Family affect on living car free

[KiLlMuNcH]

I drive for a living, but ride my bike to work, and around town. but with me second child on the way (my first about to turn 2), im wondering how i can keep on living my simple lifestyle. im going to need to take my daughter to school, which is about 8 miles, and im going to need to pick up more slack around here while my wife recuops. so basically im asking how do you people with kids keep it simple??

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I drive for a living, but ride my bike to work, and around town. but with me second child on the way (my first about to turn 2), im wondering how i can keep on living my simple lifestyle. im going to need to take my daughter to school, which is about 8 miles, and im going to need to pick up more slack around here while my wife recuops. so basically im asking how do you people with kids keep it simple??
By naively speculating about how easy it would be if they had kids and no cars simultaneously during the children's first 18 years? And perhaps also assuming that living in a crowded urban environment like NYC is a desirable place to raise children.

With maybe one exception, (a work at home couple who had several successful real estate deals to finance their gentrified lifestyle), I don't think you will find too much experience based answers to your specific question on this forum.

[KiLlMuNcH]

By naively speculating about how easy it would be if they had kids and no cars simultaneously during the children's first 18 years? And perhaps also assuming that living in a crowded urban environment like NYC is a desirable place to raise children.

With maybe one exception, (a work at home couple who had several successful real estate deals to finance their gentrified lifestyle), I don't think you will find too much experience based answers to your specific question on this forum.

well i assume that there are people on this forum who are living car free with a family. started driving at 16 stopped at 18 because everything was in walking distance, and in the last few months have picked up biking , now 21 and a second child on the way i bascially just would like some motivation from people who have stayed car free with a family. my girlfriend does drive but i havent been in a car beside work for almost a year, and would like to stay that way. i'd just like to hear from people who have kept there lifestyle even with the addition of children. thank you.

[heywood]

Look, you do need a car sometimes in North America or even anywhere in the world. The trick is not to become "dependent" on it. If you need to get away for a vacation or stock-up on something, rent a car for a day. Treat it as you would a moving van..you wouldn't drive around in that every day so why would you need 1.5 tonnes of steel and class to pick-up milk or go to a movie. If you look around most cars have one person sitting in them, you don't have to follow that trend. I have 2 kids and been without a car for 5 years, I'll rent one when I need it. I do have a camper in my garage for camping in the summer..

Gotta go..

Cheers.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

well i assume that there are people on this forum who are living car free with a family.
Maybe there are people on this forum who are part of a simple-living, zero car family, with children; but they aren't the ones posting all the advice about how to do it.

[nashcommguy]

Not having raised a child while living car-free I HAVE been cycle commuting for over 20 years, consistantly. My son is a senior at university and I purchased a couple of old Schwinns for him and his girlfriend. Rebuilt them w/new cables, hb tape, etc. and put lights, fenders, rack, bags, pump, patch kits, cages+bottles and have encouraged them to 'think' in cycling terms for short trips around campus and town.

That being said the worst thing I've seen while cycle commuting was a father w/2 children in one of those attached 2 wheel trailers behind his bike on a VERY crowded, busy and dangerous street. He was waiting at a traffic light behind a city bus. As the bus took off it left a huge plume of exhaust(as urban, diesel powered buses will do) and the guy rode right through it w/ his 2 children. To me this is a form of 'child endangerment' which is a crime in most states. I remember thinking, "you self-absorbed, obstinate pr**k! Endanger yourself if you want, but don't stubbornly put your children in harms way because you want to prove something." I think there's a certain point at which reality HAS to supercede ideals and putting 60-80 pound children 4 inches above asphalt w/10,000 pound combos of metal, plastic, rubber and toxic exhaust tearing around willy-nilly is one of those cases. Do your best to be prudent and cautious, but push come to shove, leave the kids home, find a sitter and use the trailer for groceries. Just my opinion.

This isn't to suggest you would do anything like the above, but more of a cautionary note . I think a good childseat that sits low in relation to the the bicycle seat is much safer than one of those trailers. A good, solid steel-frame mtb w/wide ties and good brakes in an upright cycling position would be good, also. But, again when in doubt use the sidewalk.

[2manybikes]

Babies are too small to ride in a child seat or a kids trailer. When young kids are sick it's better for the kid to be in a car going to the doctors. If you do have to get something in a hurry for a very sick kid a car is nice. It will happen. If your kid is very sick and you can't get a cab quickly it may be bad for the kids health.
As the kids get into grade school there will be times when they need transportation to school, events, activities etc. It's one of those things that once you do it you have a better understanding of it, like clipless pedals maybe?

If you have an elderly sick family member that needs to go 60 miles to a special doctor, a car is better.

You can get by most of the time with a cab or renting a car, but with small children a car is better. You can still be car light and save the car for when you really need it. You can also buy a small used car that gets good gas mileage.

[HardyWeinberg]

We live 4 blocks from school for 1 kid, ~1.5 miles from daycare for the other, and 7 miles from where I work. Topography was a slight burden pulling the trailer up from the daycare when both kids were going there. I'm just about confident I could pull our 2 yr old in the trailer up a pretty sizeable hill to a different daycare we're considering that is 4 miles from home (but just about directly on my route to work). That daycare is right by our family doc and the hospital in case anything like that comes up during the day (that wouldn't be the reason to switch though). I would still have to keep my hill-climbing ability moving along w/ her growth rate though to keep that up for any period of time.

We do still have a car. I can't really picture toting 2 kids in a trailer if one is a newborn. They need to be able to be strapped into a sitting position and still be able to maintain head control the length of any ride, and defend their own space, if they need to, from the other. I guess that's why there are buses and cabs.

There is also a great LBS near the daycare both kids went to (and one still does). Picture dealing w/ a flat on bike or trailer w/ 2 cranky kids at the end of the day, can appreciate having a shop handy to drop into and say 'fix this'. It's easier to keep the kids from ransacking the store while they fix the flat than to fix the flat yourself with one hand/eye and keep both kids out of the street with the other.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Not having raised a child while living car-free I HAVE been cycle commuting for over 20 years, consistantly.
Yes, and I have cycle commuted consistently for over 30 years and raised three children to adulthood. There is a quite a difference between arranging transportation for just one person (especially to/from one place), and taking care of the transportation needs of a family with dependent children or adults. And the transportation requirements for those with preschool children may be quite different than those of older children or disabled/elderly family members.

I believe many of our simple life AND car free proselytizers do not have a clue about raising a family. Nor recognize that responsibly raising a family cannot depend on assuming that their sincerity can transform their wishful thinking into reality.

[tfahrner]

Maybe there are people on this forum who are part of a simple-living, zero car family, with children; but they aren't the ones posting all the advice about how to do it.
This forum also has one busy fellow who visits neither to give nor receive advice about how to do it, but instead to take swipes at those who do, either for their allegedly non-bike-related countercultural agendas, or their car-free-with-kids "gentrified lifestyle," that could only have resulted from a succession of vaguely contemptible deals having nothing to do with bikes.

Fact is the down-payment on our first house was roughly equal to the money we didn't spend on a car for the first decade of our bike-enabled working life, using AAA's reckoning of $8K/pa average car costs. Is it wrong that we were able to rent out the parking spaces on the place for $350/mo? That the place appreciated quickly because it was in a fashionably dense urban area with a burgeoning bike transport culture? Is it cheating that we were able to buy our second house bigger and cheaper in this family-friendly neighborhood because it doesn't have any off-street parking? Our financial stability is as much a product of our car-free living as the other way around.

"How to keep it simple?" doesn't have a simple answer. It's hard; it's a life's work, and every life is different. My neighbor is a single mom of 2 (one 2, the other 7) who bikes everywhere and has never had a driver's license. She doesn't hang out on boards; she's way too busy surviving. Of course it helps that she chose to live in Portland, as we did. Does that make us the exceptions to prove the rule that you can't live responsibly with kids without a car in the US? It's OK, ILTB; I forgive you for failing to find a way, or failing to try; you can quit calling these grapes sour or fake or impossible for real people to reach. How about every time you want to check the car-free forum you go ride your bike instead, or check your transmission fluid or something?

I can tell the OP how to move kids of any age by bike many miles safely and comfortably in principle, but whether the drivers in the area make it safe in reality or psychologically comfortable is beyond me to say. Another reason I hesitate to repeat similar technical advice is because our livelihood is increasingly comprised of selling equipment I've discovered or made for these purposes, and I'm not here to spam. That said, here's some inspiration from Amsterdam, taken on a business trip: http://todd.cleverchimp.com/blog/?p=172

[I-Like-To-Bike]

"How to keep it simple?" doesn't have a simple answer. It's hard; it's a life's work, and every life is different.
That IS the bottom line. And is the point that the bulk of the counterculture, single or no dependent posters gloss over with their grossly simplified solutions for/generalizations about family transportation requirements.

Hope your family stays healthy and never have need for emergency or personal powered transportation and as your toddlers get older they will always consider you as the center of their universe and wish to remain within the bicycling/public transportation boundries and limits that please you. Your transportation requirements might remain simple that way.

[patc]

I drive for a living, but ride my bike to work, and around town. but with me second child on the way (my first about to turn 2), im wondering how i can keep on living my simple lifestyle.

I'm wondering why people always ask these questions AFTER deciding to have another child. Why not think it through first?

[gwd]

I'm wondering why people always ask these questions AFTER deciding to have another child. Why not think it through first?
Gee Patc, don't you think if a person had thought it through first the person
wouldn't have to ask the question so the question wouldn't appear? Not just
with kids but other questions read as though the asker has gotten in an ugly
lifestyle trap before realizing it.

I also agree with the person who posted that car free people with several kids
have better things to do than hang out on bike forums. The ones I know occasionaly look at the local parents or schools forums and thats all the internetting they have time for.

[Juha]

By naively speculating about how easy it would be if they had kids and no cars simultaneously during the children's first 18 years? And perhaps also assuming that living in a crowded urban environment like NYC is a desirable place to raise children.

With maybe one exception, (a work at home couple who had several successful real estate deals to finance their gentrified lifestyle), I don't think you will find too much experience based answers to your specific question on this forum.

ILTB, if you have nothing, absolutely nothing to contribute on the subject, please shut up instead of hijacking the thread. Thank you.

--Juha, a Forum Mod

[derath]

ILTB, if you have nothing, absolutely nothing to contribute on the subject, please shut up instead of hijacking the thread. Thank you.

--Juha, a Forum Mod


Don't mind ILTB. From what I have gleaned here and on other forums, ILTB fills the bikeforums.net role of contrarian. He often seems to post just to be contrary to whatever subject is being talked about.

If you ignore him, he won't go away unfortunately. But on the plus side his posts can be ignored without affecting the outcome of the discussion at hand.

That being said. "I" am not car free. But I have friends who are completely car free with kids. Now they live downdown Manhatten, so it is easier to be car free than have a car. Heck, they can walk down to the hospital faster than drive. Probably faster than an ambulance to get there.

I would surmise that that this is the biggest factor in being carfree in the US. So much of the country these days is laid out in such a way that it is very difficult to be car free.

-D

[Roody]

ILTB, if you have nothing, absolutely nothing to contribute on the subject, please shut up instead of hijacking the thread. Thank you.

--Juha, a Forum Mod
I'm sorry, but as much as I hate ILTB's smarmy posts, I think he's raising a legitimate point (for once ;)).* I would love to hear from carfree parents who've dealt with these issues. I can't address this from personal experience, but I hope that others can.

Obviously, there are millions of them here in the US. Almost every time I take a bus, I see parents with kids of all sizes and ages. this suggests that it certainly is possible to live carfree with children, even if you don't have a lot of money. It should be easier if you are blessed with a good income and decent logistical skills.

[ . . . . ] im going to need to take my daughter to school, which is about 8 miles, and im going to need to pick up more slack around here while my wife recuops. so basically im asking how do you people with kids keep it simple??

If you HAVE to take your daughter 8 miles to school, you might HAVE to have a car. But have you looked at other altenatives?
Carpool with other parents?
Does the school have a bus or shuttle?
Can you move closr to the school?
Can you find a different school, closer to your home?
Public transit?
Can you move to a less sprawled area all together, where all services and locations would be closer together?



*Addendum for obligatory (but sincere) brown-nosing: Juha, I do appreciate the mods keeping an eye on things here. Thanks!

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I'm sorry, but as much as I hate ILTB's smarmy posts, I think he's raising a legitimate point (for once ;)).* I would love to hear from carfree parents who've dealt with these issues. I can't address this from personal experience, but I hope that others can.

Obviously, there are millions of them here in the US. Almost every time I take a bus, I see parents with kids of all sizes and ages. this suggests that it certainly is possible to live carfree with children, even if you don't have a lot of money.
Certainly it is possible for those without much money to live carfree with children. Housing projects are filled with such families. The issue is quality of life and would (m)any of those you see taking their children on the bus do so daily if they could afford an alternative? I'd be willing to bet your paycheck that few if any of those bus passengers with children would consider a bicycle a suitable means of year round reliable family transportation.

[Platy]

Welcome to Bike Forums, KiLlMuNcH. Sorry you got such a nasty greeting.

[patc]

Gee Patc, don't you think if a person had thought it through first the person
wouldn't have to ask the question so the question wouldn't appear? Not just
with kids but other questions read as though the asker has gotten in an ugly
lifestyle trap before realizing it.

While it was meant as rhetorical, this is something I consider one of the greatest flaws we humans have. We make decisions (or allow them to be made for us) and only then consider the ramifications.

[chephy]

While it was meant as rhetorical, this is something I consider one of the greatest flaws we humans have. We make decisions (or allow them to be made for us) and only then consider the ramifications. That might be the only reason the human race is still around. If people actually thought before procreating and realized all of the ramifications of having children before having them, I think there wouldn't be a whole lot of people on Earth now... :D

[HardyWeinberg]

That might be the only reason the human race is still around. If people actually thought before procreating and realized all of the ramifications of having children before having them, I think there wouldn't be a whole lot of people on Earth now... :D

Tom Robbins had a good line somewhere (Skinny Legs and All, maybe?) about the value of having kids when you're young and messed up, and the kids' marginal contribution to your total messed-uppedness is the least it ever will be. If you wait until you're old and stable Hurricane Children will totally freak you out.

[patc]

That might be the only reason the human race is still around. If people actually thought before procreating and realized all of the ramifications of having children before having them, I think there wouldn't be a whole lot of people on Earth now... :D

And we would all be much better off.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

And we would all be much better off.
The OP too? Is that your On Topic advice?

[Juha]

I'm sorry, but as much as I hate ILTB's smarmy posts, I think he's raising a legitimate point (for once ;)).* I would love to hear from carfree parents who've dealt with these issues. I can't address this from personal experience, but I hope that others can.
His post would have been very legitimate if it was in reply to posts like "...gee, dunno, don't have any kids or family and I live in Frankfurt Airport with good public transport connections to anywhere in the world. But here's how I do it..." We do get that a lot, too.

But as a first reply to an honest question, I don't think it helped to keep the discussion on track. Hence my rant.

--J

[I-Like-To-Bike]

His post would have been very legitimate if it was in reply to posts like "...gee, dunno, don't have any kids or family and I live in Frankfurt Airport with good public transport connections to anywhere in the world. But here's how I do it..." We do get that a lot, too.

But as a first reply to an honest question, I don't think it helped to keep the discussion on track. Hence my rant.

--J
You rant came after my predictive post and honest and very legimate advice for the OP (not to expect much advice gained from experience with his situation on this list) was proven right on target. As if on cue, the Usual Posters (without children, or who detest people who have children, or have cars, or know someone who "knows" somebody who lives in the public transportation equivalent of the Frankfurt Airport (Manhattan)) posted their advice to the OP.

I did not predict the one poster who appears to be anything but naive when advising the OP (and other man-woman couples) to practice birth control to improve the world.

[chephy]

And we would all be much better off. We as in "you and I" probably wouldn't even exist.

[Roody]

Certainly it is possible for those without much money to live carfree with children. Housing projects are filled with such families. The issue is quality of life and would (m)any of those you see taking their children on the bus do so daily if they could afford an alternative? I'd be willing to bet your paycheck that few if any of those bus passengers with children would consider a bicycle a suitable means of year round reliable family transportation.
I basically agree. I do think that most of those people with kids on the bus, and also many of those riding bikes, would prefer a car for transportation. This isssue is a big ball of wax, with deeply engrained cultural, social, economic and political facets.

Much of the insatiable demand for cars is a combination of desire--exploited (and even created) by advertising, and a poor infrastructure that lacks decent choices. The blame for both of these lies in part with the auto and petroleum industries. People are brainwashed into thinking they must have cars; the ads have convinced them that they are social and economic failures if they don't have a car. The infrastructure is poor because most of the tax dollars go into auto facilities, and little into alternatives. And the reason for this is that it's the way most voters want it--since they have been so influenced by the auto advertising. Obviously it's a vicious cycle, an endless loop of desire transformed by advertising into necessity.....

How many more people would gladly take a bus if one ran by their house every 15 minutes, and efficiently took them to their destinations 24 hours a day? And how many more yet would ride one, if bus lines spent billions on advertising like car and oil companies do?

The real disaster is that cars have already destroyed our cities, and they are well on the way to destroying our human biosphere. But we're just zombies, brainwashed by the endlessly spieled words and images of the advertisers, and we can't see our way out of the mess we've built.

[Roody]

ILTB's notion that it's irresponsible to have children and be carfree is laughable. His moronic bigotry about "man-woman couples" is pure bigotry and should not be tolerated by the mods. Very ugly stuff. ILTB should be ashamed.

[brevig]

Not really a direct answer...but the author of http://unconventionalideas.com has a family and is carfree...he writes a series of essays that I think point towards a mindset which would help someone accomplish what you want--living carfree with children.

[patc]

We as in "you and I" probably wouldn't even exist.

Well, then we wouldn't care, would we?

But "we" as "the human species" would be better off with a much lower global population. And "we" as in the total of all life forms on the planet would certainly be better off without humans around. We breed like rabbits, and just as irresponsibly. With no natural predators (other than each other) nothing is keeping our population in check, however.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

ILTB's notion that it's irresponsible to have children and be carfree is laughable. His moronic bigotry about "man-woman couples" is pure bigotry and should not be tolerated by the mods. Very ugly stuff. ILTB should be ashamed.
"irresponsible"? Your terminology/strawman.

Pure bigotry? Your imagination.

Tolerated by mods? I suggest you go back to the advice for the OP from your pal that he and those like him who have a family and children to practice better birth control to make life "better" for those who live "the simple life". Or maybe you share that "tolerant" opinion? And believe that is a legitimate tolerant response to the OP's question.

[Michel Gagnon]

Being carfree or carlight with kids needs some planning but it can be done.

We have a car, which I use when the job requires it and for some other duties and family affairs outside the city, but most of the travel in the city is done either on bike or on foot or bus. The children prefer the bus to the bike in town because we use it less often, so there is some "novelty" effect. So when it's rainy or cold we rather take transit.

As for children's activities, one needs to make a selection. Fifty years ago they were unheard of. Even 15-20 years ago, people chose activities that were close to home. When the children talk about this or that activity, I make them aware of the transportation time and effort that goes with it. Between a ballet school or piano teacher that is 10 km away from home and another one that is 1-2 km away, is there a really good reason to choose the one that is the furthest away? Or would the child be equally pleased with a different activity that is closer to home?

Of course, since we live in the city, there are more options available than if we lived in a rural area. Then again, people used to be raised in only in rural areas and children were raised only on the farm... except when they walked a few kilometres to go to school.

[chephy]

Well, then we wouldn't care, would we? No. But I'd rather exist in a bad world (as long as it's not TOO bad) than not exist anywhere.

But "we" as "the human species" would be better off with a much lower global population. That depends how much lower. If human population never rose over a certain number, we could still have been at the level of cavemen. And their lives, while pure and close to nature, were not something very enjoyable for the most part.

And "we" as in the total of all life forms on the planet would certainly be better off without humans around. Not sure. There may've been more species and more variety, but each specific animal at any given moment in time may not have been better off. So who would enjoy and appreciate all that richness of nature? Not a hungry rabbit running to escape a fox. And not a hungry fox that's pissed off 'cause the rabbit ran away.

We breed like rabbits, and just as irresponsibly. And that's why there have been more deaths than births lately in much of the developed world. :rolleyes:

It is true though that it would've been nice if people in other countries started following the suite sometimes in the middle of last century. Nice from the perspective of those already living, of course, thanks to their irresponsibly breeding ancestors. :)

With no natural predators (other than each other) nothing is keeping our population in check, however. Of course there is. Diseases and limited resources. ;)

[HardyWeinberg]

Of course there is. Diseases and limited resources. ;)

Top down regulation makes better movies than bottom up.

[patc]

Sorry for cutting a lot out, not up to a philosophical debate right now, have the flu. Its rather OT anyway.

Not a hungry rabbit running to escape a fox. And not a hungry fox that's pissed off 'cause the rabbit ran away.

The question is, are they happier critters if they don't breath poisoned air, drink contaminated water, and live in a shrinking habitat?

And that's why there have been more deaths than births lately in much of the developed world. :rolleyes:

Global population is still growing. We're all one species, living on one planet. Divisions such as "developed world" are pretty irrelevant to the status of the planet.

Of course there is. Diseases and limited resources. ;)

There are popular theories that both disease and war increase with increasing population.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

KiLlMuNcH( the newbie OP),

Given the advice offered, have you drawn a conclusion about how the people on this list keep it (car-free) simple with kids?

The consensus seems to be - keep a car handy, move, lower your standard of living, or don't have children.

[JeffS]

My first kid is still in the womb, so what do I know, but my first question would be:

Don't they have school busses where you live? There HAS to be some alternative to getting them there other than driving them yourself.

Of course, that doesn't address the issue of doctor's appointments, sick kid at school, etc.

[chephy]

Sorry for cutting a lot out, not up to a philosophical debate right now, have the flu. Its rather OT anyway. Don't know what OT is, but you're probably right. :)

The question is, are they happier critters if they don't breath poisoned air, drink contaminated water, and live in a shrinking habitat? Who can say? They don't know the air's poisoned and water is contaminated. It may shorten their lifespan, but they won't know it, so they won't be able to get upset about it. As for the shrinking habitat, there is corresponding shrinking competition. The competition in the animal world is almost always fierce. If the conditions for the species are better, there will be more members of this species (and other species, for that matter) competing for more resources, so the bottom line is a life of danger and hunger. If there is no struggle for survival, the species will flourish and multiply until there are enough of them to create this struggle.

That (the life of constant stress and hunger) is not the case for all animals and not for all species, but in general that's more or less how mother nature operates.

Global population is still growing. We're all one species, living on one planet. Divisions such as "developed world" are pretty irrelevant to the status of the planet. Yep, hence my comment about how it would've been nice if the rest of the world followed the western world in curbing birthrates.

You can't, however, blame individuals. For every single one of them having children could have been a good thing given the behaviour of other people. You can't blame people for trying to optimize their outcome in this game called life. Some simple examples from game theory, such as Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) will convince you that in many cases when everyone is trying to optimize his/her outcome in the game, it will produce a worse result for everyone than following a certain common strategy would have. Alas, but you can't control other people's strategy. Unless you go into politics... :) So it really has little to do with individual decision-making that your post that started this discussion talked about.

There are popular theories that both disease and war increase with increasing population. Bubonic Plague in Medieval Europe? :)

And won't the fact that we plainly and simply run out of food to feed all humans decrease the world population or at least stop its growth?

Anyway, get well fast. :) It seems there is something going around. Lots of people I know are down with flu.

[HardyWeinberg]

consensus seems to be - keep a car handy, move, lower your standard of living, or don't have children.

It boils down to time management. Whatever it takes to give you time to get where you're going, whether that be change the distances you have to go, change the time you can allot to travel, change your means of transportation to bridge the distances.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

It boils down to time management. Whatever it takes to give you time to get where you're going, whether that be change the distances you have to go, change the time you can allot to travel, change your means of transportation to bridge the distances.
That is one way to put it. And is on target too.

Another way to describe the recommendations from the car-free posters offered to family types on this list is: re-orient priorities in life and lifestyle (family, employment, education, sports, social activities, etc.) to revolve around their compatibility with priority number one - bicycle riding and avoidance of the stain of "car culture."

[Roody]

Being carfree or carlight with kids needs some planning but it can be done.

We have a car, which I use when the job requires it and for some other duties and family affairs outside the city, but most of the travel in the city is done either on bike or on foot or bus. The children prefer the bus to the bike in town because we use it less often, so there is some "novelty" effect. So when it's rainy or cold we rather take transit.

As for children's activities, one needs to make a selection. Fifty years ago they were unheard of. Even 15-20 years ago, people chose activities that were close to home. When the children talk about this or that activity, I make them aware of the transportation time and effort that goes with it. Between a ballet school or piano teacher that is 10 km away from home and another one that is 1-2 km away, is there a really good reason to choose the one that is the furthest away? Or would the child be equally pleased with a different activity that is closer to home?

Of course, since we live in the city, there are more options available than if we lived in a rural area. Then again, people used to be raised in only in rural areas and children were raised only on the farm... except when they walked a few kilometres to go to school.
It sounds like carfree living is working for at least one family in North America. I think your solution has been flexibility and creative problem solving--thinking "outside the cage." You also have a good historical perspective and you understand that the way we raise kids today is not the only way to do it. It sounds like your kids are lucky to have the life they do. :)

[Roody]

That is one way to put it. And is on target too.

Another way to describe the recommendations from the car-free posters offered to family types on this list is: re-orient priorities in life and lifestyle (family, employment, education, sports, social activities, etc.) to revolve around their compatibility with priority number one - bicycle riding and avoidance of the stain of "car culture."
I guess you were too busy ranting to catch Michael Gagnon's post about his carfree famly.

You really do miss the main point of this forum. Too bad.

[patc]

Don't know what OT is, but you're probably right. :)

OT = Off Topic... you know, what every thread ends up being after the first page or so.

Who can say? They don't know the air's poisoned and water is contaminated. It may shorten their lifespan, but they won't know it, so they won't be able to get upset about it.

Ah, but is awareness a requirement of harm? Does an animal have to know its feeling unwell (or less well than it could be) for it to be harm? Same applies to humans actually. Does someone need to develop asthma or lung cancer before we consider smog as doing harm?

You can't, however, blame individuals. For every single one of them having children could have been a good thing given the behaviour of other people. You can't blame people for trying to optimize their outcome in this game called life.

Of course you can blame individuals. I hold each and every person (including myself) responsible for each and every action and decision. I am responsible for how I have directly and indirectly affected every other person on the planet, present or future. I do not exist in a vacuum, I am capable of obtaining knowledge of my environment (i.e. the actions of others) and making my decisions based on that. "Optimizing" my outcome in life is not my first responsibility.


Some simple examples from game theory, such as Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) will convince you that in many cases when everyone is trying to optimize his/her outcome in the game, it will produce a worse result for everyone than following a certain common strategy would have.


I read a short sci-fi story years ago, in which an alien species was experimenting on humans, trying to find a way to alter our species. The test was the "Prisoner's Dilemma" - and success would be measured when the subjects no longer chose self-interest. Not a unique concept in sci-fi, but this one specifically referenced the PD.

I believe our species will fail unless we fundamentally change.


And won't the fact that we plainly and simply run out of food to feed all humans decrease the world population or at least stop its growth?

Maybe, but how much damage will we do in the meantime?

Anyway, get well fast. :) It seems there is something going around. Lots of people I know are down with flu.

Everyone I know is sick. I re-scheduled all meeting until next week, and have been working from home. I'm getting cabin-fever, but no point spreading the germs around.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I guess you were too busy ranting to catch Michael Gagnon's post about his carfree famly.

You really do miss the main point of this forum. Too bad.

Better reread MG's post. He is NOT car free with children. You do not seem to comprehend the world of difference between being having a car always available and being car free while also trying to take care of family transportation responsibilities.


Being carfree or carlight with kids needs some planning but it can be done.

We have a car...


It sounds like carfree living is working for at least one family in North America.

[jamesdenver]

I'm wondering why people always ask these questions AFTER deciding to have another child. Why not think it through first?

I agree with Patc's premise and follow ups. It may sound clinical, but raising kids should be thoroughly examined from a financial angle, just like buying a vacation home, boat, or pool. Not to say folks of lower economic means shouldn't have kids, but whether rich or poor I think your current and future means should be studied vigorously before any new additions to a family.

Of course I'm saying this as an uber planner that has my next month and year mapped out to the finite detail. I simply don't like the element of surprise and unknown variables.

Oh and the car issue? Well if you're Jim Bob Dugger, just buy an airport shuttle bus. (http://www.futuregringo.com/index.php/2007/01/23/16-children/) This guy's family will mitigate any population depletion as well, so no need to fear gang.

[wahoonc]

Being carfree or carlight with kids needs some planning but it can be done.

We have a car, which I use when the job requires it and for some other duties and family affairs outside the city, but most of the travel in the city is done either on bike or on foot or bus. The children prefer the bus to the bike in town because we use it less often, so there is some "novelty" effect. So when it's rainy or cold we rather take transit.

As for children's activities, one needs to make a selection. Fifty years ago they were unheard of. Even 15-20 years ago, people chose activities that were close to home. When the children talk about this or that activity, I make them aware of the transportation time and effort that goes with it. Between a ballet school or piano teacher that is 10 km away from home and another one that is 1-2 km away, is there a really good reason to choose the one that is the furthest away? Or would the child be equally pleased with a different activity that is closer to home?

Of course, since we live in the city, there are more options available than if we lived in a rural area. Then again, people used to be raised in only in rural areas and children were raised only on the farm... except when they walked a few kilometres to go to school.
Agreed! When my children were younger we did a fair amount of bicycle based transportation. We also had the kids chose a total of 2-3 activities based on the season. We had a couple of mandatory ones, in our case Boy/Girl Scouts and a Church youth group. Unfortunately my wife at the time (now and ex) wanted nothing to do with the "bicycle" lifestyle so it was up to me to set the example. We were not carfree but car light. FWIW I was car free. As JeffS pointed out there are school buses...however I think they are a big political boondoggle in most cases. We originally chose an older neighborhood so the kids could walk/bike to school...of course the colored jelly bean counters in the local government shot that plan in the butt the second year we were there, and wanted to bus all the neighborhood kids past "their" school about 7 miles to another school in a less desirable area. We fought it and eventually got it overturned, but it shows you can't always have a perfect plan.

Aaron :)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

We were not carfree but car light. FWIW I was car free.
FWIW, with the right definition, everybody is "car-free" when they are not being transported in a privately owned motor vehicle.:rolleyes:

[!!Comatoa$ted]

Although I did not grow up in a car free home my father was the only person with a drivers license, and in the winter he would spend all his time in the mid-east and leave his wife at home with his kids. So we had a car but it never got used because mom did not have a license. I had no problem getting around the city, on foot, or by taking the bus. When there was a medical emergency my mom would call a cab and take me to the hospital. We never thought of needing a car to do anything. We also lived in the suburbs.

My mother walked almost everywhere, and many times I went with her. Some days we would spend the whole day walking. When I got a bit older I would think nothing of spending 3 hours walking across the city in the dead of winter to see a friend on the other side. My mother still walks a few hours a day, and my dad who is 70 walks for about 3 hours every day. He has a nice car but takes the bus to get most places now a days. The best part is the old man is in the best shape of his life, or at least since I have known him. He has absolutely no medical problems, so he is lucky in this respect.

I know each situation differs, and I was brought up knowing that you need to only rely on yourself, and in doing this I still have no problem in walking or biking to get places. I do not like public transport and would rather walk, or bike. To me the most important trait I value is self reliance, and a car takes that away from me.

I believe most anybody can have a good life without a car, in fact, it can be a better if you focus on the positive aspects, and don't dwell on the negative.

[davidmcowan]

Why does being Carfree have to only be riding a bike? There are a myriad of alternatives to chose from when considering the option of Car Free. There are times where it will take more time, perhaps more money, and be a little frustrating but how many causes have you been a part of that didn't? The book "How to live well without a car" is an excellent resource when considering how to overcome the difficulties of being carfree with or without children. (He does, however, have an entire chapter dedicated to those with children) I suggest you pick it up from the library because this thread is drowning from the chain of impractical advice hanging around its neck.

[divergence]

ILTB, you have now posted twelve times on this thread. Fully a quarter of the thread consists of your posts, yet you haven't actually said a damned thing about the topic at hand, other than "Don't listen to these people. They're fools, I tell you, FOOLS!"

I humbly propose a new system: by default, we will all assume that ILTB thinks everyone else is an idiot, dispensing worthless, impractical, and possibly dangerous advice. Maybe Joe could put a little note to that effect on the main page. And ILTB, you can let us know any time it's not true.

Would save everyone a lot of time, really.