Living Car Free - Turn off, Tune In, Drop out of the Petrol Cycle

Or if he really needs an analogy outside the realm of transportation, how about the lawn mower analogy.
Makes a great analogy if you think that most people only have use for personal transportation once every other week or so. And that analogy might be right on for a relative handful of "simple" people who voluntarily live and die by the limitations of public transportation in most areas of the US, have no responsibility to take care of people dependent on daily reliable, readily available, transportation to all sorts of distant destinations, AND have either zero knowledge of, or zero empathy for, people (especially families) who don't share (or care to share) their zealous enthusiasm for a puritanical "simple" lifestyle.

You said it a lot nicer than I did. But not as smarmily! :)

I hope Stanley can understand this explanation.

Roody et al,

Why do you continue to reply to such an obvious troll such as ILTB? He never has anything thing constructive to add, never presents any reasonable, intelligent thoughts. His posts are almost exclusively name calling defamation. I've added him to the ignore list. I recommend you do as well.

Makes a great analogy if you think that most people only have use for personal transportation once every other week or so. And that analogy might be right on for a relative handful of "simple" people who voluntarily live and die by the limitations of public transportation in most areas of the US, have no responsibility to take care of people dependent on daily reliable, readily available, transportation to all sorts of distant destinations, AND have either zero knowledge of, or zero empathy for, people (especially families) who don't share (or care to share) their zealous enthusiasm for a puritanical "simple" lifestyle.
I don't think everybody is talking about "most people." We're just talking about us.

The only person on this forum who ever said anything about making families give up their cars is. . . YOU! I lack not only the power but the desire to make anybody do anything.

As for a "puritanical lifestyle," that's a bunch of garbage. I do the exact same things that my neighbors do, I just do them without a car and mostly with a bike. What do you find wrong with that?

Why does my mode of transportation bother you so much? What does it even have to do with you? You have made me and other carfree people into windmills for your deluded jousting match. It's freakin pitiful!

I don't think everybody is talking about "most people." We're just talking about us.
Bull! You obviously see/read what you want to read. The moralizing messages about the loutishnes of those who don't share the simple life/car-free philosophy and the unrealistic "analogies" are certainly not just about pep talks for the relative handful of people who are actually voluntarily car-free.

The point that a real need exists for access to reliable, convenient and practical transportation and cannot be swept away by high fallutin moralizing and spacy futuristic dreams from "simple" people is made repeatedly by most posters on this list. Most posters are apparantly car-lite and are NOT car-free, and for good reason. They may have cut down (or would like to cut down) on car use for more good reasons but are car lite for the very real reason that it is not "simple" to eliminate personal reliable and dependable transportation from most people's lives - and live the type of life that they would like to live and not the life determined to be politically correct by a clique of self proclaimed moralists. Again the point is that bicycling advocacy must keep at arm's length from counter productive puritanical holy rollers.

Bull! You obviously see/read what you want to read. The moralizing messages about the loutishnes of those who don't share the simple life/car-free philosophy and the unrealistic "analogies" are certainly not just about pep talks for the relative handful of people who are actually voluntarily car-free.

The point that a real need exists for access to reliable, convenient and practical transportation and cannot be swept away by high fallutin moralizing and spacy futuristic dreams from "simple" people is made repeatedly by most posters on this list. Most posters are apparantly car-lite and are NOT car-free, and for good reason. They may have cut down (or would like to cut down) on car use for more good reasons but are car lite for the very real reason that it is not "simple" to eliminate personal reliable and dependable transportation from most people's lives - and live the type of life that they would like to live and not the life determined to be politically correct by a clique of self proclaimed moralists. Again the point is that bicycling advocacy must keep at arm's length from counter productive puritanical holy rollers.
If you like, we can try one more time for a real dialogue. I believe there are three areas of agreement between your position and mine:


1. To start, I agree with you that "a real need exists for access to reliable, convenient and practical transportation. . . ."

2. Like many, probably most, of the people who post here, I also accept your frequent implication that there are challenges and difficulties to living carfree in America.

3. I don't want to, nor can I, pressure people who truly need cars to live without them.

Now we may part ways! For example, I think that it's good--politically, socially, environmentally--for the world to decrease its use of petroleum and other nonsustainable dirty fuels. Do you think it's controversial to suggest that we somehow decrease oil dependence?

I would go a little further. I think that we, as a global and national society, (and especially in the context of a bicycle forum!) should focus our efforts to reduce consumption in the transportation area. To start, we should make it easier for individuals and families to cut back on their use of private autos. I advocate better public transportation and especially programs that promote cycling as transportation. I also advocate for changes in urban design to make cities more compact to benefit walking, cycling, wheelchairs, and public transport.

Another idea I support is making auto users financially responsible for the social costs of their mode of transportation. I support, as alternatives are made more feasible, a higher tax on gasoline and forced recycling of automobiles. I also support efficiency standards and high taxes on inefficient vehicles. I think revenues from these measures should initially be used to fund public transportation and improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.

I don't think any of my ideas make me a monster, a zealot, and irresponsible simple lifer, or any of the other labels you heap upon us.

What are your ideas, ILTB? A positive statement of your opinions would be welcome, but I really doubt if you are up to it! :)

Besides this economic advantage (in some cases) what other positive points are assumed to be earned/gained for the ownership free?


DUH! is right. Take your silly little parable outside of the friendly confines of the true believers and DUH! is exactly the response you will get - DUH! And it will be aimed at your own cluelessness and inability to recognize that most others don't live in your simplified fantasy world, nor do they want to. And you can smugly feel superior at the dullards (in your opinion) and on higher moral ground too, but you will convince nobody else with gross simplifications and smarmy self righteousness.

I guess you just get a kick out of arguing. The original question you posed has been well answered. Those who choose to live car-free recognize that owning a car means they might be tempted to use it more than than they really need to, and also that using a borrowed or rented car occasionally has a far smaller environmental impact than keeping a little-used car in the garage, because it reduces the number of cars manufactured and disposed of.

Not satisfied with those very straightforward and rational answers to your original questions, or perhaps disappointed that there are good answers, you go on to attack the car-free on totally bogus grounds - that they somehow have weak characters because they don't buy a car and then abstain from using it; or that they are smugly accusing others of being morally inferior or dullards.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

R

Now we may part ways! For example, I think that it's good--politically, socially, environmentally--for the world to decrease its use of petroleum and other nonsustainable dirty fuels. Do you think it's controversial to suggest that we somehow decrease oil dependence?
We part ways when those "good things" are presented as a necessary agenda that must be adapted/internalized by bicycling advocates. Those "good ideas" are independent of bicycling advocacy, and associating bicyclists' limited aims with a crusade for restructuring the nation's or world's economy/social designs is a sure means of trivializing bicycling advocacy/advocates and assuring that bicylists' needs will NOT be take seriously by the public nor by decision makers at any level of government or industry.

Sorry if those who prefer to go "La-La -La, I 'm ignoring the 'Trolls' who disagree with me" do not wish to have their conventional wisdom questioned but that is the fact, Jack. Car-free moralizing/self righteousness and bicycling advocacy are not necessarily compatable nor synchronous. Keep on track; pick one or the other or even both issues; just don't associate one with the other.

The original question you posed has been well answered. Those who choose to live car-free recognize that owning a car means they might be tempted to use it more than than they really need to, and also that using a borrowed or rented car occasionally has a far smaller environmental impact than keeping a little-used car in the garage, because it reduces the number of cars manufactured and disposed of.
Funny, I didn't notice anybody claiming that they live car-free because they are trying to avoid temptation. As far as producing "a far smaller environmental impact" by a few people renting/borrowing cars instead of purchasing a car? Hogwash! Buying a used car to drive the same miles produces the same environmental effect.

Funny, I didn't notice anybody claiming that they live car-free because they are trying to avoid temptation.

That was the whole point of the beer analogy.

That little square thing on the right side of your screen allows you to scroll up and recheck when you miss the point the first time around.

We part ways when those "good things" are presented as a necessary agenda that must be adapted/internalized by bicycling advocates. Those "good ideas" are independent of bicycling advocacy, and associating bicyclists' limited aims with a crusade for restructuring the nation's or world's economy/social designs is a sure means of trivializing bicycling advocacy/advocates and assuring that bicylists' needs will NOT be take seriously by the public nor by decision makers at any level of government or industry.

Sorry if those who prefer to go "La-La -La, I 'm ignoring the 'Trolls' who disagree with me" do not wish to have their conventional wisdom questioned but that is the fact, Jack. Car-free moralizing/self righteousness and bicycling advocacy are not necessarily compatable nor synchronous. Keep on track; pick one or the other or even both issues; just don't associate one with the other.
Sorry, I wasn't clear on the concept that we're here to advocate cycling. I thought this was the Carfree forum.

Do you have opinions of your own or are a purely reactionary creature?

Sorry, I wasn't clear on the concept that we're here to advocate cycling. I thought this was the Carfree forum.
My computer must be broken. Right at the top of the screen it reads "Bike Forum".
It makes perfect sense for people to post tips and tricks on their use of a bicycle to free them from unwanted use of an automobile or to provide them more flexibility and fun in getting about. Ranting about "cager culture" accomplishes nothing for promoting bicycling; and singing songs of the joys of cycling is not going to convince one person to give up a needed car to join the clique of the car-free aesthete.

Would you consider mooching beer from your neighbors whenever you got thirsty more moral than keeping a dozen beers in your refrigerator to cover the same need to quench your thirst on occasion? Or perhaps buying beer by the piece (at a bar for 10 times the price per drink) is a real solution to cutting down "unnecessary" consumption? Do you think ownership of the beer, rather than total consumption is the "problem?"
Mooching? Absolutely not. Although my neighbor offered, I had to decline borrowing his spare car. I find it much more acceptable to rent from the buisness up the street than to possibly strain relationships between neighbors. I disagree with your assumption that being car free somehow makes one a 'moocher'. And you know what assumptions do... they make an ass out of you and 'umption.

That was the whole point of the beer analogy.

That little square thing on the right side of your screen allows you to scroll up and recheck when you miss the point the first time around.
The beer analogy was as clueless as the lawnmower analogy. If one doesn't mow the lawn or have a beer today, it can always be done tomorrow or next week, or not al all; transportation needs are not so time independent. NOBODY claimed that they are car-less because otherwise they might fall to the temptations of the dark side.

Mooching? Absolutely not. Although my neighbor offered, I had to decline borrowing his spare car. I find it much more acceptable to rent from the buisness up the street than to possibly strain relationships between neighbors.
Others of the car-free breed don't share your concerns about depending on the "kindness of others" to take care of them when they can't take care of themselves due to their own decisions.

My computer must be broken. Right at the top of the screen it reads "Bike Forum".
It makes perfect sense for people to post tips and tricks on their use of a bicycle to free them from unwanted use of an automobile or to provide them more flexibility and fun in getting about. Ranting about "cager culture" accomplishes nothing for promoting bicycling; and singing songs of the joys of cycling is not going to convince one person to give up a needed car to join the clique of the car-free aesthete.
In the whole time I've been coming to this forum, I have never known you to write a post that had anything to do with riding a bike! The only way you could be said to promote cycling is that you make me want to get off the computer and ride! :D

Do you still ride? Do you still experience joy?

Funny, I didn't notice anybody claiming that they live car-free because they are trying to avoid temptation.
Sure you did. See posts #24 and #26 and your replies in posts #25 and #28, or my post #43 and your reply in #45.


Would you consider mooching beer from your neighbors whenever you got thirsty more moral than keeping a dozen beers in your refrigerator to cover the same need to quench your thirst on occasion?

Straw man argument. Attribute some silliness to me and then attack me for it.


As far as producing "a far smaller environmental impact" by a few people renting/borrowing cars instead of purchasing a car?

A lot of fairly low-mileage cars are junked because they rust due to age or are not maintained. They also take up space and require a lot of pavement to sit on - on the street, parking lot or driveway. A heavily used and well-managed rental car fleet would take up much less space and get many more miles per manufacturing unit than the much larger private car fleet that would be the alternative.



Buying a used car to drive the same miles produces the same environmental effect.The original point still stands. If you have to rent a car every time you think of using it, you're likely to use it less than if it's just sitting there outside your home

The original point still stands. If you have to rent a car every time you think of using it, you're likely to use it less than if it's just sitting there outside your home
The original point does still stand: Convenience, practicality and comfort have no place in some puritanical ideologues' list of needs or priorities for living.

I do not find being carfree to be inconvenient or impractical or uncomfortable or irresponsible or hypocritical. Quite the opposite!



I don't know how many times I'll have to say this. I don't mind repeatedly defending my choice of transportation modes to carbound friends, but I find it silly that I have to keep saying it on a carfree forum! You would think that everybody here would understand the concept, if not agree with it. Oh well, the human species has rarely been accused of intelligence. :)

Anyway, being carfree is my choice. It's a good choice for me, it's a good choice for my country and my planet, and I do strongly encourage others to try it. I don't see how it can be said to harm bicycling, which seems to be ILTB's main objection.

and I do strongly encourage others to try it. I don't see how it can be said to harm bicycling, which seems to be ILTB's main objection.
Yep mixing up bicycling advocacy with out in left (or right) field politics and social schemes is bad business. Though it might make the ranter feel good about himself.

You also don't see the problem every time you use the epithet "cager" in bicycling advocacy discussions to contemptuously describe all those motorists who don't share your views of "simple" living.

Well.