My (admittedly controversial) view on "living car free".

[notfred]

Just for background, I'm a 24 year old male, living in Northern California. I currently own a car and two bicycles.

I came to bike forums in the first place because I started mountain biking and wanted to read the mountain biking forum. I've also become interested in bike commuting, fixed gear bikes, and other aspects of cycling culture. But -- I just don't understand the whole "living car free" thing.

There seems to be two main reasons behind the "living car free" philosophy - environmental reasoning, and financial reasoning. I'm going to start with the financial aspect. People in this forum really like to talk about how much money they save by not owning a car. This is fine, I guess, but I don't see how people can be so proud of an accomplishment based on so little.

People in this forum take great pride in the fact that they don't drive. It actually seems to turn into a pissing match of sorts on occasion. There's a thread running right now in which people are saying things like "I'm 37 years old and have never owned a car in my life!" These aren't simply statements of fact, but people expressing thier pride as to how long they've gone without a car.

This doesn't jive at all with the financial reasoning behind not owning a car. It would be like saying "I've gone the last 17 years and never bought name-brand clothes!" This doesnt make you a better person. It's not something to brag about. If you don't like name brand clothes - then fine, but you're not earning any bragging rights simply because you chose to spend your money on something else. Even worse is if you simply don't make enough money to afford a car in the first place. Saying "I don't own a car!", doesn't reflect a single thing about your character if there's absolutely no way you could have bought a car, even if you wanted to. Not owning a car that you're not capable of owning doesn't mean you made some noble choice.

Now, I'm not trying to say that everyone should own a car. I'm just saying that choosing to spend your money on other things (or not choosing, if you don't have enough money in the first place) doesn't qualify anyone to act like they have some sort of moral superiorty over everyone else, which is what I seem to see a lot of in this forum.

The environmental reasoning seems to hold a lot more water in my mind. A bike is significantly more environmentally friendly than a car. However, it still requires that we build roads, mine for metals to build bikes with, etc. The truly environmentally-conscious should probably start a "living bike free" forum in which they talk about all the challenges imposed by trying to walk everywhere. I think that a bike is apretty good compromise between eco-friendliness and speed and convenience, though.

One more thing I see a lot of in this forum is people talking about "living simply". I don't see how you can say that living without a car is simpler than living with one. It's a lot simpler to get a $300/month raise and buy a car than it is to figure out how to ride home in the rain and the snow while carrying your groceries on the back of your bike. If living without a car was so simple, a lot more people would do it. We wouldn't have this forum discussing how to get around the challenges that it implies, because they'd all be so simple.

The simplest lifestyle would probably have someone own both a bike and a car, and they could choose the one that would be most convenient in any particular situation, which would often be the car.

I'm not trying to say that "living car free" is a bad thing, just that I don't understand a lot of the attitudes and reasoning that come along with it, as displayed in this forum.

[dirtyphotons]

i never thought of it that way. fu(k this, i'm getting a car.

[svwagner]

ok, troll-boy, i'll bite...i've got nothing better to do just now.

financial: i save about $6500 per year not owning a car. that's $6500 that i can spend on something else, or $6500 that i don't have to earn. not having to earn more is one of my definitions of freedom.

environmental: just so. i don't drive because it's bad for the environment. i find, on a personal level, that it's also bad for my soul.

simplicity: it is simpler not having a car. less to pay for, less to maintain. i don't have to worry about parking. getting around on a bike, on public transit, or on foot is easy if you've engineered your life to fit the lifestyle.

sure -- in some ways it's easier to get around great swathes of the U.S. in a car -- but that's because of the grossly flawed land use in many parts of this country. many places (if we can call them that) were built for cars instead of people. therefore, it's easier to drive.

but, i don't live in a such a place -- and i don't live there on purpose. i served my time in the suburbs when i was a kid, and i have no intention of going back because i know a better way to live.

[Lamplight]

Living with a car isn't quite so simple to me. I have to get an oil change every 2 months, gas twice a week, deal with insurance and repairs, and on top of it all I find myself much more irritated when I'm driving than when I'm on my bike. It's like I can feel my blood pressure rising when I have to drive. I hope to be car-free some day, and I envy those here who are.

[CommuterRun]

Do you know what I call the, "Corporate Fallacy of America"?

The Corporate Fallacy of America says that if you don't have a 40/week job, you're not contributing to society.

The Corporate Fallacy of America says that if you don't make $xx,xxx/year, you don't have a real job.

The Corporate Fallacy of America says that if you don't make $xxx,xxx/year, you are not successful.

The Corporate Fallacy of America says that if you spend more time/week with your family than you do working, you are a bum.

The Corporate Fallacy of America says that if your life is fun, you're not doing "it" right.

We're a one car family by choice.

It's Monday, The Corporate Fallacy of America calls Monday the first day of the work week.

The Corporate Fallacy of America says everybody is supposed to loathe Mondays.

Know what I did today? Got up at 5 A.M. Drank coffe and surfed the 'net. Ate a leisurely breakfast and talked to my son. Fiddled around the house with a few projects and played with my daughter. Dropped the daughter off at Pre-K by bike and kid trailer. Rode with the wife while she ran errands and did the grocery shopping. Went home and ate a light lunch. Hooked up a canoe loaded with fishing tackle on the trailer to the Townie3 and went fishing and swimming in the Wakulla River for the afternoon. Pedalled home, showered and had a wonderful, homemade, fish soup supper, while discussing today's events with the family. We live quite comfortably, eat very well, and I see no need for the expense of a second car. I live in Paradise by choice.:D

Money causes more problems than it solves and I don't need the headaches.

[CommuterRun]

Oh yeah, and while I was at the river I met and spoke with an old friend who introduced me to a new friend.:D

[patc]

Trolls just love this forum for some reason.

[notfred]

Please keep calling me a troll. That's the best way to deal with people who disagree with or are critical of you. I'm sure you'll win a lot of converts to your lifestyle by shouting "Troll!!" at everyone who doesn't understand your reasoning.

The US will get rid of its car-centric infrastructure in no time with that attitude.

[davidmcowan]

Ur an idiot. How's that for name calling?

Not everyone here brags that way. I promise you, my life is much simpler being car lite. I think you've misinterpreted the word.

People are calling you a troll because trolls start huge fights for the sake of the fight. People who want to "discuss" opinions don't quite come on that way.

Take your closed mind and shove it.

[matagi]

As with any group of people, there is a spectrum of opinion out there and some of the contributors to "Living Car Free" can a be a little - shall we say - evangelical.

There are certainly sound environmental reasons for not relying on a car - a ton of metal will make far more bicylces than cars, there is less air-pollution associated with bicycle use, less reliance on gasoline, etc.etc. Not to mention the obvious health benefits of exercise.

Financially speaking it costs money to own and operate a motor vehicle - there are registration costs, insurance, petrol and maintenance costs. In this case, owning a bicycle instead of a car certainly puts you at a financial advantage compared to someone who earns the same amount of money but has to pay the costs of running a car.

Where your argument starts to become a little flawed (and will probably stir up quite a hornet's nest :) ) is when you start to address the personal feelings associated with a car free lifestyle. Someone who has never owned a car and managed to conduct their lives successfully on a bicycle in a society where "the car is king" should certainly be proud of that achievement. Likewise, someone who has given up their car and now successfully runs their life with the aid of a bicycle and alternative transport arrangements should be justifiably proud of that achievement. Your post seems to suggest that someone who has never owned a car because they have never been able to afford one should not take as much pride in this achievement as someone who can afford a Ferrari but has chosen the bicycle instead.

Indeed, why should we care about the personal circumstances of the individual concerned? if they want to take pride in their achievement and indulge in pissing contests about who is the better person or lives the simplest life, let them. Life is too short to get bent out of shape about that sort of thing, kick back, relax, get out on your bike and enjoy the sunshine. :)

[Roody]

Here's the Troll Test for notfred:

How does it benefit you to post on a Carfree forum, given that you have no interest in carfree living for yourself?

If he gives the right answer he's not a troll. I bet he passes!

[cooker]

I don't think you're a troll. I think you're defensive, but at least you're curious enough to engage in debate, and hopefully openminded enough to be enlightened. Somehow you feel guilty about owning a car, or offended by the supposed superiority of those who don't, and you need to justify your car ownership to us and yourself. At the same time you're interested in trimming your own car use, for example through bike commuting, which is a good thing.

But you don't have to apologize or be defensive about owning a car. Most of the people on BF, probably including many in the car free forum, own cars. It's difficult or impossible to live in North America without a car, or without heavy reliance on friends and relatives who will drive you places. Even those who don't own cars by choice will rent or borrow one at times, and of course they rely on goods brought by vehicle...they don't grow their own food and make their own clothes after shearing their own sheep.

Living truly car free is an ideal only a few can achieve, and the rest of us acknowledge our partial reliance on cars. At the same time, many of us recognize that car culture is a threat to public health, environmentally unsustainable, destroying cities and nature, a justification for war and oppression, and wasting huge amounts of productive effort and time. Our personal objective may be a gradual reduction in that personal dependence through lifestyle choices (eg. look for a home closer to work), gradual adaptation, and creativity. Our altruistic objective may be to re-orient all of society to move away from car dependence.

I don't think anyone in this forum would feel scorn toward someone who owned a car but was working to minimize their need for it. What many feel scorn or contempt for is those who are blind to all these ideas, who buy the largest SUV for personal gratification, or a car for each child, or who have no qualms about living 186 miles from work and driving back and forth every day (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=190541&highlight=cisco) with no clue about the carnage, pollution, and other social and environmental impact of that choice.

Hope you'll think about this and see how far you can go in at least living "car-light", like I try to.

Regards

Robert

[attercoppe]

This is fine, I guess, but I don't see how people can be so proud of an accomplishment based on so little.
This doesn't jive at all with the financial reasoning behind not owning a car.
Well, the easy answer here is, you're right, you don't understand it. Try asking some car-free folks directly, or even trying it yourself, then you might understand. I'm car-free, and I'm proud of it, but I don't feel I'm morally superior because of it. (Oh, and it's "jibe", not "jive".)


One more thing I see a lot of in this forum is people talking about "living simply". I don't see how you can say that living without a car is simpler than living with one. It's a lot simpler to get a $300/month raise and buy a car than it is to figure out how to ride home in the rain and the snow while carrying your groceries on the back of your bike. If living without a car was so simple, a lot more people would do it. We wouldn't have this forum discussing how to get around the challenges that it implies, because they'd all be so simple.
I think here you're misinterpreting "simple". I think most people here, when referring to a simple lifestyle, don't mean it's easier, it's less "work" or "hassle"; they mean things like fewer material posessions, less time at work and more time with friends and family, less stress about "keeping up" and more enjoying their life the way they choose to live it. I know that's what I mean by a simple life.


The simplest lifestyle would probably have someone own both a bike and a car, and they could choose the one that would be most convenient in any particular situation, which would often be the car.
That may be your ideal lifestyle, using the car more often because it's "most convenient", but it's not mine, and I don't think it's the ideal lifestyle for most (probably all) of the car-free folks here.


I'm not trying to say that "living car free" is a bad thing, just that I don't understand a lot of the attitudes and reasoning that come along with it, as displayed in this forum.
It's obvious from your post that you don't understand. The issue I have is you're not asking for an explanation, or for help to understand; you're basically just slamming us and our choices, with only your opinions and ignorance of the lifestyle to back you up. That's why you're being called a troll. If you had told us you didn't understand X, Y, and Z, but wanted to, please explain, then we would be more receptive.

[jhershbine]

Maybe if you were in Iraq with me last year, and could see first hand the devastation and destruction of human life that was caused by an oil gluttonous society you would think twice whether you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution...

[akarius]

I thought we got most of our steel from recycling it not mining it anymore. Besides think how many bikes we can make with one car.

[ragmathewombat]

Look, the environmental destruction part is right. But if this was A.D. 1200 and Saddam and his cronies were still in power, they'd still be raping and killing with horses and swords instead of tanks, regardless of whether you support the war or the Iraqis or whoever. The Inquisition was possible without oil, anyways.

But the true test of whether you're a good car-free advocate (and I agree with most of you) is if you can successfully tear holes in the idea of having one hybrid 50+mpg car per family, for utility and emergencies. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's a far more difficult argument than just hating the 15mpg Hummer guy that nearly ran you over. It sounds like the guy you're all mad at would love to tear down the car-based consumer economy, but it's gonna be hard to win converts when we can't all live near productive farmland or oceans. It's doable, but I'd say you have to work with people who aren't quite there yet in order to make it a mass movement. Humvees and Escalades are easy targets...convince a family of four not to own a Civic, and I'll be impressed. Best of luck, I hope this catches on!

[Roody]

So notfred's a nottroll? I'm glad. :)

I know he's posted good stuff in other forums, so I bet he will here too, after a rocky start.

But wasn't there something about a naughty picture?

[notfred]

I'm going to try and respond to a bunch of different psots at once here:

Here's the Troll Test for notfred:

How does it benefit you to post on a Carfree forum, given that you have no interest in carfree living for yourself?

If he gives the right answer he's not a troll. I bet he passes!

I had to think about this for a bit. Mostly, I was trying to decide whether or not I have any interest in car-free living.

I think I do. It's a cool idea. Although it seems like it's impractical (to me, anyway, I know many of you think differently) ina many parts of the USA. This forum is basically about how to make it more practical, which is an interesting topic. It's just that I see things in here like people making fun of drivers because gas gets more expensive. That doesn't help them live car-free, it just creates more division and elitism. That doesn't seem beneficial to anyone to me.

And now that I'm thinking about that, that's basically what I did in my first post, except from a different angle. I started tearing people apart for doing things that seem questionable to me. I don't think that's a productive route to take on either side of the argument, and I'll admit that I didn't put my original post together in the best manner.


I don't think you're a troll... [trimmed]
...Hope you'll think about this and see how far you can go in at least living "car-light", like I try to.

Regards

Robert

That was a really good post. Everything you said made sense. The "car-light" idea, in which you try to minimize excess use of the car, but acknowledge that using a car in certain situations does probably make more sense than using a bike, seems pretty sound to me.

I think here you're misinterpreting "simple". I think most people here, when referring to a simple lifestyle, don't mean it's easier, it's less "work" or "hassle"; they mean things like fewer material posessions, less time at work and more time with friends and family, less stress about "keeping up" and more enjoying their life the way they choose to live it. I know that's what I mean by a simple life.

I guess "simple" is what you make of it. I think "less 'hassle'" and "more enjoying their life the way they choose to live it" go hand in hand. I also think that spending time with friends and family is probably the most important thing in my life as far as my happiness is concerned. I also know that the only feasible way for me to spend any time with my parents is by driving to thier place, as it's 165 miles away and there's no train that goes there. In such a case, I'm using a car to help me enjoy the simpler things in life.


That may be your ideal lifestyle, using the car more often because it's "most convenient", but it's not mine, and I don't think it's the ideal lifestyle for most (probably all) of the car-free folks here.

That's fair. I should expect that in a forum like this: the general opinion is probably that cars aren't so neccessary most of the time.


It's obvious from your post that you don't understand. The issue I have is you're not asking for an explanation, or for help to understand; you're basically just slamming us and our choices, with only your opinions and ignorance of the lifestyle to back you up. That's why you're being called a troll. If you had told us you didn't understand X, Y, and Z, but wanted to, please explain, then we would be more receptive.
I think this is a personal character flaw. I tend to get argumentative really easily. I expect people to come back and challenge the points that I think I've made, and defend thier own, but I often just make people mad. I sometimes do this in real life, too. Sometimes I just need to think a bit longer before I speak.



I honestly didn't mean this thread to be inflamatory. I just didn't put the original post together properly, and I didn't really get the message across that I wanted to. I just think that sometimes this forum comes across as a bit elitist or exclusive, or the arguments seem one-sided (not always, and not all members do this). That's probably good for building a strong community within the forum and it's members, but I think it makes it hard for new people to feel welcome, especially if they're skeptical about the whole car-free lifestyle.

[Roody]

I think I do. It's a cool idea. Although it seems like it's impractical (to me, anyway, I know many of you think differently) ina many parts of the USA. This forum is basically about how to make it more practical, which is an interesting topic. It's just that I see things in here like people making fun of drivers because gas gets more expensive. That doesn't help them live car-free, it just creates more division and elitism. That doesn't seem beneficial to anyone to me.

I agree that it (carfree) is impractical. And it is difficult at times. But the alternative (cars and overconsumption of resources in general) is much worse than impractical, it's unsustainable. Literally, if everybody in the world lived the way most Americans do, life as we know it on this planet would not survive another few generations. And the thing is, we see it, and we're trying to do something about it in our own lives. If there is anything morally good in what we are doing, that's it, right there in the last sentence I wrote. And that's also what makes this a practical forum, as you, Mr. nottroll, suggested.

The point, morally and politically, is not if you drive a car. The point is are you really trying to live your own life in a way that makes this world a better place?

Well are you?

[quintessence22]

I agree that it (carfree) is impractical. And it is difficult at times. But the alternative (cars and overconsumption of resources in general) is much worse than impractical, it's unsustainable. Literally, if everybody in the world lived the way most Americans do, life as we know it on this planet would not survive another few generations. And the thing is, we see it, and we're trying to do something about it in our own lives. If there is anything morally good in what we are doing, that's it, right there in the last sentence I wrote. And that's also what makes this a practical forum, as you, Mr. nottroll, suggested.

The point, morally and politically, is not if you drive a car. The point is are you really trying to live your own life in a way that makes this world a better place?

Well are you?

Roody, you're posts tend to always add value to the thread! I think your argument may be the ultimate argument to convince someone who is considering a car-free lifestyle and/or is a treehugging liberal. The idea may not even have to be elevated to the question of "What is morally good?", but can remain as an ethical issue. Thusly, we (car-free people) can avoid being accused of being morally superior, we can claim to be acting ethically. That is, if ethics is a question about what works, and both cars and bikes work for a given job, but cars involve a much greater externality (pollution, economic and consumption costs of oil industry, conflict over oil, and unstainability), then it is more ethical to ride a bike than to drive a car. This is not morally superior; just acting in a manner that hurts us less and gives future generations a chance.


I just think that sometimes this forum comes across as a bit elitist or exclusive, or the arguments seem one-sided (not always, and not all members do this). That's probably good for building a strong community within the forum and it's members, but I think it makes it hard for new people to feel welcome, especially if they're skeptical about the whole car-free lifestyle.


You're right notfred, this subforum may seem somewhat fanatical. In real life, when I talk about riding my bike everywhere instead of driving, I probably appear a little bit overboard and antagonistic. I'll keep in mind to arrest this behaviour.

Additionally, at least skeptics are aware of car-free life, while there are those completely ignorant and are absolutely shortsighted and couldn't even imagine the idea of choosing a bike over a car. Perhaps this subforum mostly caters to the already converted or very susceptible to the idea of car-free due to financial reasons and environmental ideals.

Right now, when I bring up the subject of biking over driving with friends, I use a completely different tone and attitude than when I am asked about it by either a stranger or acquaintance. Perhaps I may need to form a personal methodology for advocacy starting with analyzing the type of person asking about it. At least I won't seem like a nutjob so much anymore; not that I mind being called "crazy".

[attercoppe]

Hey, thanks for coming back and continuing the conversation, notfred. I understand now where you're coming from. Hopefully if you'll hang out here a little more, we can educate you a bit. And hopefully your post will educate us a bit on our attitudes. Yes, we can be elitist and exclusionary, and we often make fun of things like gas prices, and drivers in general. I think many of us see this sub-forum as a group of friends who (theoretically) share (most of) the same interests and beliefs. We can forget that others come here too, those who would like to be car-free, car-lighter, or just learn about the lifestyle. We should watch our attitudes if we're concerned about advocacy and furthering reduced auto usage.

I'm going to have to disagree with notfred and Roody and say that living car-free is not practical for everybody. It's very practical for me, in fact driving a car would be impractical for me most of the time. I live in such a small town that many of the places I go regularly are too close to drive to - a car would hardly be warmed up before I got there - and what with parking, traffic, etc it might very well take longer to drive. (This includes work, laundromat, grocery store, thrift store, hardware store, department store, LBS, post office...) Living by myself means I don't often buy a lot of groceries at once, so it makes more sense to use a bike+trailer than a car. Since moving here eight months ago, I have travelled 130 miles to Denver to get on a train (then back later), and 60 miles RT to the county seat (to get my driver's license!) - otherwise, I haven't needed to leave town. No more often than I need a car, it would be impractical and overly expensive for me to keep one. Having a car was essential to my move (at least the way I did it); in fact the car I started out in broke down partway here, and I bought another one to finish the trip. But now that I'm here, I have next to no use for a personal automobile. Of course this is tied to where I live, the services available to me within my town, and my lifestyle (what services I use). Not everyone is in the same situation.

[Platy]

Welcome to the carfree forum. You can get started by simply leaving your car parked in the driveway for a month or two. We'll provide encouragement and tips, just ask!

[patc]

I initially labelled your post a troll. It had the classic signs: opinions contrary to the known stance of a forum, not fitting within a forum's mandate, and designed to cause strong reaction. I didn't see honest questions, but scoffing disagreement. Perhaps I was wrong, perhaps not, but I will now give you the benefit of the doubt.


There seems to be two main reasons behind the "living car free" philosophy - environmental reasoning, and financial reasoning. I'm going to start with the financial aspect. People in this forum really like to talk about how much money they save by not owning a car. This is fine, I guess, but I don't see how people can be so proud of an accomplishment based on so little.

But it's not "so little". It is a huge change both environmentally and financially, and it is a huge accomplishment in light of our car-centric cultures. Following the status quo is easy, going your own way is not. How often to motorists talk about how much more "convenient" their car is? There is nothing little about the accomplishments of the car-free.

People in this forum take great pride in the fact that they don't drive. It actually seems to turn into a pissing match of sorts on occasion. There's a thread running right now in which people are saying things like "I'm 37 years old and have never owned a car in my life!" These aren't simply statements of fact, but people expressing thier pride as to how long they've gone without a car.

First, it can turn into a pissing match because this forum is to support "living car-free", so when someone comes along condoning car use and not contributing to the concept of "living car-free" was lose patience. Trust me, those of us who have lived car-free for years have heard it all, we really want a space in which to help each other and those new to car-freedom without having to justify everything. As to pride, of course we are proud - see my statements above re: the accomplishment.


This doesn't jive at all with the financial reasoning behind not owning a car. It would be like saying "I've gone the last 17 years and never bought name-brand clothes!" This doesnt make you a better person.

You are confusing financial reason with the moral reasons. I, for one, do think that being car-free makes me a better person - both because of how it has made me take responsibility for my local environment, and also because I see it as more morally correct choice. In the same way I feel that recycling, helping old ladies cross the street, and volunteering for a charity make you a better person. Some people feel that name-brand clothing, to use your example, is produced in ways they can't morally support, and there they see themselves as better people for not buying name-brand stuff.

While it may be true that some car-free people can't afford a car, you shouldn't assume that they are hypocrites. For me, for example, finances are a small argument when it comes to being car-free, but I am not a very money-oriented person.

Saying "I don't own a car!", doesn't reflect a single thing about your character if there's absolutely no way you could have bought a car, even if you wanted to. Not owning a car that you're not capable of owning doesn't mean you made some noble choice.

I think not owning a car speaks volumes about a person's character. I would also argue that most people can't really afford the car they drive - after all, many need a loan to buy the thing. Most North Americans live under a huge dept load... doesn't sound to me like people can really afford cars at all. Mostly beside the point to me, however, this isn't a money issue for me. This is about hogging resources and harming the health of your neighbours.


A bike is significantly more environmentally friendly than a car. However, it still requires that we build roads, mine for metals to build bikes with, etc. The truly environmentally-conscious should probably start a "living bike free" forum in which they talk about all the challenges imposed by trying to walk everywhere. I think that a bike is apretty good compromise between eco-friendliness and speed and convenience, though.

Exactly. Bikes, walking, and public transit are much more effective and environmentally acceptable ways of transport without urban areas. Private cars are, to me, completely unacceptable. We would still need road if we banned all cars, yes, but a fraction of what we need now.

One more thing I see a lot of in this forum is people talking about "living simply". I don't see how you can say that living without a car is simpler than living with one. It's a lot simpler to get a $300/month raise and buy a car than it is to figure out how to ride home in the rain and the snow while carrying your groceries on the back of your bike. If living without a car was so simple, a lot more people would do it. We wouldn't have this forum discussing how to get around the challenges that it implies, because they'd all be so simple.

You are confusing "simple" with "easy". And not all of us live a simple life by any means - I sure as heck don't. I'm as saddled with things as you can get. Despite not being into the "simple life" mindset as such, however, I still feel that using a bike has increased my quality of life, and that being car-free (even if you don't cycle) offers a better quality of life to driving.


I'm not trying to say that "living car free" is a bad thing, just that I don't understand a lot of the attitudes and reasoning that come along with it, as displayed in this forum.

Maybe you should have started with that statement, then asked your questions, instead of telling us why you think we are wrong.

[cooker]

That was a really good post. Everything you said made sense. Thanks :)
The "car-light" idea, in which you try to minimize excess use of the car, but acknowledge that using a car in certain situations does probably make more sense than using a bike, seems pretty sound to me.
I would just insert the word "regrettably" in there somewhere. I'd like to see our settlements re-engineered (as they will be) to make car use unecessary. In my ideal topography we'd live more like Europeans, or Victorian English, with dense cities well served by public transit or easily navigable by bike, and small towns strung out along rail lines, so you could go almost anywhere without a car. In some ways you're freer, since you can sleep, relax or work while in transit, and you don't have to accomodate the car everywhere you go. The suburbs could be returned to nature or agriculture.

[gemini]

But it's not "so little". It is a huge change both environmentally and financially, and it is a huge accomplishment in light of our car-centric cultures. Following the status quo is easy, going your own way is not. How often to motorists talk about how much more "convenient" their car is? There is nothing little about the accomplishments of the car-free.



You are confusing financial reason with the moral reasons. I, for one, do think that being car-free makes me a better person - both because of how it has made me take responsibility for my local environment, and also because I see it as more morally correct choice. In the same way I feel that recycling, helping old ladies cross the street, and volunteering for a charity make you a better person. Some people feel that name-brand clothing, to use your example, is produced in ways they can't morally support, and there they see themselves as better people for not buying name-brand stuff.


"In light of our car-centric culture" seem to be the operative words here. This reminds me of that video the city of Copenhagen had made. A lot of the cyclists that were interviewed on the streets said that they do not feel there is a 'cycling culture' (in a city where a third of all trips are by bike!) or at least feel that they are not part of anything like that. It's just a way to get around, not a big conscious moral choice or a statement or a 'huge accomplishment'. It's similar in Finland. Although cycling is not a easy or as popular as in Copenhagen, it's always been a normal way, and a lot of the time _the_ normal way, of transportation. Lots of people cycle to work or school every day and they'd think it would be silly to discuss it on a internet forum. Part of it is probably the fact that the country has grown rich much later than the US and has not had as many cars for as long as the US. Some places are almost getting there now, though.

[Dahon.Steve]

[QUOTE=patcI think not owning a car speaks volumes about a person's character. I would also argue that most people can't really afford the car they drive - after all, many need a loan to buy the thing. Most North Americans live under a huge dept load... doesn't sound to me like people can really afford cars at all.[/QUOTE]

Agreed:

Years ago, you had to put a huge down payment to walk out of the showroom with a new car. Not anymore. I believe insurance companies take liability (Not the dealer) in case you default. As a result, dealers can practically sell cars to people who have no jobs or income.

The high price of gas is a good example of people living on the edge. I personally would have no problem paying an additional 20 or 30 cents extra for a gallon of gasoline or anything. But when you include the high monthly car payments, insurance, repairs, tolls, tickets, parking and maintanence, any increase in fuel can put your finances over the limit!

I think you hit it right on the head when you said that people really can't afford cars. I read in a magazine that 70% of all luxury cars are leased! Why? None of those folks have cash to buy the car which by the way is the hallmark of someone with money.

[Dahon.Steve]

One more thing I see a lot of in this forum is people talking about "living simply". I don't see how you can say that living without a car is simpler than living with one. It's a lot simpler to get a $300/month raise and buy a car than it is to figure out how to ride home in the rain and the snow while carrying your groceries on the back of your bike. If living without a car was so simple, a lot more people would do it. We wouldn't have this forum discussing how to get around the challenges that it implies, because they'd all be so simple.

I believed like you did when I was 24 with little money and a vehicle that was bleading me to death. It wasn't until a financial crissis that nearly sent me into bankruptcy that changed my opinion altogether. It's not simpler to get a $300.00 dollar a ($3,600.00 a year) month raise to buy a new car. After taxes, that raise is closer to $2,500.00 hundred or less and that is not enough to purchase and maintain a motorcar. The Automobile Club of America estimates it will cost between 4-7K a year to drive a vehicle which is why millions of Americans are struggling to pay gasoline when it only went up 20 cents per gallon in the past week.

Furthermore, why would I want to give my hard earned raise to a car dealer? Is he going to support my retirement fund? Is he going to pay my bills should I become unemployed? A raise of that kind should be used for savings and to improve the quality of my life. A costly motorcar purchase would do just the opposite.

We discuss the topic of living carfree as being a simple life but no one said it was going to be easy. For some like myself, it is easy becuase we choose to live in mixed use communites that have shopping right outside our door. For others, a carfee lifestyle is a sacrifice.

I consider the challenge of carfree lifestyle worth it regardless of the struggle it imposes at times. Why? The challenge of coming up with money for monthly car payments, gas, insurance, tolls, tickets and repairs is much harder than the worse day of being carfree.

[Roody]

"In light of our car-centric culture" seem to be the operative words here. This reminds me of that video the city of Copenhagen had made. A lot of the cyclists that were interviewed on the streets said that they do not feel there is a 'cycling culture' (in a city where a third of all trips are by bike!) or at least feel that they are not part of anything like that. It's just a way to get around, not a big conscious moral choice or a statement or a 'huge accomplishment'. It's similar in Finland. Although cycling is not a easy or as popular as in Copenhagen, it's always been a normal way, and a lot of the time _the_ normal way, of transportation. Lots of people cycle to work or school every day and they'd think it would be silly to discuss it on a internet forum. Part of it is probably the fact that the country has grown rich much later than the US and has not had as many cars for as long as the US. Some places are almost getting there now, though.
Here's my first observation: Most carfree utility cyclists in the US don't come on Bikeforums and probably don't identify with either a "carfree culture" or a "bike culture." Imagine stopping most of the people riding bikes in your city and asking them if they are part of the bike culture. I bet almost all would give you a blank stare. "I just ride a bike because it's faster than walking and my feet don't get as tired."

My second observation is that it's a hell of a lot easier to get around by bike in Europe than it is in the US. There is (generally) a lot less sprawl, so destinations are closer than they are here. Also you have much better public transit as a backup and supplement to your bike. These factors mean that being carfree is both more popular and better accepted in Europe. People therefore have less motivation to identify with other carfree and bike people as they are not made to feel that they are somehow in the "lunatic fringe."

That said, we do have a fair number of BF members from Europe, so evidently not all carfree people there agree with the ones in the Danish video.

[AlanK]

The environmental reasoning seems to hold a lot more water in my mind. A bike is significantly more environmentally friendly than a car. However, it still requires that we build roads, mine for metals to build bikes with, etc. The truly environmentally-conscious should probably start a "living bike free" forum in which they talk about all the challenges imposed by trying to walk everywhere. I think that a bike is apretty good compromise between eco-friendliness and speed and convenience, though.

notfred, as others have mentioned, yes producing bicycles requires some consumption of natural resources and pollution, but significantly less than that of a car and most other forms of transportation. In fact numerous studies have demonstrated that bicycling is the most efficient form of transporation. While walking requires virtually no consumption of resources (other than shoes), expending the same amount of energy on a bike produces much greater speed than the same amount of energy applied to walking/running. Also, many bicycles are made from recycled scrap metal, which requires no mining whatsoever.

Others have mentioned also that not having a car is largely based on an ideal that car-based lifestyle is not sustainable; if everyone consumed and polluted that way north Americans do, the planet would be uninhabitable. There was a time when this argument was purely hypothetical - it seemed unlikely that everyone in the undeveloped world would eventually get a car. But with globalization, this scenario seems more and more feasible. So our focus (those without cars) on car-less transportation might be the only one that makes sense in the near future.

[patc]

I think you hit it right on the head when you said that people really can't afford cars. I read in a magazine that 70% of all luxury cars are leased! Why? None of those folks have cash to buy the car which by the way is the hallmark of someone with money.

I read an article recently (may have been posted here, actually) which interviewed a construction worker who had pawned his tools to pay for gas - and then could not work since he had no tools. Talk about insanity!

[patc]

Here's my first observation: Most carfree utility cyclists in the US don't come on Bikeforums and probably don't identify with either a "carfree culture" or a "bike culture." Imagine stopping most of the people riding bikes in your city and asking them if they are part of the bike culture. I bet almost all would give you a blank stare. "I just ride a bike because it's faster than walking and my feet don't get as tired."

Good observation. At least half the people I know are car-free, perhaps more, but most would not identify as "car-free". They simply live, work, and play downtown or within the urban core, in a city that has great public transit and cycling. If you ask them why they don't have a car, they look at you strangely and ask, "Why bother with one?"

[AlanK]

Good observation. At least half the people I know are car-free, perhaps more, but most would not identify as "car-free". They simply live, work, and play downtown or within the urban core, in a city that has great public transit and cycling. If you ask them why they don't have a car, they look at you strangely and ask, "Why bother with one?"

Exactly. For all the talk about US citizens being irresponsible and self-indulgent, ultimately we're like most other people in that we do what's practical most of the time. In some Canadian cities like Toronto, and many western European cities, it simply doesn't make sense to have a car: cities are designed for walking and bicycling to be convenient and safe, and while driving is inconvenient and expensive. In most US cities the inverse is true especially in the suburbs. If you live in the burbs (most US cities have become suburbanized) having a car makes sense. People typically need to travel at least 10 miles to work daily, and even basic necessities like groceries are at least 2-3 miles away. In this environment, driving is convenient. But if work and necessities are within 1-2 miles and there is ample bike and walking space, these means make more sense.

[mtnroads]

Years ago, you had to put a huge down payment to walk out of the showroom with a new car. Not anymore. I believe insurance companies take liability (Not the dealer) in case you default. As a result, dealers can practically sell cars to people who have no jobs or income.

The finance company is the one who approves your loan and carries the risk - dealer has nothing to do with it other than setting the price and presenting the paperwork from the finance co. for you to sign.

The high price of gas is a good example of people living on the edge. I personally would have no problem paying an additional 20 or 30 cents extra for a gallon of gasoline or anything. But when you include the high monthly car payments, insurance, repairs, tolls, tickets, parking and maintanence, any increase in fuel can put your finances over the limit!

No doubt, car ownership is EXPENSIVE. You left out depreciation, which adds $3-500/month on many vehicles. When you add it up, many middle-class families spend $1500/month or more for two vehicles, which of course requires earning $2000-2500 before taxes. Just to pay for the cars!

I think you hit it right on the head when you said that people really can't afford cars. I read in a magazine that 70% of all luxury cars are leased! Why? None of those folks have cash to buy the car which by the way is the hallmark of someone with money.

Actually many people who lease CAN afford to buy, but leasing offers many other advantages - tax advantages if you have a business, predictable payment stream and cash flow, no suprises on depreciation or other ownership expenses, and often a capitalized buydown by the manufacturer that effectively subsidizes the depreciation ahead of time. Leasing is harder to get into than traditional financing and is often taken advantage by the financially savvy.

[KrisPistofferson]

My own reason for choosing to be car-free is the same reason I chose to be vegetarian and hold no credit cards-it lessens my temptation to act irresponsibly.

I just can't deal with a credit card responsibly, it doesn't seem to be in my genetic makeup, (it's probably the same thing that makes me a good poker player, though.) So I don't have any.

If I eat vegetarian, it's a definition I stick to, whereas if I ate meat, pretty soon I'd end up at the Mickey D's and Burger King every day like all those guys I work with. So how I define myself helps me keep from "going with the flow," dig?

I'm sure if I still owned a car, I'd want to make a trip to the bank here, and a trip to the grocery there, and before you know it I'd end up not even walking down the block. I do realize many people more disciplined than myself are able to own cars, eat healthily and have credit cards with no problem, but I am not one of them, so I act accordingly.

Also, I hate to drive after my stint as a (fat) truck driver.

I think the OP was trolling a bit, with his insinuation that car-free=poverty, but hey, this forum does get quite self-righteous at times, so he has a point there. I would ask the OP to try it. You'd be surprised at how many people get inspired to try cycling from the guy who shows up every day, rain or shine, on a bicycle.

[Blackberry]

Here's my first observation: Most carfree utility cyclists in the US don't come on Bikeforums and probably don't identify with either a "carfree culture" or a "bike culture." .

This sums up my office mate to a T. She rides her $300 cruiser to work every day because it's cheaper, easier and faster than driving. Although she loves her bike, which she has named "The Princess," she wouldn't touch a bicycling forum with a long stick. Maybe I scared her off with my description of flame wars over chain lube.

[Bike_UK]

The point, morally and politically, ... is are you really trying to live your own life in a way that makes this world a better place?

Well are you?
Car-free aside, this is a question everybody should ask themselves every day. It's a question you could build a religion on and live your life by. Excellent, Roody!


My definition of 'simple' is not about ease, more about less reliance on technology.

[brunop]

i not only don't have a car, i don't have a HUMMER! that makes me even better than folks who only don't have a car, right? makes sense.:)

[sfcrossrider]

Just for background, I'm a 24 year old male, living in Northern California. I currently own a car and two bicycles.

I came to bike forums in the first place because I started mountain biking and wanted to read the mountain biking forum. I've also become interested in bike commuting, fixed gear bikes, and other aspects of cycling culture. But -- I just don't understand the whole "living car free" thing.

There seems to be two main reasons behind the "living car free" philosophy - environmental reasoning, and financial reasoning. I'm going to start with the financial aspect. People in this forum really like to talk about how much money they save by not owning a car. This is fine, I guess, but I don't see how people can be so proud of an accomplishment based on so little.

People in this forum take great pride in the fact that they don't drive. It actually seems to turn into a pissing match of sorts on occasion. There's a thread running right now in which people are saying things like "I'm 37 years old and have never owned a car in my life!" These aren't simply statements of fact, but people expressing thier pride as to how long they've gone without a car.

This doesn't jive at all with the financial reasoning behind not owning a car. It would be like saying "I've gone the last 17 years and never bought name-brand clothes!" This doesnt make you a better person. It's not something to brag about. If you don't like name brand clothes - then fine, but you're not earning any bragging rights simply because you chose to spend your money on something else. Even worse is if you simply don't make enough money to afford a car in the first place. Saying "I don't own a car!", doesn't reflect a single thing about your character if there's absolutely no way you could have bought a car, even if you wanted to. Not owning a car that you're not capable of owning doesn't mean you made some noble choice.

Now, I'm not trying to say that everyone should own a car. I'm just saying that choosing to spend your money on other things (or not choosing, if you don't have enough money in the first place) doesn't qualify anyone to act like they have some sort of moral superiorty over everyone else, which is what I seem to see a lot of in this forum.

The environmental reasoning seems to hold a lot more water in my mind. A bike is significantly more environmentally friendly than a car. However, it still requires that we build roads, mine for metals to build bikes with, etc. The truly environmentally-conscious should probably start a "living bike free" forum in which they talk about all the challenges imposed by trying to walk everywhere. I think that a bike is apretty good compromise between eco-friendliness and speed and convenience, though.

One more thing I see a lot of in this forum is people talking about "living simply". I don't see how you can say that living without a car is simpler than living with one. It's a lot simpler to get a $300/month raise and buy a car than it is to figure out how to ride home in the rain and the snow while carrying your groceries on the back of your bike. If living without a car was so simple, a lot more people would do it. We wouldn't have this forum discussing how to get around the challenges that it implies, because they'd all be so simple.

The simplest lifestyle would probably have someone own both a bike and a car, and they could choose the one that would be most convenient in any particular situation, which would often be the car.

I'm not trying to say that "living car free" is a bad thing, just that I don't understand a lot of the attitudes and reasoning that come along with it, as displayed in this forum.


For me it's a function of fitness. I'm an avid big wave surfer and cycle cross racer. By riding my bike all over SF I'm able to:

1. Have legs the size of tree trunks. Yes the're that big.
2. Have the VO2 max of a large ape.
3. Drop 90% of A N Y O N E I ride with.
4. Paddle for, and catch waves that I couldn't other wise.
5. Hold my breath for the two wave hold down.
6. Eat WHATEVER I want and still have a 6 pack at 32 years old.
7. Save aroung 3,000 per year. I do use a car when the waves get over 20 feet. Helps to speed someone to the ER.
;)
8. Telling big oil to fu(k off... Unless #7 happens. :rolleyes:

[ragmathewombat]

Those are all excellent reasons, I would just add that even if you never have to cut calories, eating healthily isn't just for the overweight...I'm 6'2 200 and look like a prison camp internee at 180 (not for you, but for any greasy hamburger types, it's important to moderate your intake of certain chemicals and fats) and that while Big Oil isn't our friend, having modern antibiotics, MRIs and other nice-to-have plastic things such as surgical tubing needs to come from somewhere. I would love to have a world that uses geothermal/wind/solar for its heating, cooling, and transportation (I like my refrigerator), but I still want access to the health and safety stuff, so I'll never advocate complete shutting down of all petroleum production. Sure, I could survive without it, but my grandmother couldn't necessarily say the same, and oil-derived substances help keep babies alive in otherwise bad but avoidable situations, such as infection through careless hospital staff. Good points though.

[Roody]

Those are all excellent reasons, I would just add that even if you never have to cut calories, eating healthily isn't just for the overweight...I'm 6'2 200 and look like a prison camp internee at 180 (not for you, but for any greasy hamburger types, it's important to moderate your intake of certain chemicals and fats) and that while Big Oil isn't our friend, having modern antibiotics, MRIs and other nice-to-have plastic things such as surgical tubing needs to come from somewhere. I would love to have a world that uses geothermal/wind/solar for its heating, cooling, and transportation (I like my refrigerator), but I still want access to the health and safety stuff, so I'll never advocate complete shutting down of all petroleum production. Sure, I could survive without it, but my grandmother couldn't necessarily say the same, and oil-derived substances help keep babies alive in otherwise bad but avoidable situations, such as infection through careless hospital staff. Good points though. But, by doing evrything we can to prevent petroleum from being turned into oil and gas, we leave ourselves more to turn into other petrochemicals. Medical equipment, electronics, safe food packaging--there are many uses for petroleum more important than firing up the Navigator for a run to the bike shop.

[ragmathewombat]

Exactly. And it's perfectly reasonable to imagine that thermal depolymerization ('anything into oil') might soon make up for what we can't get out of the ground and don't have to use for transport...except that only in America is that eco-friendly solution made unprofitable by poultry companies charging the conversion folks extra money to use their turkey guts as feedstock. Anywhere else, it's a nearly-closed CO2 loop and burning "fossil fuels" made from dead algae is only a matter of noise pollution.

[PurpleK]

I just think that sometimes this forum comes across as a bit elitist or exclusive..

But car free IS elitist and exclusive ;) . Not many people can do it, or choose not to because they aren't willing to make the lifestyle changes to make it possible. It means accepting a challenge and overcoming the obstacles. Some can do it, others - perhaps most - cannot. Not every soldier can be a Green Beret, not every little leaguer can become a major leaguer, not every pilot can be an astronaut. I hold in high esteem everyone that adopts the car free lifestyle because to me, they have discovered a higher plane of living by breaking the bondage of a personal motor vehicle. Every morning I arrive at work feeling relaxed and motivated from my ride in, while I'm surrounded by co-workers stressed and irritable from their drive in. Yet they think I'M the crazy one.

[mike]

I just don't understand the whole "living car free" thing.

People in this forum really like to talk about how much money they save by not owning a car. This is fine, I guess, but I don't see how people can be so proud of an accomplishment based on so little.

People in this forum take great pride in the fact that they don't drive. It actually seems to turn into a pissing match of sorts on occasion. There's a thread running right now in which people are saying things like "I'm 37 years old and have never owned a car in my life!" These aren't simply statements of fact, but people expressing thier pride as to how long they've gone without a car.

This doesn't jive at all with the financial reasoning behind not owning a car. It would be like saying "I've gone the last 17 years and never bought name-brand clothes!" This doesnt make you a better person. It's not something to brag about. If you don't like name brand clothes - then fine, but you're not earning any bragging rights simply because you chose to spend your money on something else. Even worse is if you simply don't make enough money to afford a car in the first place. Saying "I don't own a car!", doesn't reflect a single thing about your character if there's absolutely no way you could have bought a car, even if you wanted to. Not owning a car that you're not capable of owning doesn't mean you made some noble choice.

Perhaps I can shed some light on the pride of living car free. It is more than simply choosing to not own or drive a car. I think you appreciate that we live in a society with a lifestyle base that is made possible by the automobile. All that we are supposed to accomplish in a day is made possible by the automobile - the multi-event days, the great distances between home/work/activities, even shopping at the X-box stores where you travel to distant locations and buy several weeks worth of goods at one time.

Living car free means being able to somehow balance a lifestyle that allows you to live in an automobile based society but WITHOUT the automobile. It takes a lot of organizing and planning. It also means facing nasty weather, hostile drivers, and it takes physical strength. The reasons for living car free are varied, but the challenge is large for just about everyone.

So the big deal is actually pulling it off. For those who really make the jump and live completely without a car in the driveway "just in case", they are living without the social safety-net. People who live car-free by choice display a greater than average degree of self-confidence and self-esteem just to be able to say, "hey, screw the norms - I don't care what others might think. This is what I CHOSE to do".

I don't actually live car-free. I have let my car sit without moving for six months at a time as I fulfilled my transport needs by bicycle, but I never actually cut the umbilicle cord.

I do admire those who do live car free. They show that they have mastered the art of true living rather than being a slave to the crazy lifestyle encouraged by the automobile.

[cyclezealot]

Notfred. I think Fred, you are getting carried away with thinking most car free oriented members want to inflict their values on you. Well, environmentally, maybe? But status wise. No .
I think the reaction to cars is just the opposite of your suggestions.. It is the car that IS the status symbol. You drive a stinkin Chevy piece of crap. Now, there is a judgement value.
It has been driven into us since the womb that cars are the status symbol. Maybe along with watches.
Those reacting to cars are reacting to this enforced value of human worth.. You are not necessarily a bad person if you drive an old chevy.
Nor are you a bad person if you own a car. I think most of those who aspire to be so called , car free- just are reacting to a car's supposed status symbol, and slavery to all it's cost factors; let, alone all the environmental arguments.
and as for me. My biggest beef. I no longer find driving to be fun. It is drudgery, making one want to rage about the behaviour of humans. Returning from a bike ride, I rarely feel that way; as long as I stay away from motorists, that is.

[patc]

Living car free means being able to somehow balance a lifestyle that allows you to live in an automobile based society but WITHOUT the automobile. It takes a lot of organizing and planning. It also means facing nasty weather, hostile drivers, and it takes physical strength. The reasons for living car free are varied, but the challenge is large for just about everyone.

I think you're really over-stating the level of difficulty, at least for those living in urban centres. Yes, if a person decides to become car-free overnight, they may face a lot of challenges, but many of those are because they allowed themselves to become car-dependent.

For those of us who have always been car-free, it is not a huge challenge, does not take a lot of planning, or physical strength. That means, however, years of planning - from buying your home to selecting your job. You need to think in terms of access to stores, work, parks, and public transit. Even this paragraph makes it sound harder than it is, really. I think it only seems hard to people who are used to having a car and who live far from work and other daily destinations.

Manage your life, and make life choices that will lead to your goals.

[brunop]

everyone who rides a bike is a hero! the more ya ride, the bigger hero you are.:) :) :) :)

[bmike]

Manage your life, and make life choices that will lead to your goals.


++++++!

[Heyduke]

I'd simply rather spend my time on a bicycle than in a car, regardless of the all the benefits that I KNOW come from being car-free....that's just foam on the beer.

[Lamplight]

My biggest beef. I no longer find driving to be fun. It is drudgery, making one want to rage about the behaviour of humans. Returning from a bike ride, I rarely feel that way; as long as I stay away from motorists, that is.
That is what driving has become to me: a drudgery. At one time I really enjoyed cars and driving. I especially liked classic cars It was fun to go for a slow, long cruise around town or in the country. It was something I had fun doing, and I didn't mind spending the money on it. But I gradually became less interested in cars, and it seemed people began driving worse and worse. Eventually it got to the point where I couldn't go for a drive without returning pissed off and stressed out. Suddenly expensive gas and insurance wasn't worth it anymore.

I can ride my bike all over town and when I get home I feel great. I still see motorists doing idiotic things, but in most cases I'm just observing them do those things to each other, not me. As a result I find myself chuckling instead of gritting my teeth. :D

[Angel_Wings]

Well Hi!
I am a 'newbie here and don't quite understand the 'argument' as it seems to me there is no argument!
Own a Car...
Don't own a car...
Isn't it simply a matter of choice?
I am grateful for the freedom to choose.
I absolutely love to drive!

...FYI I am an 'oldie' just getting back into biking, and hope to daily (or at least weekly) increase my ride, that is if the ole joints will hold up.