Can someone explain to me how you can have a life partner and a lover?

Different moral standards, I suppose. I don't think that's what you meant though. To keep the thread on topic, you should ask if any of the 3 of them own a car.

Can someone explain to me how you can have a life partner and a lover?


go to his site, his isn't hiding anything from anyone.

Different moral standards, I suppose. I don't think that's what you meant though. To keep the thread on topic, you should ask if any of the 3 of them own a car.

We are a car-free household.

Can someone explain to me how you can have a life partner and a lover?

What I am, the show-and-tell subject of the day? :eek:

I am polyamorous. I see no need to have only one committed loving relationship to the exclusion of others. A good starting point for info is the alt.polyamoury FAQ (http://www.polyamory.org/ ) (or from my own site (http://personal.patcroteau.com/poly.htm) ).

Not that I mind personal questions, but this is increasingly off-topic - so please send me private messages about things completely unrelated to the 'Living Car Free' forum.

an added note about earlier childfree discussion issue. most childfree folks aren't concerned with global population. openly childree people are advocates for the understanding and support of those who choose not to have and raise kids, whether single, partnered, gay, straight, or misc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree

it's certainly not a huge civil rights issue, but conversations do often come to topic of "starting a family". at my work i know several straight married couples who just aren't interested, or aren't interested yet, and the convo is always "what are you scared of, let's make some babies". while it may be in good fun, it shows an underlying expectation to conform to that standard, (hey no different than having a car)

often people assume childfree singles or couples are selfish snobs, attending wine tastings and throwing their disposable incomes to the wind. maybe for some, but others are fully functioning and active in their neighborhoods and communites and are teachers, educators, and give much back.

also while not a huge social issue, often times employers and companies are preferencial to moms/dads with kids, and single childfree workers make up the slack. i currently work in a place where my one close co-worker has a couple kids. i have no problem covering for him when he's headed to soccer and volleyball games and 3pm, but he's happy to cover for me when i leave early for my spanish class, or should i want to leave early just to feed ducks in the park. i think my situation is great, but in some workplaces it's not as fair

note the bills in colorado trying to mandate unpaid time off for parents
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Careers/story?id=661009&page=1

of course i'm against this

there's plenty of childfree people that ARE completely anti kids and hate kids. and while i'm not a fan of screaming toddlers and SUV size strollers everywhere, i certainly appreciate parents who discipline and raise their kids right, and when i'm in a restaurant and am suprised there's a well behaved kid sharing the booth behind me i always have a nice complement and smile for the parents. (and yes obnoxious undisciplined kids in adult restaurants and theatres do piss me off)

all the best

It's a different cost evaluation depending on your living circumstances. I am not wealthy, not even middle class, but I'm lucky enough to live in a large enough metropolitan area where I can go car-free with very few problems. Which is cool, because if I had to pay for even the upkeep of a car that was paid off, it would take all my money.

My sister in Chicago, on the other hand, is fairly wealthy, but is car-free as well, because the cost of parking, insurance, etcetera, would be more than the cost of the occasional cab, and walking keeps you in shape.

So two people of different economic situations choosing to go car-free for different reasons.
Neither of us have a situation where we would live in the country and make a long commute to work. If the job was good enough, it would be cost effective, however, I know a lot of people who drive such a long distance to their job they make well under minimum wage.

I'm not one of those car-free nazis, I understand people have different living situations, but if you're in a situation where car-free is feasible, it saves you a lot of money, even if the car is paid off. For the price of a couple insurance payments, an oil change, 4 tires and a parking ticket, you can afford a pretty nice bike. ;)

I understand people have different living situations, but if you're in a situation where car-free is feasible, it saves you a lot of money, even if the car is paid off. For the price of a couple insurance payments, an oil change, 4 tires and a parking ticket, you can afford a pretty nice bike. ;)

It's nice to be able to afford both. But with 3 kids in the house, it's not feasible for us to go without a car. All this will change by the end of the week, hopefully, when I sell the car.

First, I would like to say please stop talking about children if you want to talk about children exclusively unrelated to the OP, start a new thread.

Second, a car would just not be appropriate for my simple lifestyle. Not, that a car cannot be included in a simple lifestyle, but it does not assist me in my. I am able to reach all of my usually spot within 25 miles. I am 22 and male in Boston. Insurance would be a nightmare for me. Parking would also be a hassale. Boston has very good mass transportation system, so even when I need to go further than 25 miles or faster than 20 mph. I can just hope on a croostown bus or get a taxi if appropriate. A car just does not add anything to my life, thus its a burden. The same as a yacht.

Hmm. We used to keep a 48 footer with twin Cat diesels in a slip at Marina Del Rey...

It's nice to be able to afford both. But with 3 kids in the house, it's not feasible for us to go without a car. All this will change by the end of the week, hopefully, when I sell the car.Okay then.

I used to have a crappy 1989 Mazda MPV, well it was "supposedly" owned by my wife and I but the only thing she ever did was drive it and drive it HARD; like over a median and then didn't tell me about it until a year later as I'm wondering why the car had been slowly dying. And she let the kids trash it. She rarely if ever put oil in it--that was my job. And I must have paid more than it was worth at least twice to have the thing worked on. In just insurance costs alone we must have paid five times the value of the vehicle to insurance companies during the time we owned it. Compared to the cost of per-month outlay, monthly bus passes are awesome.

I've never had a ticket or been in an accident and neither has my wife.
In the end I donated it. I firmly believe the car economy makes the fat-cats fatter, and I mean that in both money and blubber.

If an insurance underwriter's genitals wither and they find themselves capable of only saying "dogpoosy" in variable intonations...it's nothing personal.

As for all other tolls paid through the miracle of car ownership I'm amazed at just how much a paid-off car can cost. For people who work in downtown Tucson good parking can cost more than the bluebook cost of my former car per year. Insurance IS MANDATORY in Arizona, and anyone who only sees their mechanic once in a great while, they're either related to you or you really didn't have a mechanical problem in the first place. Otherwise just one visit can be the start of a new friendship where you get to pay someone when the next thing fails, and the next, and the next, and so on and so forth. And isn't in wonderful that so many newer cars are impossible to work on unless you have a curious vocabulary of odd tools and computers?

My pricey BAW 64 trailer will have paid for itself in saved cab-fare for grocery store trips in six more weeks, and that's just for grocery shopping. I've made plenty of other trips, too many to account for, which more than justify paying good money for a good trailer.

And finally, being car-free, I have been able to afford health insurance for the family even as raises have been slow in coming. And as much as I hate it, when you have kids, health insurance can pay off pretty big when it comes to not having to make a large outlay when there's an emergency.

And isn't in wonderful that so many newer cars are impossible to work on unless you have a curious vocabulary of odd tools and computers?


+1 to all those comments

with many cars now you can't even change a headlight or flasher bulb without having to take the thing to a garage

+1 to all those comments

with many cars now you can't even change a headlight or flasher bulb without having to take the thing to a garage


-1

You can buy a computer code reader or have a place like autozone do it. Those problems don't occur all that often.
Usually it's the time old problem like tie rod ends and stuff. Yeas you can still change out a headlight.
Another smart move is to own something common that was in production a long time.
Ranger, S-10, Taurus, civic, corolla.

I could live without kids but i want a car.

Can someone explain to me how you can have a life partner and a lover?He's got a cool website that explains it all in more detail than you would expect. The link is in his sig.

Of course he should have more stuff aout bikes on his site. :)

Same here, no children either.
Overpopulation-the problem no one ever wants to talk about.

So why the huge house and big vehicles?

So why the huge house and big vehicles?
Those are fairly small vehicles, that get good mileage. Get a grip.

Get a grip.
I have a grip. The OP started this thread about vehicle ownership, presumably defending it against critics, so a question about his own vehicles is perfectly legit. Often when people explain why they drive a truck or an SUV they say it's because that's what they need to support their large family. I was just curious what his reasoning was, since he doesn't have kids.
Those are fairly small vehicles.
Size is relative. A pickup truck and a (small) SUV/station wagon are a lot bigger than a Mini-Cooper and a Smart Car.

Cooker: a "Smart" costs nearly $30,000 CAD. A Toyota Echo starts at under half that and does almost as good on mileage as the Smart. How smart does a Smart sound in that light? Further, I'd wager with the limited production of the Smart vs Toyota, the Toyota represents much lesser embodied energy than the Smart - ie: the Toyota is actually better for the environment when you factor the economies of scale involved.

Those are fairly small vehicles, that get good mileage. Get a grip.
Um, those vehicles are a hell of a lot bigger than a bike, and the mileage is much worse.

Obviously most of us on this forum (Carfree, duh) start from a different set of premises than do you and the OP. We're trying to find practical ways of living without cars. You're pedaling as hard as you can to justify and rationalize your car ownership.

I don't know why you feel a need to explain your choice to own cars, unless you have a sneaking suspicion that there might be a better way, if only you had the imagination and courage to discover it. Again I have no problem with your decision to own a bunch of cars. But come on a carfree forum and brag about it, and you might get flamed a little.

Have a nice ride! :)

Judging from the photo it looks like FXJohn (the OP) has a pretty sweet setup, maybe in a pleasant low key suburban area. Personal motor vehicles are the enabling technology for that lifestyle.

Personally I'd miss the chaotic ruckus of the city, though. When I was in high school my family moved away from the city to a house on a lake, way out in the county. I was so bored.

It's far easier to be car free in NYC than it is to be in Forsyth, Missouri.

It's far easier to be car free in NYC than it is to be in Forsyth, Missouri.True. Like my dad always said, life is a package deal. You can pick the package you want but you have to take everything that comes with it.

Um, those vehicles are a hell of a lot bigger than a bike, and the mileage is much worse.

Obviously most of us on this forum (Carfree, duh) start from a different set of premises than do you and the OP. We're trying to find practical ways of living without cars. You're pedaling as hard as you can to justify and rationalize your car ownership.

I don't know why you feel a need to explain your choice to own cars, unless you have a sneaking suspicion that there might be a better way, if only you had the imagination and courage to discover it. Again I have no problem with your decision to own a bunch of cars. But come on a carfree forum and brag about it, and you might get flamed a little.

Have a nice ride! :)

Where's the proud car owner forum?

Where's the proud car owner forum?


Here. (http://www.ih8mud.com/)

I am not so sure about that. That kind of thinking may lower people's expectation Then people start thinking like, "Since else is doing, suffering, or tolerating it, so why should not I?" That kind of thinking allows bad traits to stick for a long time.

Judging from the photo it looks like FXJohn (the OP) has a pretty sweet setup, maybe in a pleasant low key suburban area. Personal motor vehicles are the enabling technology for that lifestyle.


Not suburban, rural. Crooked Lake is about as close to the middle of nowhere as you can get in Indana. I think this is the reason for the different perceptions. It really would not be feasable for someone where he lives to be entirely car free. On the other hand, most people in the US live in cities. There are few reasons not to be car free in a city.

So why the huge house and big vehicles?


My house is 24 x 30, with a half basement. The garage is almost as big..24x20.

it's tiny. The house you see in the pic is the neighbor's, who only is there about 3 weeks per year.
That house is only a two bedroom anyways.

The toyota has 65 hp. the truck is an S-10 mini truck.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d19/FXjohn/DSC00253.jpg

It snowed last night.

My house is 24 x 30, with a half basement.

it's tiny. The house you see in the pic is the neighbor's, who only is there about 3 weeks per year.
That house is only a two bedroom anyways.

The toyota has 65 hp. the truck is an S-10 mini truck.
OK.

Where's the proud car owner forum?


If a person can't be completely car free...what's wrong trying to get people into being minimally financially bound to their vehicles? Some people may gradually wean themselves off needing a car. others just might want them to take less of their time, money, worry etc, and be less of a slave to their vehicle.

I don't see the reason for all the shnob (except for pride) in this thread. Goodness, who cares if you have a Caddy CTS or a Kia ****. It just dosen't matter.

In my case, I am a little richer for owning my truck. I use it for business 75% of the time, and have a total of 62,000 billed miles on it. This is a total of $23,000 on a truck I paid $17,000 for new. Even adding insurance, maintenance, and gas I am still a little better off having it versus renting for work. The truck still has atleast half of its life ahead of it too.

That being said, I would love to be a one car family if I ever switch jobs...

If a person can't be completely car free...what's wrong trying to get people into being minimally financially bound to their vehicles? Some people may gradually wean themselves off needing a car. others just might want them to take less of their time, money, worry etc, and be less of a slave to their vehicle.
+1

Less motor driving = good.
Less money spent on car = also good.

There are few reasons not to be car free in a city.
I presume -No family, no children, no dependents, good health, and (maybe) no ambition.

Why does everyone think a paid off vehicle is such a heavy burden to bear?
.

Even without the monetary aspects of vehicles, (insurance, repairs, parking, etc) a lot of times the question of what choices encourage more of the choices you want to make. If one of your goals to living your values is to avoid using a car (because of ecological, military, excercise, or a host of other reasons), a real effective way to do that is to not have it be an easy option.

I own a car outright, for when I "need" it, but when I need it is subjective. There are more times I consider myself to need it because it is an option. On the other hand, I certainly consider myself to need it less than most other car owning Americans do. I do not use it on an every day basis. This is largely because I have a whole lot of choices to make that feasible, including where I live( is a walkable, bikable town about a mile from where I attend school, where I work(ed, untill very recently), and sharing my car with a couple of family members with varying cirumstances, which means it is not always there. I am childless, healthy, young, and live in the center of a college town in a mild climate. Even with everything going for me, entering my life around alternative transit (biking, walking, and ocasionally buses) has still taken a lot of thought and consiousness.

One little example: Today, I got my finanial aid check, and it rained and hailed. In the craziness of the end of last semester, I lost my rain jacket. I spent the break in the desert, ( which I got to in my car). That trip took the last of my money and was dry, so I did not get another jacket. It's a few miles (between four and five) to my bank, normally(on nice days or with rain gear) a pleasant ride. If I had gone to the bank itself, I could have repaid a loan to someone who could have made use of the money today, and I could have bought the rest of my school books which I should be reading now, and I could have gotten another rain jacket to make future bike rides (such as to school tommorow morning) pleasant and plausible). I did not drive to the bank.

I deposited it at a machine a couple blocks from my house, and I should have a hundred dollars of it availabe tommorow, and the rest at some later point. I will walk to school with the umbrella tommorow, and repay the loan then as well. Not a tragic tale in the least, but it took a little bit of convinving myself that I should walk (there was a umbrella around) in the rain to the machine and not get my money instead of driving and getting my money. Incidentally, if I chose a big corporate bank instead of a local credit union I also would not have had far to go, but that is a whole other issue. So my life is filled with existential crises. Many of these would be eliminated if I simply didn't own a car, and I suspect this is not only true for me. Whoa, sorry, this was a lot longer than I was planning on writing.

I presume -No family, no children, no dependents, good health, and (maybe) no ambition.

i work full time, do part time free lance work from home, have a private pilot's license, traveled abroad to four countries last year, ski during the winter, work on my townhouse, just started spanish lessons and volunteer for two organizations here in the city.

i may not have kids, but i have a family who depends on me, and i've done it all without owning a car

i think that's pretty darn ambitious

i work full time, do part time free lance work from home, have a private pilot's license, traveled abroad to four countries last year, ski during the winter, work on my townhouse, just started spanish lessons and volunteer for two organizations here in the city.

i may not have kids, but i have a family who depends on me, and i've done it all without owning a car

i think that's pretty darn ambitious
Do you also claim that:There are few reasons (for everybody else) not to be car free in a city?

Do you also claim that:There are few reasons (for everybody else) not to be car free in a city?

my goal on this board is to share ideas and provide my example of car free living and logistics. it's up to the individual to make it work, or concede it won't work.

i do believe though it depends more or the city/street design of where you live, versus big family and dependents. i live in an old neighborhood that's easy to get around. this isn't "downtown", but very navigable by bike and walking, and plenty of families with kids live near me.

here's where car-free works (my 'hood)
http://photobucket.com/albums/b164/jamesdenver/?action=view&current=yes.gif

here's where it doesn't (or at least isn't very fun)
http://photobucket.com/albums/b164/jamesdenver/?action=view&current=no.gif

Urban childless healthy adults with very limited transportation needs have an altogether different set of requirements than people responsible for working at a job and taking care of/transporting dependents.

When I was a dependent I had to transport myself, aside from the school bus. How do you think I started bicycling? (or bussing, or walking...) Now that I'm in in-dependent I can choose to live within bike/bus/walk distance from work. Most Americans like to make excuses that allow them to choose the lazy route - a sad statement about our culture - but that's a choice they make, not something they HAVE to do. Like any routine, once you start getting lazy, it's so much easier to stay lazy.

i think that's pretty darn ambitious

Damn right.

here's where car-free works (my 'hood)


Yaaaa! That's my old 'hood! Hey man, I lived at right there at Colfax & Fairfax just a couple years ago. :D I miss Park Hill. Beautiful compact houses and real neighborhoods with tree-lined streets. Cruising down 7th to Pablo's every evening, mornings at Finster's (RIP), DD bus to Boulder, lunch at Chipotle...dammit, there isn't any place to get a good burrito in Hawaii and forget finding coffeehouses. :(

-1

You can buy a computer code reader or have a place like autozone do it. Those problems don't occur all that often.
Usually it's the time old problem like tie rod ends and stuff. Yeas you can still change out a headlight.
Another smart move is to own something common that was in production a long time.
Ranger, S-10, Taurus, civic, corolla.

Headlamps were never a problem with the old MPV.
Everything else was. The point I was trying to make in the parent post is that once you have paid off your vehicle where do you draw the line at paying the protection money to the insurance company?
If you have an older vehicle which has a market value less than a certain point the insurance company will not pay for the repairs to your vehicle (I think it's comprehensive coverage or somesuch, I've haven't had automobile insurance for nearly a year).
It would be nice for someone to clarify this aspect of long-term car ownership/insurance extortion because there is a serious need on the part of the automakers to see people in new cars. Having insurers punish those who don't have a car-payment is just the kind of sick thing the market likes to fold dollar-bills lengthwise for.

That's why all the good ideas on this forum should be taken with many grains of salt by people responsible for families. Urban childless healthy adults with very limited transportation needs have an altogether different set of requirements than people responsible for working at a job and taking care of/transporting dependents.

If someone lives in the suburbs by choice, and the nearest grocery store is more than two miles away, and work is more than 10 miles away and the magnet/charter school their kids attend is more than three miles away. and their church/bar/favorite restraunt is more than a few miles away, they're not going to be car-free. They'll have at least one car, and up to three if they're doing well. It's the american atomic family dream.

Suburban living was made possible by the automobile, the dream of letting people live in a cul-de-sac far away from the bustle of a busy street or the press of people walking to work. The suburbs were designed to offer the well-to-do upper-middle class families of the late 1940's post-war America to leave the city and enjoy a new sense of community and privledge with big yards and swimming pools and lots of pets and tire-swings, apple pie, and baseball fields.

If someone lives in the suburbs by choice, and the nearest grocery store is more than two miles away, and work is more than 10 miles away and the magnet/charter school their kids attend is more than three miles away. and their church/bar/favorite restraunt is more than a few miles away, they're not going to be car-free. They'll have at least one car, and up to three if they're doing well. It's the american atomic family dream.

That's the *manufactured* "American atomic dream family" that's been marketed since World War II.


Suburban living was made possible by the automobile, the dream of letting people live in a cul-de-sac far away from the bustle of a busy street or the press of people walking to work.

Suburbs were originally the product of a well throught-out public transportation system - streetcars. There's quite a bit of documentation to back up claims that big oil and big automotive interests conspired to bankrupt those systems to ensure dependance on oil and cars for people living in suburbs.


The suburbs were designed to offer the well-to-do upper-middle class families of the late 1940's post-war America to leave the city and enjoy a new sense of community and privledge with big yards and swimming pools and lots of pets and tire-swings, apple pie, and baseball fields.

I'm not sure whether we're in agreement on that or not. I agree the "modern version" of the suburb was contrived post WWII. I also agree it was marketed to the affluent as a way of getting out of big cities where it was perceived the lower-class-worker-bees lived.

I don't believe the typical American suburb is anything close to the pastoral, idyllic setting they were once portrayed as and a good part of that has to do with the typical-American-suburb being designed around the requirement for automobile ownership.

Have you seen the film "The End of Suburbia"? It should be required viewing for high-school kids. (I also believe "critical thinking" should be a required course but they both have about equal chance of happening)

The book "The Art of Urban Cycling : Lessons from the Street" by Robert Hurst is also excellent. The first section is entirely devoted to a historical look at cycling and urban/suburban transportation. It backs up a lot of what's said in "The End of Suburbia" and puts a cyclist slant to it.

The attraction of suburbs is cheaper housing in a less crowded neighborhood away from the poor people. Having a forest across the street is pretty nice, too. However, the suburb does NOT have to be hostile to simple living. You can live in the burbs and walk/bike/bus everywhere you need to go if you're smart. The burbs I lived in were all much more bikeable than the city due to lower traffic densities and wider roads. Sure things are farther away, but they're also easier to get to.

That's the *manufactured* "American atomic dream family" that's been marketed since World War II.
Is this the preferred Car-Free/Simple Life dream being marketed on this list by several posters? Don't worry, be happy; pack up all your possessions in a Brown Paper Bag?
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/1430/moneyforbeer3kg.th.jpg (http://img33.imageshack.us/my.php?image=moneyforbeer3kg.jpg)

Being a Luddite/ Simple Life affecianado is fine, when no one else is dependent on your stability or ability to deal with the world as it is. Dreaming the New Age Dream will inspire almost noone other than people who already share similiar economic/social circumstances and lifestyle beliefs.

i see it this way for me being an 18yr old and about to become a uni student. I can get a casual job and pay for a car, or cycle and have money for parties, clothes, music, parties etc

I know what i prefer, and i know i look sexier for riding

i see it this way for me being an 18yr old and about to become a uni student. I can get a casual job and pay for a car, or cycle and have money for parties, clothes, music, parties etc

I know what i prefer, and i know i look sexier for ridingAbsolutely, mrkott3r! My college days were the best twenty years of my life. It's amazing how little one can accomplish when one really works at it.

I'm not sure whether we're in agreement on that or not. I agree the "modern version" of the suburb was contrived post WWII. I also agree it was marketed to the affluent as a way of getting out of big cities where it was perceived the lower-class-worker-bees lived.
.


Well, pre WWI half the people in this country were farmers.
Surely you don't deny RURAL folks an automobile???
I've seen footage of what city life looked like for regular working people back then and it certainly wasn't idyllic or even close to what kids had that had a neighborhood full of houses with back yards.
So tell us your ideal childhood utopia where families live in high rises.
Getting out of the city wasn't "contrived", people naturally got out when they could :rolleyes:

Persons who live in rural areas need vehicles. Especially trucks considering the underdeveloped nature of rural areas. I believe persons in these areas have more of a necessity to be self-reliant.

My opinion:
I do not have a car but my wife does. Living in the suburbs, I do not see how a family with children (like mine) can easily live without a vehicle. While I may be car less, my family is not. My only reason for not having a second vehicle is cost. I do not have a desire to pay for a piece of junk or to have a second car payment. Plus, I used my car primarily for commuting and I have replaced that need with a bike and mass transit. A new light rail line is also coming online in 10 months that leads directly to my work.
So for now it is my bike. Eventually, I plan on a new bike and then a motorcycle. Someday after my wife's car is paid off I may (and I stress the may) purchase a second car.

My sister in-law's family of 4 is living with us. Try this on for size...due to their car being totaled yesterday with lapsed insurance, we are now a household of 3 children and 4 adults with one car. I think I may have a few cycling converts.