:beer: Actually, I'll be attending a frame building class in Oregon sometime next year, and I might take some extra time to tour the coast. So...maybe. :)

Frame building, eh? Very niize. Where are you doing that?

Anyway, open invite, and I've got the first case. We could even heckle both Bruce Gordon and Grant Peterson's crüe in the same day if you're up for the ride. Riv's a bit farther out though at about 60 miles or so.

What about people who own or use cars very cheaply?
I have driven a paid off vehicle for years, it has over 200,00 miles.
All I have to do is pay about 400 dollars per year in Insurance.
It really costs me very little, and mostly I just use it to drive to work.
I also don't live in a mansion ( a small house) or spend much money. I save over 20 percent of my income.
Why isn't that as good as someone who is car free and broke or wastes money on CD's and electronics and clothes, and flushes money fdown the drain in rent?

It's up to you. It honestly doesn't make anybody a better human for not driving a car, it just makes me feel better about myself and the impact I have on my surroundings.

I used to drive a paid off car ('77 camaro *sighs*) that had around the same mileage as yours... but some jackass decided to rip out the tube to my fuel line, therefore forcing me back on foot/bike. At that time, I was seriously poor, lived in a rooming house, had a part time job, and survived off of eating mangos off our tree (in hawaii, mind you). At that point, everything costed so much that I just didn't want to deal with it.

It's up to you. Do what makes you feel better, not wtf everybody else tells you to do. I'm hungerz... <3

Ha Ha! Guess who's resorted to flaming me via PM? Sad.

to quote r.a.m.b.o. - "in some cases, cars are okay, but when I'm on the street, you're all my enemies."

Ha Ha! Guess who's resorted to flaming me via PM? Sad.

Wow. You should start another thread in the "anything goes" area and post his messages.

I guess at least you know he's not going to drive halfway across the country to confront you physically. Because cars are evil. Except his, 'cause it helps him save lives - hey, there should be a TV show like that!

Oh well, I guess the notion of private message doesn't mean anything. Post it, you slob.

How much tailpipe did you suck today, oil boy? How much oil did you dump down the storm drains?

I Do ALL my shopping and daily trips by bicycle. I ride everywhere. I ride on vacation. My car gets driven six times a year perhaps 10 tops, and %80-90 percent of its entire mileage has been towards volunteering to help other people.

What are ethics anyway?

If anyone actually cares to read this thread, and not just be a kneejerk car apologist,

I never called mr krist pissed off person a hypocrite, he declared it himself.


like the frog said, "It ain't easy being green."

PMs are Private Messages. If anyone decides they'd like to post a PM without the sender's permission, consider the fact that it will probably result in a temporary ban from the forums.

Thank you,

Expatriate - Forum Moderator

PMs are Private Messages. If anyone decides they'd like to post a PM without the sender's permission, consider the fact that it will probably result in a temporary ban from the forums.
Say, that's a good point, and I hadn't thought of that. I shouldn't have suggested it.

2) a transportation system set up solely to accomodate cars.

And yeah, I resent the hell out of that second one.[/QUOTE]

Put that energy of resentment into the National Bicycle Greenway Project. It's going to beautiful. The first nation wide bicycle path.

Oh well, I guess the notion of private message doesn't mean anything. Post it, you slob.

How much tailpipe did you suck today, oil boy? How much oil did you dump down the storm drains?

I Do ALL my shopping and daily trips by bicycle. I ride everywhere. I ride on vacation. My car gets driven six times a year perhaps 10 tops, and %80-90 percent of its entire mileage has been towards volunteering to help other people.

What are ethics anyway?

If anyone actually cares to read this thread, and not just be a kneejerk car apologist,

I never called mr krist pissed off person a hypocrite, he declared it himself.


like the frog said, "It ain't easy being green."
Where you molested by auto mechanics at a young age, or something? Everyone who's read this thread knows what a great guy you are, and all the MacGuyverish stuff you do on a day-to-day basis, so no need to be defensive.

PMs are Private Messages. If anyone decides they'd like to post a PM without the sender's permission, consider the fact that it will probably result in a temporary ban from the forums.

Thank you,

Expatriate - Forum Moderator
What do you get for name-calling?

"2) a transportation system set up solely to accomodate cars."

And yeah, I resent the hell out of that second one
Put that energy of resentment into the National Bicycle Greenway Project. It's going to beautiful. The first nation wide bicycle path.

I agree with the sentiment of that quote, originally from budstser I think, about "a transportation system set up solely to accomodate cars", but using the phrase "set up" feeds into a common misconception. The road system has existed for a lot longer than cars, and is (in theory) intended for multiple uses, but cars and drivers have bullied their way into dominance. It's more accurate to say something like: "a road system co-opted to accomodate cars".

What do you get for name-calling?

Lunch with Raiyn and Helmet Head.

Lunch with Raiyn and Helmet Head.

How does Raiyn pull off the blue text and barely-applicable JPGs in real life? Does he carry a slide projector or something?

And suddenly, my thread takes a terrible turn...

Gosh this is fun. NOT! I would get us back on topic if I could remember what the topic is. Anybody?

I asked if someone could please explain the contempt that the car-free folks felt towards motorists. Then it became a girly-slapping fight between a few members, with a few valid points thrown in. Oh, and I was pilloried for having an interest in bikes and motor vehicles. Now I just moderate, as my question was vaguely answered, but I have my own suspicions.

I don't hold contempt for car owners.

I am just content to be car free.

Gosh this is fun. NOT! I would get us back on topic if I could remember what the topic is. Anybody?
In a way, all this is on topic. Many people feel pasionately that car culture is killing the planet, yet find it hard to avoid complicity in their own lives, since it's almost impossible to live car-free in a car-dependant world. So you see strongly emotional posts fueled jointly by blame and guilt.

I asked if someone could please explain the contempt that the car-free folks felt towards motorists. Then it became a girly-slapping fight between a few members, with a few valid points thrown in. Oh, and I was pilloried for having an interest in bikes and motor vehicles. Now I just moderate, as my question was vaguely answered, but I have my own suspicions.

You know how it is... a few bad apples, etcetera - that goes for both the completely brazen, "if you fart or buy anything from anyone who drives a car, you're polluting or contributing to it and that makes your whole hippie green argument hypocritical and cars are great without exceptions" types as much as the car-free, superzealot, "I'm saving the world for the next generation and you should too, and you should live according to my will because nobody is allowed to be selfish in my perfect world in my mind" opinion-imposers. At either end of the extreme, there's a little wrap-around where they just become barking little caricatures of each other in every other sense than their inability to agree.

I think this is what I most dislike about internet forums.

For what it's worth Expatriate, I'm car-free and I don't hate you and I don't care what you do with your automobiles. I feel pretty good about me and the people I tend to associate with, and that's all that counts. I went car-free for me.

I feel bad. The newest addition to my bike stable will probably be delivered by truck next week. Surely there's a cyclist out there willing to transport it from the seller to me.

Being facetious will get you nowhere fast.

This thread IS nowhere.

Being facetious will get you nowhere fast.

You can't blame me for where this thread has gone. I was just noting to myself the irony of it all. I won a Raleigh Twenty folder on ebay Australia. It will probably be delivered by courier, and I find this amusing. Being facetious would be saying that I bought a folding bike to keep in the boot of my car. :D

This thread IS nowhere.Okay. How's this;
I am proudly car-free. I hate all fat-slovenly cagers and canot even fathom a reason why someone would even want or need a car. None of the products I own have ever been touched by the driver of a plane, train or automobile. I'm very self-righteous, but it's A-OK because this is the car-free forum and that's all we do here.

Was that better? What direction do you want this thread to go? Even the flaming wasn't really off-topic. I like the threads where we all pat ourselves on the back,too, but I sometimes like to discuss points of dissention among our "ranks," as well. Add something worthwhile, or don't click on it. Simple.

Okay. How's this;
I am proudly car-free. I hate all fat-slovenly cagers and canot even fathom a reason why someone would even want or need a car. None of the products I own have ever been touched by the driver of a plane, train or automobile. I'm very self-righteous, but it's A-OK because this is the car-free forum and that's all we do here.

Was that better? What direction do you want this thread to go? Even the flaming wasn't really off-topic. I like the threads where we all pat ourselves on the back,too, but I sometimes like to discuss points of dissention among our "ranks," as well. Add something worthwhile, or don't click on it. Simple.
I believe your first paragraph does sum up the content and tone of contempt of the car-free forum. Which is A-OK with me as long as what is posted here, stays here, and is NEVER confused or mistaken for bicycling advocacy by those who are not members of the self righteous back patting gang.

I asked if someone could please explain the contempt that the car-free folks felt towards motorists. Then it became a girly-slapping fight between a few members, with a few valid points thrown in. Oh, and I was pilloried for having an interest in bikes and motor vehicles. Now I just moderate, as my question was vaguely answered, but I have my own suspicions.

Then close your own thread. Honestly, don't tell me you expected complete civility, as your thread topic put car-free folks in the category of hating people who drive cars. it's "car culture" remember?

nice to read your text again ;)

Then close your own thread.
Is that because he's a moderator, or can we ordinary mortals close threads we started?

okay... THREAD CLOSED.

-Forum Member.











































crap! well, I tried :B

I'd like to propose a theory to explain what Expatriate refers to as contempt for the automobile and hence those who drive them. I would first conjecture that there is a wider range of response to the automobiles (and their drivers) on the part of most cyclists who live, or try to live, as car-free as possible. That range runs from respect, empathy, sympathy, pity, through shallow disinterest to outright hatred. And for those of us who have lost friends in collisions when the damned things are driven by drunks or other mentally compromised individuals these feelings can be deep seated to say the least.

My theory is drawn primarily from observations made by Marshall Mcluhan (http://www.marshallmcluhan.com), a social visionary and popular culture theorist known for his work in the 1960's and 70's. He made this observation about the automobile:

The car has become the carapace, the protective and aggressive shell, of urban and suburban man.

He observed that our technology had become extensions of the human self. Just as we are collectively interacting right now on the internet we collectively interact with all technology. Thus a common experience of many bike riders is the feeling of becoming "one with the machine". The bicycle is then an extension of the physical self. The cranks an extension of the legs, pounding in a rhythm with the heart and the lungs, the wheels as a further extension of the legs and the feet. Anyone who has experienced this, whether on a rapid mountain descent or flying through traffic on 6th Avenue, knows viscerally what I am talking about.

The automobile is likewise an extension of the physical self but in a vastly different way. The panoramic visual landscape is compromised. The windows function to deflect air, the roof shields out light, precipitation, the body of the car filters the vast percentage of sounds and smells. The automobile is thus, as Mcluhan so eloquently describes, "an aggressive shell". The experience of driving the automobile (the extended self) tends to be one of distancing the driver (the inner self) from one's environment. The technology not only is a highly effective protective barrier it is also extraordinarily more powerful than the human being without it- hence, it's threatening or at least imposing presence as contrasted with a bicycle.

Since both the bicycle and the automobile are extensions of primarily the human being's locomotor system they both impact what is referred to in biology as "the degree of cephalization"- basically brain size in relationship to body mass. The impact of the bicycle is far more manageable because it's power is relative to the strength of the rider and it's weight and mass is offset by the increase in the human's energy efficiency- so it has little overall change in degree of cephalization. The automobile, however, has proportionately higher mass than the human being thus vastly reducing the degree of cephalization. This is why a child, with a not fully formed brain function and still developing motor skills, can ride a bicycle but would be lethal behind the wheel of a car.

So, basically, no matter how smart we are, or how smart we think we are, we are all "stupider" behind the wheel of a car. We are also, due to it's design, size, mass and power inherently more aggressive and dangerous to those around us. We have more akin to a rhinocerous than a human as soon as we step into a car and shut the door.

What you're sensing as contempt is legitimate fear accompanied by mock displays (pounding on car hoods, kicking doors, flipping the bird etc,) of aggression on the part of cyclists. These displays are necessary to keep these very dangerous beasts away.

Is that because he's a moderator, or can we ordinary mortals close threads we started?

We're all mortals, some of us just have more options on our screen. If you want to close a thread that you started, just hit the SPAM! button, and send a request to the moderators' queue to close the thread. This one looks like it may have some life left, so I'm leaving it open for a bit longer.

Nice try - SpokesInMyPoop. Did you forget to click your heels together 3 times? ;)

I've been reading some of these threads, and there seems to be a common theme. Now, I'm all for seeing more people cycling for fun, and more commuters. Doesn't matter what you ride, or why you ride, just so long as you're riding. But please explain this contempt for car owners.

When I return to the US, I'm going to go into the business of producing utility bikes and associated items like large racks and trailers. But I'll still have 2 cars in the driveway and at least 8 bikes in the garage. Does that mean some of you won't buy from me, because I still drive a car?

Not at all Ex. However, if you are wearing anything which exploits a cotton plant, silkworm or the polyester moth, I'll probably rethink our business relationship. :D

Not at all Ex. However, if you are wearing anything which exploits a cotton plant, silkworm or the polyester moth, I'll probably rethink our business relationship. :D

I'm sure I've got a self-incriminating hemp joke somewhere up my sleeve...

Nice try - SpokesInMyPoop. Did you forget to click your heels together 3 times? ;)

Is that it?! Why didn't you tell me?!? :p

Is that it?! Why didn't you tell me?!? :p

Can't give away all our secrets.

I'd like to propose a theory to explain what Expatriate refers to as contempt for the automobile and hence those who drive them. I would first conjecture that there is a wider range of response to the automobiles (and their drivers) on the part of most cyclists who live, or try to live, as car-free as possible. That range runs from respect, empathy, sympathy, pity, through shallow disinterest to outright hatred. And for those of us who have lost friends in collisions when the damned things are driven by drunks or other mentally compromised individuals these feelings can be deep seated to say the least.

My theory is drawn primarily from observations made by Marshall Mcluhan (http://www.marshallmcluhan.com), a social visionary and popular culture theorist known for his work in the 1960's and 70's. He made this observation about the automobile:



He observed that our technology had become extensions of the human self. Just as we are collectively interacting right now on the internet we collectively interact with all technology. Thus a common experience of many bike riders is the feeling of becoming "one with the machine". The bicycle is then an extension of the physical self. The cranks an extension of the legs, pounding in a rhythm with the heart and the lungs, the wheels as a further extension of the legs and the feet. Anyone who has experienced this, whether on a rapid mountain descent or flying through traffic on 6th Avenue, knows viscerally what I am talking about.

The automobile is likewise an extension of the physical self but in a vastly different way. The panoramic visual landscape is compromised. The windows function to deflect air, the roof shields out light, precipitation, the body of the car filters the vast percentage of sounds and smells. The automobile is thus, as Mcluhan so eloquently describes, "an aggressive shell". The experience of driving the automobile (the extended self) tends to be one of distancing the driver (the inner self) from one's environment. The technology not only is a highly effective protective barrier it is also extraordinarily more powerful than the human being without it- hence, it's threatening or at least imposing presence as contrasted with a bicycle.

Since both the bicycle and the automobile are extensions of primarily the human being's locomotor system they both impact what is referred to in biology as "the degree of cephalization"- basically brain size in relationship to body mass. The impact of the bicycle is far more manageable because it's power is relative to the strength of the rider and it's weight and mass is offset by the increase in the human's energy efficiency- so it has little overall change in degree of cephalization. The automobile, however, has proportionately higher mass than the human being thus vastly reducing the degree of cephalization. This is why a child, with a not fully formed brain function and still developing motor skills, can ride a bicycle but would be lethal behind the wheel of a car.

So, basically, no matter how smart we are, or how smart we think we are, we are all "stupider" behind the wheel of a car. We are also, due to it's design, size, mass and power inherently more aggressive and dangerous to those around us. We have more akin to a rhinocerous than a human as soon as we step into a car and shut the door.

What you're sensing as contempt is legitimate fear accompanied by mock displays (pounding on car hoods, kicking doors, flipping the bird etc,) of aggression on the part of cyclists. These displays are necessary to keep these very dangerous beasts away.

I love you.

That said, a lot of my contempt for cars at this moment has to do with the fact that I could've died last week, and the accident that totalled my bike in sept. In both cases, I had the right of way and wasn't doing anything wrong. I'm gradually getting over the shock of that, but having a car run a red light at about 45mph and missing you by inches (and feeling the draft of the car) would scare ANYBODY... unless if you were suicidal. Then just ride off a bridge.

Drivers can get too jaded. That I understand, because I used to own a car (on even less money than I make now! and higher cost of living! not to mention, the most exp. gas in the nation at the time! Go figure!), and many times I felt like a zombie piloting a huge mass of metal... zoning out.

wait, what? Oh, pass me my americano, plz.

My theory is drawn primarily from observations made by Marshall Mcluhan (http://www.marshallmcluhan.com), a social visionary and popular culture theorist known for his work in the 1960's and 70's. He made this observation about the automobile:

He observed that our technology had become extensions of the human self...
i agree. especially if you grow up in the car culture as most of us here have, you hardly even notice the "side effects" of driving...

i have observed that most normal, pleasant, "nice" people who get in a car and drive in traffic become impatient, angry, and aggressive --- the car isoltaes one from the environment and gives the impression that any thing other than a clear free road to go as fast as possible is a hindrance - a bad thing! and this build agrression and anger... the extreme results are road-rage. -- sure in a shopping mall you might be annoyed if you are in a hurry to get somewhere to buy something and a group is walking REALLY slowly 3-abreast and blocking your path, but the likelihood that you would "walk over them" or push them out of the way or pose a real threat or danger to them is highly unlikely - such aggressive anti-social behavior is not accepted AT THE HUMAN SCALE. but in a car you can tailgate or "lay on the horn" or "play chicken" or cut someone off or force someone out of a lane or off the road and it is mostly considered "ok" in our society. (and dangerous!!) -- think about the equivalent to honking or tailgating or cutting someone off pedestrain to pedestrian: the perpetrator is considered a real a*hole, but more importantly, no real danger is created.

this also affects the design of cities. often you hear "i would bike, but..." with the reason being that its "too dangerous" because of cars or "too inconvenient" b/c of auto-centric design (i.e. multi-lane road or interstate).

the auto-centric attitude permeates virtually our entire society. in Europe it is at least a little more evident as the many pre-auto city/villiage layouts still exist -- a pedestrian zone in europe is a wonderful thing: it is set up on the scale of PEOPLE with all kinds of "quality of life" benefits: quieter, safer, prettier, etc. -- you can walk directly form A to B without following a auto-layout grid with stoplights and yeild signs as PEOPLE can negotiate this at their own level.

As has been written in many books (e.g. Kunstler's Geography of Nowhere) Americans love Disney World or amusement parks primarily because they offer this HUMAN SCALE that average American life does not offer. but people pay big bucks to go to some fake landscape but rarely make the connection that they COULD have this is every day life. or IF they consider it, oh my God, they'd have to make a few changes and sometimes not be able to take the car everywhere with free parking right in front of the door, etc. --- the auto-centric mindset is so ingrained that it is difficult to think outside the box.

auto-centric and cars have all these negative effects:
* pollution
* danger to others in society (auto "accidents" are basically accepted as ok in our society.
* design at the scale of the auto instead of HUMAN SCALE (i.e. wide streets, high speeds, spread out low-density development so walking is difficult, large land areas used for parking, etc)
* anti-social behavior through isolation in a car (agrression towards others that "slow one down")

as i have said elsewhere i am not anti-car, and i also own one (car-lite), but i do not think cars should rule and dominate our world - people should! a person should not be "allowed" to get in a car and act anti-socially by "attacking" and endangering others just "because it's my dang right to drive wherever i want" -- and then this extends to other areas like government spending (tax dollars) and tax breaks and foreign policy (oil) and whatnot...

we as a society should THINK about when and how it is beneficial and appropriate to use cars and do so only when appropriate. but when it is not (e.g. in urban areas where cars just don't work b/c of traffic and space required for parking and danger to pedestrains/cyclists), then we should limit auto "rights" to protect the rights of PEOPLE -- rather than allowing the auto to dictate all policy and decisions (under the philosophy that cars are a $$$ source so must be supported/subsidized at all "costs"! i.e. social/society/quality-of-life costs)

Honestly, don't tell me you expected complete civility, as your thread topic put car-free folks in the category of hating people who drive cars.

Well said, Spokes.

So, any car-owners wanna have a go at explaining the contempt that car-owning people have for car-free people?

Well said, Spokes.

So, any car-owners wanna have a go at explaining the contempt that car-owning people have for car-free people?Bikes on the road mean I get to the buffet a full 5 seconds late. At that point, the terrorists have already won.
:)

So, any car-owners wanna have a go at explaining the contempt that car-owning people have for car-free people?

Oh, and while I'm whining about contempt, (on a whiny thread) anybody wanna explain why at least one poster was saying (contemptuously, it seemed to me) about how people who are car-free by choice have nothing in common with people who are car-free because they're poor? The way our economic system works (it seems to me that) some people in this world have gotta be too poor to have cars, and there's no sense disrespecting them for that.