What, you have to be 'single' or 'married'? What about common-law? Ok, I expect polyamorous people like me to be ignored, but at the very least you should include "common-law couple" and "civil/registered partnership", both of which have legal recognition in some countries.

(Am I missing any other legal relationship type that wouldn't fit in the above generic terms?)

Out of 55 respondents, almost 80% are single.

This poll does not contradict my theory that a car-free lifestyle is much more doable for a single person.

Helmet Head. I don't think it is much more doable for a single person.

My theory is that people willing to live out of the car culture (and willing to make the necessary choices) are few, and the chances of those finding a carfree life partner as well are slim. Let along finding a carfree life partner that wants to found a family.

What do you think?

Helmet Head. I don't think it is much more doable for a single person.

My theory is that people willing to live out of the car culture (and willing to make the necessary choices) are few, and the chances of those finding a carfree life partner as well are slim. Let along finding a carfree life partner that wants to found a family.

What do you think?

This assumption is a logical stretch, and completely wrong, IMHO. :rolleyes:

Out of 55 respondents, almost 80% are single.

This poll does not contradict my theory that a car-free lifestyle is much more doable for a single person.
Or maybe single people with fewer responsibilities (no spouse, no kids, etc.) just have more time to kill on internet message boards. To get a more accurate read, you should post this exact same poll in every sub forum of bikeforums. Something like, "I visit bikeforums regularly and..." then keep all of the possible answers the same. My theory is that the results would be somewhat similar.

I would guess kids would be the big divider between "I am car free" and "I would be car free but..."

I think I see what HH is driving at (no pun intended), but I won't spoil the party. However, I think practicality/convenience is the real issue here, and that proper planning could change everything. I think the foot, rather than the bicycle would be the carfree "vehicle" of choice in the well-designed sustainable city.

Urban planning for human-scale cityscapes would allow parents to walk with their kids to the store, to the park, to school, to the doctor, to their friends' houses -- in short, everywhere they needed to go. I was raised by a carfree Mom, and that's what we did -- we walked everywhere. Well, almost everywhere. Going to the doctor required a bus ride, and out of town daytrips required a train ride.

Anyone growing up in this town today would probably find it hard to imagine that just 30 years ago
All normal amenities were within walking distance for everyone within this town's city limit
We had functional, comprehensive public transport
We were served by at least 2 intercity bus lines and 1 rail line

I hope to someone 30 years from now, it will be equally mind-boggling that none of that was true circa 2000.

I would guess kids would be the big divider between "I am car free" and "I would be car free but..."
I believe the poll would be even more revealing if the responses from those "with child(ren)" included info on child age and live at home status.

Being car free with a 25 year old healthy "child" not living at home, is different than being car free and directly and daily responsible for the welfare and transportation requirements of preschoolers or school age children.

Good point. This is very true.

Speaking as someone who loves to bicycle (and will do it at every chance, including over 20 years of daily bike commuting) and is unhappy spending money unless it is nessasary, wishes to be car-free (as I was for years, before my wife and I had children) and has since raised a family, I think it is much more doable for a single person.

I expect to live 95% car-free now that I've moved. and I'm not single; I live with my partner of 2.5 years. But we moved two days ago and it's been about 15 hours since I last used her car. We might become car-free in the coming weeks but more likely, we'll have a car that we use several times per year. Before the move, I was car-lite but not by any means car free.

edit:I didn't vote in the poll, for obvious reasons.

Speaking as someone who loves to bicycle (and will do it at every chance, including over 20 years of daily bike commuting) and is unhappy spending money unless it is nessasary, wishes to be car-free (as I was for years, before my wife and I had children) and has since raised a family, I think it is much more doable for a single person.
My guess is that the only people (with rare exception) who will disagree with your observation have little, or more likely, zero experience with working AND raising a family (or being responsible for providing transportation to a dependent person) in an autocentric environment.

My take so far:

You can be carfree without kids if you're willing to make a moderate effort, even if you live in a "car-scale" designed place.

You can be carfree with kids, if you're willing to make a moderate effort, provided you live in a "ped-scale" designed place.

You can be carfree with kids in a "car-scale" designed place only if you're willing to make extraordinary efforts.

I haven't really thought much about it before, but i've spent a fair bit being car free.

For 5 years, while living in a small town, my family was car free and it seemed to be not too difficult compared to when we moved to a big city where we continued to be car free for another 6 years.

My wife and I lived together for 4 years car free and then the kids came along, and so did a car. It's been 23 years now.

I would guess kids would be the big divider between "I am car free" and "I would be car free but..."

I think I see what HH is driving at (no pun intended), but I won't spoil the party. However, I think practicality/convenience is the real issue here, and that proper planning could change everything. I think the foot, rather than the bicycle would be the carfree "vehicle" of choice in the well-designed sustainable city.

Urban planning for human-scale cityscapes would allow parents to walk with their kids to the store, to the park, to school, to the doctor, to their friends' houses -- in short, everywhere they needed to go. I was raised by a carfree Mom, and that's what we did -- we walked everywhere. Well, almost everywhere. Going to the doctor required a bus ride, and out of town daytrips required a train ride.

Anyone growing up in this town today would probably find it hard to imagine that just 30 years ago
All normal amenities were within walking distance for everyone within this town's city limit
We had functional, comprehensive public transport
We were served by at least 2 intercity bus lines and 1 rail line

I hope to someone 30 years from now, it will be equally mind-boggling that none of that was true circa 2000.
I totally agree. In fact I just 5 minutes ago posted similarly on the "How simply do you live?" thread. Great minds.....:)

Carfree people in America are in some ways pioneers. Pioneers do tend to be young and relatively unencumbered.

But there are plenty of encumbered people who don't own cars, too. Many have had to us a lot of ingenuity to get by without a car.

But, In dense urban areas like Manhattan, a much larger proportion of people don't own cars. Many of them don't identify themselves as "carfree" per se; they just don't see any reason that they should own a car when mass transit is good and most services are close at hand. These people, even if they belong to BF, are unlikely to come to this subforum.

I totally agree. In fact I just 5 minutes ago posted similarly on the "How simply do you live?" thread. Great minds.....:)

Carfree people in America are in some ways pioneers. Pioneers do tend to be young and relatively unencumbered.

But there are plenty of encumbered people who don't own cars, too. Many have had to us a lot of ingenuity to get by without a car.

But, In dense urban areas like Manhattan, a much larger proportion of people don't own cars. Many of them don't identify themselves as "carfree" per se; they just don't see any reason that they should own a car when mass transit is good and most services are close at hand. These people, even if they belong to BF, are unlikely to come to this subforum.

Good point about NYC, Roody. From what I've heard from ppl that moved here from NYC, the deciding factor of owning a car there is finding a place to park the damn thing. They've said you wind up hoofing it or riding the bus for miles from the parking garage, so you're better off not having one anyway. Unless you commute in from Jersey or upper NY.
Slvoid can probably verify that.

I hope to someone 30 years from now, it will be equally mind-boggling that none of that was true circa 2000.
There are actually some signs of a revival in urban living in the next 20 years or so. Generation Y-ers tend to gravitate towards cities now. The traffic in the exurban neighborhoods are so bad right now that I'm not sure if it is sustainable in the next 20 years. Quality of life will diminish and people might want to go even futher from the urban core, but inevitably, they will be back in the central cities because only then will an efficient public transporation be feasable. Otherwise, they will just have to deal with the ever lenghtening commute times. There is simply no other choice, unless they invented teleporation devices by then.

There are actually some signs of a revival in urban living in the next 20 years or so. Generation Y-ers tend to gravitate towards cities now. The traffic in the exurban neighborhoods are so bad right now that I'm not sure if it is sustainable in the next 20 years. Quality of life will diminish and people might want to go even futher from the urban core, but inevitably, they will be back in the central cities because only then will an efficient public transporation be feasable. Otherwise, they will just have to deal with the ever lenghtening commute times. There is simply no other choice, unless they invented teleporation devices by then.

Only in the US is the city center a less desirable address than the city fringe. It's moronic. I, too, am heartened that some folks "get it."

Vancouver has been pretty progressive in it's re-development. Downtown lands are full of high density housing where people can manage to walk to work and transportation priorities put the automobile on the bottom of the list. All this has made Vancouver one of the highest ranking "livable" cities in the world.

Vancouver has been pretty progressive in it's re-development. Downtown lands are full of high density housing where people can manage to walk to work and transportation priorities put the automobile on the bottom of the list. All this has made Vancouver one of the highest ranking "livable" cities in the world.I have seen aerial photos of Vancouver that show that the dense city just suddenly "stops" and one is then in a rural setting, or almost wilderness. The photos showed an absence of the many miles of suburban development that surround most North American cities. It must be nice, not only for cycling but for walking, wheelchairs, and mass transit.

Would driving kids to sports in an SUV classify for being a responsible parent? ;-)

Vancouver has been pretty progressive in it's re-development. Downtown lands are full of high density housing where people can manage to walk to work and transportation priorities put the automobile on the bottom of the list. All this has made Vancouver one of the highest ranking "livable" cities in the world.

I visited Vancouver for the first time a few months ago, and wow, what a difference from our US cities. I can't wait to come back again, but next time I'm bringing my bike so I can explore more of the city. What is the pop of VBC?

Helmet Head. I don't think it is much more doable for a single person.

My theory is that people willing to live out of the car culture (and willing to make the necessary choices) are few, and the chances of those finding a carfree life partner as well are slim. Let along finding a carfree life partner that wants to found a family.

What do you think?

One of my teachers in high school was car free ( we he was, his wife wasn't) It seems that his car was totaled, they didn't have enough money to buy a new car, he started riding to work.....lost 50 pounds.....I thought he was so wierd ( I was 15, was dreaming of a car for many years). It is so bizarre that I want to go back to not having a car. But then again, I made 29 dollars tonight at work, and spent 27 on filling my tank.......

I have seen aerial photos of Vancouver that show that the dense city just suddenly "stops" and one is then in a rural setting, or almost wilderness. The photos showed an absence of the many miles of suburban development that surround most North American cities. It must be nice, not only for cycling but for walking, wheelchairs, and mass transit.

I visited Vancouver for the first time a few months ago, and wow, what a difference from our US cities. I can't wait to come back again, but next time I'm bringing my bike so I can explore more of the city. What is the pop of VBC?

Vancouver is built right up against the mountains (north) and sea (west) and in the eastern area is the Fraser Valley (ending at Hope at the begining of the interior mountains) that is agricultural (flat) so you can ride in the mountains, by the sea or in the country on the same ride. Downtown has (I think) the second largest urban park in North America, Stanley Park. The area pop is about 2 million but the city proper is only about one half million. Check out this link of slide show photos' and maybe I'll see you guys up here for the 2010 Olympics.

http://www.vancouverscenes.com/swf/index.html

One of my teachers in high school was car free ( we he was, his wife wasn't) It seems that his car was totaled, they didn't have enough money to buy a new car, he started riding to work.....lost 50 pounds.....I thought he was so wierd ( I was 15, was dreaming of a car for many years). It is so bizarre that I want to go back to not having a car. But then again, I made 29 dollars tonight at work, and spent 27 on filling my tank.......

I had a teacher who we thought was very impressive because on nice days, he rode his bike to school.

I found out later, he only lived 1 kilometer from the school.

Or maybe single people with fewer responsibilities (no spouse, no kids, etc.) just have more time to kill on internet message boards. To get a more accurate read, you should post this exact same poll in every sub forum of bikeforums. Something like, "I visit bikeforums regularly and..." then keep all of the possible answers the same. My theory is that the results would be somewhat similar.
Interesting theory, so I took you up on it.

In this carfree poll, out of 68 respondents, the single/non-parent categories dominate with 75%. It's probably higher, since some of the none-of-the-above are probably single/non-parents too.

But over at Advocacy & Safety, out of the 27 respondents so far, the single/no-minor-dependents categories add up to only 30%. The two married/committed with one or more dependents categories have 55%!

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=165903

Clearly this is not scientific, but the dramatic differences are difficult to ignore or attribute to coincidence. And common sense shows that a carfree lifestyle would be much more challenging with a family. Not that it's not challenging when you're single, but it's probably significantly more challenging with a family, particularly with more than one minor dependent.

There is only one (1.47%) "married with more than one child" respondent in the carfree poll, while there are 10 (37.04%) "married/committed with more than one minor dependent" respondents in the advocacy poll. That's a difference by a factor of 25!

It's true that I used slightly different wording in the advocacy poll. I changed "married" to "married/committed" and "child" to "dependent minor". But I don't think those differences would make a significant difference in the results.

For example, did anyone in this poll select "none of the above" instead of "married with more than one child" because you're not married, but committed, with more than one child?

But even if all of the folks who selected none of the above in the carfree poll moved to one of the "I am married/committed" categories, 75% of the carfree would still be single.

My hypothesis - that the carfree lifestyle is a significantly more available option to singles than to familes, practically speaking - stands unblemished.

So what?

So what?
I'll pick that up and carry it a little farther. :)

Is this hypothesis just for the sheer theoretical joy of it, Serge, or do you have a practical application in mind for this?

Bud

My hypothesis - that the carfree lifestyle is a significantly more available option to singles than to familes, practically speaking - stands unblemished.

It is no less available. It is less popular. There are plenty more car-free family lives available on the shelf. It's not that more people "can't" but that they won't, not freely. Incidentally I know 2 single parents with 2 kids who don't drive, riding bikes instead, by choice. They tend not to hang out on boards. With any luck, I'll be half of a couple with 2 kids before long, bike-dependent by choice (1 kid now).

I just think it's a useful factor to consider when discussing carfree issues. That's what.

A carfree lifestyle is logistically more difficult with a family, than without.

If nothing else, families require more square footage to live in that do single people. Housing, by the square foot, is generally more expensive in high density areas, like Manhattan, then in low density area, like the suburbs of, say, Oklahoma City. The carfree lifestyle is easier to pull off in (generally more expensive) high density areas than in (generally less expensive) low density areas.

Then there are factors like minor dependents needing transportation. Just taking my 5 year old to all her birthday parties would become a much more major time synch if I had to bike her to each one. Heck, my wife can't even pull her up the hill we have to climb for half of these parties anyway. So, to go carfree, do I require my daughter to give up her parties. We live in a relatively high density area (for Southern California). We walk to her school and the grocery store (though we do drive to Costco, etc.). I cycle to work whenever I'm not working from home or need my car to run an errand during the day (like take my wife to the doctor). Etc., etc.

Families make an already difficult carfree lifestyle for singles significantly more difficult.

It is no less available. It is less popular. There are plenty more car-free family lives available on the shelf. It's not that more people "can't" but that they won't, not freely. Incidentally I know 2 single parents with 2 kids who don't drive, riding bikes instead, by choice. They tend not to hang out on boards. With any luck, I'll be half of a couple with 2 kids before long, bike-dependent by choice (1 kid now).

I have a number of Japanese friends with families who are car-free. It's not impossible for most able-bodied people. Heck, cars were only invented a little more than a century ago and the human race forged onward in all the time before that okay.

I don't try to discourage others from using their cars though - it's pointless and devisive and likely to turn them off to any message I intend to send out. Instead, I celebrate those who don't use them or who make a conscious effort to use them less often than is necessary.

If nothing else, families require more square footage to live in that do single people. Housing, by the square foot, is generally more expensive in high density areas, like Manhattan, then in low density area, like the suburbs of, say, Oklahoma City. The carfree lifestyle is easier to pull off in (generally more expensive) high density areas than in (generally less expensive) low density areas.

I suspect a more comprehensive survey would find many car-free people also child-free for the same environmental reasons. For me both decisions were made about 15 years ago, although the decision to be child-free has many other factors.

A carfree lifestyle is logistically more difficult with a family, than without.
Fair enough, but difficulty isn't hardship, and can in fact be pleasurable and deeply rewarding to negotiate; consider sports or playing the piano. Getting around has a strong element of adventure for me because I bike. I warmed up to it as a childless person, and was thrilled to enter the big leagues as a parent.
If nothing else, families require more square footage to live in that do single people. Housing, by the square foot, is generally more expensive in high density areas, like Manhattan, then in low density area, like the suburbs of, say, Oklahoma City. The carfree lifestyle is easier to pull off in (generally more expensive) high density areas than in (generally less expensive) low density areas.
That's true too, but you know what? We own our home in a high-density area because 15 years of working car-free without children has made us rather well off as parents. The down payment on our San Francisco place was arguably less than the cumulative savings against car ownership we garnered over a decade (heck, we were getting $250/mo rent on our parking space from our car-dependent neighbors!), and when we sold that, moving "down" to Portland was even easier.
Then there are factors like minor dependents needing transportation. Just taking my 5 year old to all her birthday parties would become a much more major time synch if I had to bike her to each one. Heck, my wife can't even pull her up the hill we have to climb for half of these parties anyway. So, to go carfree, do I require my daughter to give up her parties. We live in a relatively high density area (for Southern California). We walk to her school and the grocery store (though we do drive to Costco, etc.). I cycle to work whenever I'm not working from home or need my car to run an errand during the day (like take my wife to the doctor). Etc., etc.
I have a product to sell you and your wife, Helmet Head (see site) :D

A year ago, I fell off my bike and broke my arm.
Four months ago, I stepped in a hole and broke my ankle.

The reason I survived this year is that I was able to call my mom and have her take me home and do my shopping. (I did take the bus to the hospital, though!)

That's the kind of thing that's intensely hard to handle when you don't have a car--not just "inconvenient," not just "you could do it if you weren't so lazy." And that's the kind of thing that you really can't predict... if I had a kid, I'd probably have a car.

I just think it's a useful factor to consider when discussing carfree issues. That's what.

A carfree lifestyle is logistically more difficult with a family, than without.

If nothing else, families require more square footage to live in that do single people. Housing, by the square foot, is generally more expensive in high density areas, like Manhattan, then in low density area, like the suburbs of, say, Oklahoma City. The carfree lifestyle is easier to pull off in (generally more expensive) high density areas than in (generally less expensive) low density areas.

Then there are factors like minor dependents needing transportation. Just taking my 5 year old to all her birthday parties would become a much more major time synch if I had to bike her to each one. Heck, my wife can't even pull her up the hill we have to climb for half of these parties anyway. So, to go carfree, do I require my daughter to give up her parties. We live in a relatively high density area (for Southern California). We walk to her school and the grocery store (though we do drive to Costco, etc.). I cycle to work whenever I'm not working from home or need my car to run an errand during the day (like take my wife to the doctor). Etc., etc.

Families make an already difficult carfree lifestyle for singles significantly more difficult.Duh...This issue has been discussed here many times. I mean this is not an earth shattering epiphany.

But think a little further Serge. . . .

Why is it difficult for families to be carfree in this day and age in America? Families survived without cars for thousands of years. They still do, by the billions, in most parts of the world. Only in the last 50 or so years, since WW II, in the small corner of the world that is called, laughably, "developed", has carfree been an issue or a concern for families. Why do you think this has occurred?

Why is it difficult for families to be carfree in this day and age in America? Families survived without cars for thousands of years. They still do, by the billions, in most parts of the world. Only in the last 50 or so years, since WW II, in the small corner of the world that is called, laughably, "developed", has carfree been an issue or a concern for families. Why do you think this has occurred?
Talk about duh, for the same reason that farming made us dependent on farming and industrialization made us dependent on industrialization and the internet has made us dependent on the internet, cars have made us dependent on cars. That's why it is difficult to be carfree in general in this day and age, and especially for families for the reasons stated above.

Cars allowed us to live further from our common destinations then we ever lived before. And, so, we did.

But, check this out. As more and more of us work from home, we could all begin to move to self-contained "villages" where we don't need cars. We walk to the school, grocery store, movies, doctors, etc., and work from home. All the banking and most shopping is online, delivered by UPS and FedEx. Technology brought us the carfull society, and it might be able to take it away.

One hurdle: so far, it's still considerably cheaper to drive to Costco and transport the $250 loot home in the car than pay to have it all shipped from costco.com. So far. Even assuming $1/mile cost of driving a car, the 6 mile roundtrip is only $6. Shipping $250 of toilet paper, paper towel and orange juice costs much more than that. Plus evaluating products in person is much more satisfying than doing it online.

Why is it difficult for families to be carfree in this day and age in America? Families survived without cars for thousands of years. They still do, by the billions, in most parts of the world. Only in the last 50 or so years, since WW II, in the small corner of the world that is called, laughably, "developed", has carfree been an issue or a concern for families. Why do you think this has occurred?
I think cheap energy such as petrocarbons have delivered is best understood as a drug acting upon the body public. It's a stimulant, but it makes fat. It's hallucinogenic, but it promotes unimaginative conformity. It makes the weak believe they are strong and the strong believe they are gods or monsters. It makes people believe they are free when in fact they are simple addicts; consider the word "automobile" (self-mobile), a lie within a lie, as neither it nor its captives behind the wheel are mobile without oil. Oil and the machines it drives demand to be used, and tended to as it burns. Above all it requires space, consumes, cultivates, and explodes it between the people who pretend to control it, dividing and conquering the multi-generational household, the life of neighborhoods and villages, into isolated "nuclear" units at best, lost in nets of motorways, each on a lone trip clinging to tragic caricatures of "family togetherness" in motor-mediated consumption festivals called holidays.

Families and neighborhoods can be reconstituted along primeval lines after the drug passes from the system, though withdrawal will be hell. We'll see it in our lifetimes, I think.

One hurdle: so far, it's still considerably cheaper to drive to Costco and transport the $250 loot home in the car than pay to have it all shipped from costco.com. So far. Even assuming $1/mile cost of driving a car, the 6 mile roundtrip is only $6. Shipping $250 of toilet paper, paper towel and orange juice costs much more than that. Plus evaluating products in person is much more satisfying than doing it online.

cheapest and most satisfying of all: http://xtracycle.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=real_loads&id=10_18_03_costco

cheapest and most satisfying of all: http://xtracycle.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=real_loads&id=10_18_03_costco
:beer:

This is in my future: http://www.bikesatwork.com/bike-trailers/truss-bike-trailer/

6 mile round trip? I just made a 6 mile round trip to Wal-Mart :eek: earlier this evening, returning with 50 lbs of grocs. Rack, panniers and a couple of bunjees. I'm no steely-eyed alpha dog, either.

The only thing I don't like about the BAW trailer is that I will only have to make one or two store runs a week with it, instead of the current 3-4.

I guess that'll leave more time for recreational cycling....

Of course you can always look either for reasons to do something, or reasons not to do something, depending on whether you want to do it or not. That's as true for VC as it is for carfree.

cheapest and most satisfying of all: http://xtracycle.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=real_loads&id=10_18_03_costco

Where do you put the kid?

Where do you put the kid?

the kid seat, of course: http://www.xtracycle.com/product_info.php?cPath=1&products_id=73

or in a trailer: http://todd.cleverchimp.com/cfcamping/cfcamping-Images/9.jpg

I think cheap energy such as petrocarbons have delivered is best understood as a drug acting upon the body public. It's a stimulant, but it makes fat. It's hallucinogenic, but it promotes unimaginative conformity. It makes the weak believe they are strong and the strong believe they are gods or monsters. It makes people believe they are free when in fact they are simple addicts; consider the word "automobile" (self-mobile), a lie within a lie, as neither it nor its captives behind the wheel are mobile without oil. Oil and the machines it drives demand to be used, and tended to as it burns. Above all it requires space, consumes, cultivates, and explodes it between the people who pretend to control it, dividing and conquering the multi-generational household, the life of neighborhoods and villages, into isolated "nuclear" units at best, lost in nets of motorways, each on a lone trip clinging to tragic caricatures of "family togetherness" in motor-mediated consumption festivals called holidays.

Families and neighborhoods can be reconstituted along primeval lines after the drug passes from the system, though withdrawal will be hell. We'll see it in our lifetimes, I think.
+1 +1 +1
You've hit the nail right on the head.
You can stop reading my mind now. :)

Talk about duh, for the same reason that farming made us dependent on farming and industrialization made us dependent on industrialization and the internet has made us dependent on the internet, cars have made us dependent on cars. That's why it is difficult to be carfree in general in this day and age, and especially for families for the reasons stated above.

Cars allowed us to live further from our common destinations then we ever lived before. And, so, we did.

The availability of cheap gas is certainly one factor. But keep looking deeper. Why is gas so cheap? To what extent is this due to free markets, and to what extent were markets manipulated by governments and corporations?

Also, there is some evidence that auto companies in many American cities bought out bus an train services and closed them down, thus eliminating their main competition. Today in Lansing, new auto plants are built in the suburbs and the central city plants are closed, making it imperative that auto workers drive to work. Many other plants and offices have followed he sam path. Why?

One reason is clearly racism. White flight from the cities helped create the suburbs, once autos were available for long commutes. The city of Detroit has lost more than half it's population due mainly to white flight. There are almost no jobs for the people still living in Detroit. No job => no car => no way to get to where the jobs are (suburbs) => no job => . . . .

We're just scratching the surface here. But the big point is that our cities have been deliberately engineered to make private automobiles a necessity for most workers. Like you, I hope new technology will help us find an answer. But until we solve the basic economic, political and, especially, social wrongs, new technology will only seve those who are already well served by the old technology.

The availability of cheap gas is certainly one factor. But keep looking deeper. Why is gas so cheap? To what extent is this due to free markets, and to what extent were markets manipulated by governments and corporations?...


Oil prices are low because it's in the financial interests of a select few to make sure they stay low for as long as possible.

There may still be a lot of oil in the ground. There may not be. Too many people are obfuscating the truth to know for sure. We may keep finding the stuff for the next 100 years or it could run out in a decade.

Once we see where the end really is, those people will have made their billions and they'll leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves.

People who run corporations also run governments - it's less about TNCs or politics and more about the old boys network that controls both of them lining their pockets.
A Canadian friend of mine living in Texas told me "money trumps everything" when we were having a discussion about morality. I'm afraid he's right.

Twowheeledsoul: your analogy of oil as a drug is apt.

That is the sexist thing that I seen in awhile. Thanks for the bikeporn.

Sorry, I skewed the poll. I got carried away and voted "I am married with more than one child" before I remembered that only car-free people are supposed to answer. Like closetbiker, we do have one "family" car, used almost completely by my wife, or by all of us when we are together (so I do even drive it sometimes). So subtract one from that category.

Like some others in my situation, I think it would be almost impossible for us to be car-free. Public transportation is not very convenient here, both in terms of routes and times, and the kids are still too small to be able to walk or ride very far and without our supervision. In addition, my wife is an artist and often needs to transport paintings anywhere from 5 to 50 miles away. Even apart from the distance, I can't see her trusting her paintings to a bike trailer. Still, I'm happy to consider myself "personally car-free", so to speak.

Twowheeledsoul: your analogy of oil as a drug is apt.
I'm not sure if it was me or tfahrner who mentioned oil as an addiction first, but it's GMTA just the same.
Once you think about it, put two and two together and connect the dots, there is is, as plain as the nose on your face.
Then there's the terrorism connection. Most of the oil comes from the middle east, and oil money fuels the contuining volence there - including our up to the neck military involvement in the mess.
The real price of oil? Lots and lots bombs, guns, bullets, and dead people. Crack doesn't do that much damage.

Most of the oil comes from the middle east, and oil money fuels the contuining volence there -

Actually, most of your oil comes from Canada (then Venezueula and Mexico). I thought we were peaceful friends. :)

No, I don't think so.
In 1973, OPEC turned off the tap. The result was dramatic: Many stations hung "no gas" signs, while cars lined up around the block at the few remaining stations with gas for refills. During that year, the cost of gas went way up, and there was a massive boom in bike sales.
Unless Canada, Venezueula and Mexico were OPEC members (and all oil selling middle eastern states are), then that wouldnt've happened.

The real fun begins when the only stuff left is up here, and we'll be turning all of Alberta upside-down to get it.

No, I don't think so.

You should do some research here. You may be suprised at what you learn.


In 1973, OPEC turned off the tap. The result was dramatic: Many stations hung "no gas" signs, while cars lined up around the block at the few remaining stations with gas for refills. During that year, the cost of gas went way up, and there was a massive boom in bike sales.
Unless Canada, Venezueula and Mexico were OPEC members (and all oil selling middle eastern states are), then that wouldnt've happened.

I lived through that and remember it well. There was an even greater reliance on middle east oil then as there is now. Again, learn a little more on the history of OPEC.

This is all not to say the problem has a lot to do with an over reliance on a resource a counrty can't supply itself. There was good progress made after that first crisis to (like us here) do with less use of oil, but I find it amazing after 9/11 the US managed to sell more gas guzzling SUV's than ever before. Didn't we already learn a lesson? (I know I did. I ride my bike everywhere, and when I can't, I drive the most fuel efficient vehicle I can)