to alienate the youth. But if we design our built environment in a way that accommodates young people, we all benefit.