Yeah, unfortunately, most living in the desert is done stupidly. I mean, most living everywhere is done stupidly. They run out of water in Seattle, you know. It's just a lot more apparent when it's the desert.

Again: zoning. Municipal government. All that crud. Man, the wildfires in socal a couple years ago (or was it last year?)... what you had there was a bunch of people living the american dream by owning their own house out in the suburbs and sticks, in places where, really, no one should live on a traditional lot. Surrounded by dry tinder throughout the year, failing to take any measures on their own to maintain it, refusing to pay any governmental agency to deal with it, making it worse by giving the fire more than what would be there without them and effectively getting subsidized insurance via everyone who doesn't live in a tinderbox.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. But, I don't blame 'em. People hate government and want to live out in the bushes and be "free"... and then mobilize thousands at the cost of millions paid by our state to come save them.

sorry, ranting.

Yes you are right, people are stupid!

Also who in thier right mind would want to live on a flood plain and have to worry about thier basement or first floor of thier house under several feet of water and all thier furniture (and motor vehicles) ruined? And have to carry FEMA insurance. So many people want to live on the coasts which are susceptable to hurricanes, more flooding etc. WTF!!!

Yes, the sheeple are stupid, but that's not the thrust of this thread. So far this has been a sobering discussion at best. I don't think there has been much offered to sway me from my original premise. :mad:

Just so ya know, Greyhound is pro-Bush and gives to conservative causes.

No wonder - he's killing Amtrack for them :o

Yes, the sheeple are stupid, but that's not the thrust of this thread. So far this has been a sobering discussion at best. I don't think there has been much offered to sway me from my original premise. :mad:

With all due respect, LandLuger, are you a religious Michael Weiner fan?

With all due respect, LandLuger, are you a religious Michael Weiner fan?
A what?

Landluger- to respond to post#1, an opinion which you said you haven't really been swayed from:

I don't think it will really take a near-apocalyptic event to get rid of the concept of daily-driving, single-occupant, multithousand-pound car.

What it will take, is economic pressure. Like it or not, the world isn't going to support fossil-fuel consumption worldwide at the rate americans consume it at. If people worldwide had extra money, and the desire to spend it on fossil fuels, then more oil wells would be drilled, but the main effect would be to send the price of oil sky-high without increasing production all that much.

It's difficult to say what effect nuclear power and vehicles that depend on it will have on the future of transportation- as compared to fossil fuel power, nuclear-fission fuels. It's possible that nuclear power could keep us consuming energy faster than we do now, for a very long time- but probably not for more than a few centuries.

One person claimed that the U.K. isn't getting much more car-free-ness from their support of public transit and cycling and high taxes on car use.

I think it's likely that it takes a long time for these government expenditures to take effect. People already use smaller cars and use them less often over all, in the U.K as compared to the U.S.

I think that the U.K's higher gas taxes have a significant effect on people's choices.

cerewa,

Thanks for responding. I agree completely with all your points; however, what I am hoping for in this discussion is to formulate an effective strategy to decrease auto usage or at least increase public acceptance of alternatives namely bicycles in the present. Furthermore, many of the so far suggested ideas would indeed promote alternatives, but they lack any chance of implementation in the current climate. Maybe there is no insight to be found here :(

"Furthermore, many of the so far suggested ideas would indeed promote alternatives, but they lack any chance of implementation in the current climate. Maybe there is no insight to be found here"

I'm sure I witnessed a mass behaviour change in my lifetime. When I was young it was common for people to dispose of waste by tossing it out a car window. The highways were lined with garbage. It stopped being a common thing by 1970 or so where I lived. There is still too much of it going on but it isn't like it was. Oldsters help me out here. Wasn't it due to education and fines? I see this forum as part of the education phase to help people understand how their lives will be better if they can go car free.

I've also witnessed a huge reduction in smoking. When I first joined the workforce people smoked in their offices and if a person shared an office with a non-smoker it was the non-smoker's problem. Didn't that change through a combination of education and legal sanctions? The tobacco industry is still pretty big but it couldn't hold out against education.

We car free people don't have power to impose fines or laws so we can only do what is in our power- educate and set a good example.

To me this is a great subject. I would love to see people toss the keys at least once a week and do somthing other than drive to work, school, the gym, shopping, etc. But as this country has grown into its own identity; cars are apart of ones identity. 90% of people who drive, think that their car help define who they are. Just like material possisions that make one who they are aswell. "Toss dat on some dubs G!"
Even with my generation, investing so much money into ones car just to gain attention from other people. Worthless admeration in my eyes.
But, as I near the actual subject, I feel and partly believe that it is impossible for American goverment to get attention of the millions of people who are in dire need to drive their cars. I dont think that there could be any incentive for people to ride a bicycle, walk, heck, even rollerblade somwhere; rather than drive. Unless mabye the goverment would come out with some sort of incintive program that would perhaps give money back for riding a bicycle, or a bus. That they could in turn use for gas?? But too proove that one did ride a bicycle for a total of 300 miles would be virtually impossible to proove. People love to scam whatever they can for free things, specially money.
I hate to say it, but America needs it huge SUV's, and "cute" little sports cars for older working women, "riced" out Honda euro's for your teenagers and early 20's guys and gals, that have the need for speed. But in the end so many; each of these culture groups are bieng killed for their "freedom" on four wheels. With DUI's, reckless driving, my personal favorite: talking away on their cell phones, racing, joy riding, getting stoned in their car because its the only place to smoke without mom or dad smelling it... whatever the case may be.
I wish there was a way, but were doomed to our inevitable deaths in our tin can motorized auto's.
My state Colorado, has even tried to make a diffrence with commuting. We spent millions upon millions building a very efficant light rail system (not completly finished yet) to help reduce traffic in our crowded citys. But I dont think people are even going to take the light rail, that will get you from 20 miles out of downtown, to downtown in less time than it would be to drive. It's all the same. People NEED their cars.