Hell, when I was a little boy in 2001, you could still accept a ride from strangers. I mean, sure, you could end up in the car with a wannabe John Wayne Gacy, but more often than not, it was a kind stranger offering a ride to a kid walking home in the 105 degree Texas heat.
Urban areas account for 80% of the US population. This only fell from 80.7% in 2010, despite the fact that the minimum population for something to be considered “urban” doubled from 2500 residents to 5000 (under the previous criteria, this would have been an increase). That’s not to mention that there’s nothing stopping rural towns under 5000 people from having adequate micromobility infrastructure, like I mentioned. If your kid is walking home from somewhere, unless they legitimately got stranded somehow in bumfuck nowhere, chances are they’re within biking distance.
The kind of “rural” you’re probably thinking of where someone lives two miles out into the country is basically a rounding error. Please stop using it as a magical incantation to shut down discussion of reasonable public transit and safe and efficient micromobility.
I take public transit EVERY DAY. I loved my time city hopping in Europe. I want that SO badly for north america. I’m a very vocal proponent.
I grew up in a rural area. Our small area tried earnestly several times to get a bus route going. First with old school buses and then with some old city buses. They just couldn’t make it work. The population density just couldn’t support it.
My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless
People who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere shouldn’t hold back the discussion of public transit and micromobility for the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in areas which are able to maintain that kind of public infrastructure.
The problem isn’t that these populations aren’t worthy of consideration; it’s that they don’t deserve to get brought up as “Well this doesn’t help me, who lives three miles out of the nearest town in a row of five houses” as a way to shut down discussion of something that would improve the lives of basically everyone. (It would help them too, of course, because it would decongest the streets when they do drive into town; it just wouldn’t obviate their car. Also, people in urban areas are subsidizing the everloving shit out of their infrastructure already to allow them to even live out there in the first place.)
What are you even talking about? They wrote: “My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas [sic] unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless.” My entire comment is spent addressing that paragraph. I’m sorry I chose to focus on the core point of their comment?
I’d argue that’s still the case, and always has been, and likely always will be. I don’t think there’s a larger number of evil people intent on harming hitchhikers, just that it is a dangerous habit and the cases that end violently are the only ones that make the news. It’s more that we’re better educated about it now, and so less people are willing to hitch or pick up hitchhikers now
Hell, when I was a little boy in 2001, you could still accept a ride from strangers. I mean, sure, you could end up in the car with a wannabe John Wayne Gacy, but more often than not, it was a kind stranger offering a ride to a kid walking home in the 105 degree Texas heat.
(If the US had adequate public transit, worrying about random strangers picking you up – let alone for intra-city travel – wouldn’t be a thing.)
Rural
Urban areas account for 80% of the US population. This only fell from 80.7% in 2010, despite the fact that the minimum population for something to be considered “urban” doubled from 2500 residents to 5000 (under the previous criteria, this would have been an increase). That’s not to mention that there’s nothing stopping rural towns under 5000 people from having adequate micromobility infrastructure, like I mentioned. If your kid is walking home from somewhere, unless they legitimately got stranded somehow in bumfuck nowhere, chances are they’re within biking distance.
The kind of “rural” you’re probably thinking of where someone lives two miles out into the country is basically a rounding error. Please stop using it as a magical incantation to shut down discussion of reasonable public transit and safe and efficient micromobility.
I’m not disputing the benefits of public transit.
I take public transit EVERY DAY. I loved my time city hopping in Europe. I want that SO badly for north america. I’m a very vocal proponent.
I grew up in a rural area. Our small area tried earnestly several times to get a bus route going. First with old school buses and then with some old city buses. They just couldn’t make it work. The population density just couldn’t support it.
My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless
People who choose to live out in the middle of nowhere shouldn’t hold back the discussion of public transit and micromobility for the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in areas which are able to maintain that kind of public infrastructure.
The problem isn’t that these populations aren’t worthy of consideration; it’s that they don’t deserve to get brought up as “Well this doesn’t help me, who lives three miles out of the nearest town in a row of five houses” as a way to shut down discussion of something that would improve the lives of basically everyone. (It would help them too, of course, because it would decongest the streets when they do drive into town; it just wouldn’t obviate their car. Also, people in urban areas are subsidizing the everloving shit out of their infrastructure already to allow them to even live out there in the first place.)
Are you even reading the messages you reply to? Can I get an unrelated rant too?
What are you even talking about? They wrote: “My issue, as someone with their feet in two canoes, as they say, is with the mentality that rural populations are rounding areas [sic] unworthy of discussion or consideration. Broad statements that erase rural existence is alienating to these admittedly small percentages, but is alienating nonetheless.” My entire comment is spent addressing that paragraph. I’m sorry I chose to focus on the core point of their comment?
I’d argue that’s still the case, and always has been, and likely always will be. I don’t think there’s a larger number of evil people intent on harming hitchhikers, just that it is a dangerous habit and the cases that end violently are the only ones that make the news. It’s more that we’re better educated about it now, and so less people are willing to hitch or pick up hitchhikers now