The People's Dynasty: Culture and Society in Modern China

https://www.recordedbooks.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=scholar.show_course&course_id=145

Professor Shepard does a great job of helping us understand the China of today. We does a great job of explaining the seeming paradox of rampant commercialization of a communist country. Digging below the surface, it is not that great of a paradox after all. Chinese are free to do pretty much everything they want - as long as they don't criticize the government. The one party structure is also not that different than the government in other Asian countries. Singapore has achieved huge economic success under a benevolent dictator. Japan developed under a one-party leadership. The one party system in China is not all that different.

The discussion of tourism in China helped to understand what I have seen there. Most tourist sites are filled with tour buses and many tour groups. Even the "nature" sites are overdeveloped, with many amenities and people. This is explained as a desire to visit important sites of cultural importance. The site is the important in its historical context. It is experienced collectively rather than individually.

It was also interesting to learn about the "other side" of China. In daily life, I've mostly seen the urban middle class. However, in the train station, I noticed another side of China. These included more of the lower classes and migrants. I can now see better how these classes are more severely impacted by change. The promise of communism and cradle to grave protections and benefits would have been a better situation than the hustle and bustle they are currently in. The previous peasant way of life was swept out from under there feet with a lot of hard work in its place. The high speed rail system simply makes it more expensive for them to travel back home. (As opposed to providing an alternative to flying for the middle classes.)

Another interesting discussion was on the difference between a post-car and pre-car society. The story was told of an American teacher in China who complemented the Chinese for riding their bikes everywhere in all kinds of weather. The students' response was that they didn't have an option. (A mere 25 years ago, cars were few and far between in China.) They would much rather be like in America where they didn't have to. Fast forward a few decades and cars and traffic jams are everywhere in China's big cities. The government is trying to encourage people to not drive so much. They are also undergoing massive efforts to build out subways, high speed rail and other transportation systems. I have known people in China who switched from driving to work to taking public transit - with one of the primary rationales being to increase health (by walking to stops, instead of driving everywhere.) China may really well be learning from the case of the US, and encouraging the switch to post-car society before the auto culture gets too firmly in place.

Red lights bikes sunnyvale

Ugghh. It is annoying when a road has a bike symbol painted on it, yet it doesn't actually trip the light. (Or even more annoying when it trips the opposing red, but then doesn't trip your green.)

How do you resolve?

1) Provide feedback when a light will turn green.

2) Always provide green lights (fixed time cycle). This benefits bikes and pedestrians.

3) Do the Idaho and let bikes run red lights.

4) Have a button to press.

In some cases, there are buttons, but they are usually pedestrian buttons. And the rage is to have only one crosswalk at less-busy intersections (precisely the ones that bikes and peds like to use!)

Making the sensors too sensitive can be a problem.  There are some intersections that trip a turn light, even though cars are in the opposite lane. D'oh!

The old-fashioned timed lights would probably be cheaper, and nicer for everyone, as long as they are timed decently.

Feedback could be a good solution, especially at some of the annoying long lights. (But, why not just make them less long.)

Sunnyvale has, alas, been going backwards. At the intersection of Mary and Fremont there used to be a button to press. Now there is a bike symbol on the pavement. Alas, this is right where right turning cars go. If you go there with a bike, you are likely to either annoy cars, or have cars try to turn right in front of you. If you don't go there, you may not get a green light.  A lose-lose situation.

Traffic

Traffic provides an interesting synthesis of a wide variety of research on "traffic". There are a number of great insights in the book. The key takeaway, however, is that "traffic" is a "social activity", though it is often treated as an engineering problem. If automobiles are made more safe, people will probably just use the safety to kill others instead of themselves. If traffic is made to move faster, people will often use the speed premium to drive further. (People could never have commuted 200 miles a day on foot. However, with cars, some people now do it.)

Traffic problems also date back to ancient times, with Rome suffering from traffic chariot congestion a few millennia ago. (They eventually outlawed daytime traffic, making it difficult for Romans to sleep at night - due to all the nighttime traffic.) One of the issues with traffic today, especially in America, is that it focuses almost exclusively on automobile traffic (with pedestrians viewed as "impediments"). This focus leads to most trips being taken in automobile, which ends up leading to congestion and slower travel times. Even in places like Manhattan where the overwhelming majority of trips are on foot, the majority of the traffic space and resources are devoted to automobiles - with even the signals timed to benefit cars instead of pedestrians.

There is also an interesting comparison of traffic fatalities across nations. Wealthier, more established nations tend to have lower fatality rates. However, this tends to be more a result of the nations being less corrupt. A more corrupt wealthy nation will tend to have a much higher rate than a less corrupt one. Perhaps it is the decrease in corruption associated with wealth that really leads to the lower fatality rate.

The traffic culture also causes some interesting behavior. Drivers in the US will often speed down a road, but stop at a red light - even if no cars are anywhere in sight. Both activities are illegal, but when is considered acceptable, while the other is not. Perception also plays in to the peculiar sentiments and activities. People perceive SUVs as being safer. Yet, SUVs are statistically more dangerous. Is it the personal control that causes this? And while people are willing to take away personal liberties to fight the minor threat of terrorism, they are not willing to do so to fight the much larger threat of automobile crashes.

The author also does a good job of picking apart statistics and our view of them. There are plenty of well sighted studies that come to conclusions after aggregating accident data. However, looking at the data from a different perspective can produce the opposite results. For example, safety data seems to say that a wide road with large buffer zone between the road and buildings is safer. Yet analysis of individual roads shows the narrower sections with buildings nearer to the road have fewer crashes - even though both carry similar traffic volumes. It seems that people often consume the added safety. Perhaps the Dutch idea of integrating roads with human space and stripping away signs really is the way to go.

This book is one of the most objective views of the "traffic" issue. It picks apart at much of the "received" wisdom, yet doesn't attempt to force a specific solution on it. After all, most people would love for everyone else to take transit. They want their street to be a quiet tree-lined road, while the free-flowing super expressway sits just out of earshot.