Recent comments in /f/nyc

Casamance t1_jd1r4cx wrote

Yes, although it was a commuter school, I made an effort to join various clubs like the Fencing club, radio, etc and through those places I met a whole bunch of people who I still talk to today, 6 years after graduating in 2017. If I could go back in time and choose again I would gladly choose Hunter. Don't get me wrong, there were a lot of issues with the school, but all in all I wouldn't be the person that I am today if I didn't go to that particular school in that particular borough (Manhattan)

1

hatts t1_jd1noh1 wrote

longwinded reply incoming:

when i say we "prioritize" cars i'm talking about the amount of space we give to cars in our urban design in the USA. cars are far and away the top priority. NYC is no exception, despite a majority of households not owning a car.

most NYC streets have 1+ lanes for car travel, plus at least 1 lane for side parking (usually 2). bikes are lucky to get a lane, usually unprotected, and usually full of double parked cars. peds get pushed onto to narrow sidewalks and have to dart across intersections like frogger, despite being the dominant mode of transportation. so it's in the space allocation that we see the (warped) priorities.

your citibike reference is a perfect example of how cars are favored. a citibike rack packs in dozens of bikes in the space of just a few parked cars. this works out to servicing dozens or hundreds of riders a day. parked cars would have accommodated far fewer people in the same space, and might have had little or no turnover during the same time period. so we give (and subsidize!) more space to cars despite them moving fewer people, less efficiently, and with higher pollution and cost. again: priorities. (this article sums it up well.)

of course parking should be available, but alot of drivers get awfully entitled to free & easy parking as far as the eye can see, despite living in the densest city in the nation, where 55%+ people don't own cars, and where we already carve out a huge portion of our very valuable & scarce resource (space).

1

Buddynorris t1_jd1lpwf wrote

I think you lack reading comprehension no offense. This is a TOP 25 MOST DANGEROUS JOBS LIST, meaning any of these jobs are dangerous by nature. Also, like I said above, danger does not alone equal death. Everyone and their mom says the same regurgitated info, without even understanding it to begin with. fascinating stuff.

5

magnetic_yeti t1_jd1jy0g wrote

This just shows NY does more than the other cities, and has the revenue to match. Additionally, because we’re dense we can do more and have the tax base to match. We spend $1,300 per person on policing, just based on the budgeted amount of $10.9 Billion. That’s an absurd amount per resident.

LA spends $3.2 Billion, or $1,000 per person. And LA is sprawling so they don’t get the benefit of density and two officers covering a small territory. LA just does less so has a much smaller budget. I don’t think highways come out of LA’s budget at all, and that’s got to be a bigger share of transportation spending than in NY.

2

testcyp76 t1_jd1h47f wrote

https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-united-states

It's completely true about it being one of the least dangerous jobs. Ranks 22 out of 25. As previously mentioned, many of the more recent deaths were COVID related. Historically, at least half of their on duty deaths were traffic accidents or heart attacks.

−6