undefined | Better HN

0 pointsThatGeoGuy3y ago0 comments

Some of these are things we can control with infrastructure and regulation (e.g. why is your airport so close to housing?), and others aren't really what I would consider problematic noise.

Sirens are an unfortunate reality, but the reason they're so loud is because most cars have a ton of sound-proofing. I'm sure you know this, but you can hear sirens blocks away when they're trying to alert a driver... maybe 20 metres in front of them to move out of the way?

As for excitable drunks, I think there are places where that's a constant problem, but again, this isn't constant and permanent. Traffic noise and airplanes are pretty constant though - I live on what should be a pretty quiet stretch of land but the local stroad always has at least a few really loud cars in the wee hours of the morning. The rest of the day it's just lots of regular cars making a lot of noise as cars are want to do. At least with the excitable drunks they don't make noise all hours of the day, since they have to sleep or be drinking at some point!

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

throwaway220323y ago· 2 in thread

I guess I don't understand what your solution is. Ban cars? Ban loud cars? Make cars have less soundproofing so that sirens can be quieter?

I'd be happy to ban loud cars, my understanding is that most places already have restrictions on stuff like e.g. motorbike silencers. Whether it's actually enforced is another thing.

If the solution is to ban cars because you don't like the noise, it sounds like you just don't like cars. They are pretty damn useful though, I'd put them in the category of construction noise - mildly annoying, unless it's yours, because you get the rewards then.

ThatGeoGuyOP3y ago

> If the solution is to ban cars because you don't like the noise, it sounds like you just don't like cars.

Guilty as charged. That said: the noise itself isn't entirely just the problem so much as how prolonged it is. Having buses and readily-available public transport that are only loud occasionally and on a fixed schedule isn't the same as a constant stream of traffic. Even if the bus or train is louder (and light rail is usually much, much quieter), it isn't all-day, only at fixed intervals.

There are marginal gains to be had. Reducing the amount of driving and traffic in our cities is good for a lot of reasons, but particularly with noise it's a combination of speed, vehicle size, and overall frequency of vehicles that makes a killer combination.

The solution is to place noise restrictions on vehicles (this goes against manufacturers putting off any kind of noise reduction), reducing speeds (this involves walkable / bikeable infrastructure), and expanding public transit like bus and light rail access to reduce the total number of personal vehicles on the road.

Yes, this will make things "worse" for drivers. But it's not the end of the world. If you ever visit Zurich or Geneva, you'll be able to distinctly tell the difference between an American city and a European city in terms of noise alone :) Zurich's tram system is honestly something that every city should dream of having, and it is as quiet as one could hope for.

throwaway220323y ago

Fair enough.

I'm British. I've been to Zurich, I've also been to Los Angeles, you could probably put them as being close to diametrically opposite in terms of transport.

I don't really see why they can't both exist. America doesn't have many places like the European capitals, even somewhere like NYC still has pretty wide streets.

I don't personally think that "reducing the amount of driving" in a place that already exists is a justifiable opinion for an individual to have, it's not like we're talking about knife or gun crime here.

A more sensible approach is to increase overall mobility. If that means replacing a lane with a tram it might make sense. We have a ton of bus lanes here in London and it works well.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse