Living Car Free - I was just wondering....

I realize this is the living car free forum, but do you advocate the elimination of all motorized vehicles or just cars? I just don't see how modern society could function with out cars as vast distances to be cover like yesterday I went to the Orange county car show about a 21/2 hour drive, it would have taken all day to get there on a bike. I just think it is old fashioned thinking and really not practical in todays world, but I love a good debate.

If you don't have cars you won't have car shows. Consequently, your dilemma is solved.

Just about anything is doable in todays society if you are stubborn enough.
It's not for me but I do appreciate some of the difficulties the residents of this forum overcome.

A good public transportation could eliminate a lot of those problems. Not likely it will happen in OC. Though once I went to a Siggraph in Anaheim from San Diego by train and then rode my bike to and from the station to the hotel.

Heya Specialized Fan,

I really don't think this forum is black and white but covers a whole gamut of car users: from zero up.

I will get into my wife's company Jeep to drive my two big dogs to the vet or pick stuff up. For the most part I will use my bikes. I use public transit but sometimes I will rent a car: i.e. next week I'm going up North camping (in Ontario) and public transit doesn't go there. I will also rent a U-Haul to carry heavy stuff even though I've been known to haul 100lbs of trash on my bike trailer.

I think this forum is meant to make you think about your car use and present alternatives where reasonable: which may be all the time.

The car free thing would work if you are single and everything is close by. The trend I am seeing is people with family's are moving further out away from the city for better neighborhoods as down town is not where you really want to live in many large citys. Crime seems to be much higher in the city witch seem do be going down hill thus people wanting to get away from that. I know people that commute over 60 miles one way, bu t they have a more affordable house.

Specialized fan,

I'll give you my take on this forum, because you seen to have some basic questions and misunderstandings about the basic forum concept. Frankly, I sometimes wonder what you get out of this forum, since you've often expressed your hostility toward the simple idea of people not having cars.

First of all, "carfree living" doesn't refer to the elimination of all automobiles. It refers to the elimination of the automobiles in one person's life or in one family's life. In other words, this forum is for ordinary people who have decided not to own a car. It's also for people who are thinking about not owning a car, and for people who own a car but try to use it much less often. And of course it's also for people who love bicycles, and appreciate them as tools for transportation and work.

The forum is a gathering place and support group for all these people. It's not a forum for trying to convert people to a certain value system or lifestyle. I assume that everybody here already has a friendly interest in living carfree, so they don't need to be converted. Of course, beyond the basic interest in carfree living, there's great diversity of opinion. (Good thing too, because it would be boring to always read posts from people who agree with me.)

I hope this and the other posts will clear up some of your confusion.

Best wishes,

Roody :)

The trend I'm seeing is people realizing that maybe living 40 miles or further away from their job isn't such a great idea after all...

At the last company I worked at, the boss' son bought a condo that was 40 miles away from work. His reasoning? HE wasn't paying for gas, the company was. That lasted about three months, till the owner (his dad) realized just how much he was spending on gas compared to the other employees. His gas allowance was cut down to be more inline with what the other company vehicles were costing. So now, on top of having to pay for his own gas, he's realizing that it takes him 3 HOURS a day to drive to/from work.

He sold his condo (At a pretty big loss!) and moved back in a lot closer.

The 'drive until you qualify' (for a loan on the size house you want) mindset is quickly going away.

What good is a big, beautiful house in the far suburbs if you get there just in time to go to sleep at night, then have to jump up and rush back to work the next day? Not to mention other costs... like health... people work all day, fight traffic jams to get home, and want to relax... where is their exercise time?

A lot of people are realizing that there is a value to be put on their time, and much better ways to spend that than on huge commutes every day.

I realize this is the living car free forum, but do you advocate the elimination of all motorized vehicles or just cars? I just don't see how modern society could function with out cars as vast distances to be cover like yesterday I went to the Orange county car show about a 21/2 hour drive, it would have taken all day to get there on a bike. I just think it is old fashioned thinking and really not practical in todays world, but I love a good debate.

So... you needed a car for that trip. Do you NEED that car every day? Did you NEED to go to that car show at all?

A rental car is quite a good solution to an occasional need for a car... without having to have someplace to park it all the time, having to pay for insurance, or maintenance.

There are many nice areas where you can live on a human scale... without being 40 miles away from work... places where you can walk to a restaurant and enjoy a meal. You can walk to the store, or ride a bike.

The costs associated with our car culture is huge... and a very large portion is somewhat hidden from view... ie: The car owner isn't paying them directly, so they don't count them.

Hidden costs include

parking... free parking? I don't think so. Everybody that goes to the mall pays a slightly higher price for all their goods to pay for that huge parking lot. And that goes for EVERY 'free' parking lot you see. A recent study of parking problems in one particular county counted 11 parking lot spots for every single car registered in the county... and that doesn't include people's parking spots at home or the many on-street parking spots.

streets... More than 50% of land in most cities is taken up by support for autos, rather than people. Streets and parking lots use up a huge amount of space.

environmental... streets and parking lots collect a huge amount of pollutants... oil, chemicals, heavy metal.. and all that gets washed off into the waterways when it rains. And that doesn't even start to touch on pollutants emitted in exhaust. (Note: I don't mention global warming here because I'm not entirely convinced that cars have THAT huge an impact on it... but many are, and there's a very real possibility of that)

health... Among other health costs directly attributable to our car culture: Increased asthma and other respiratory problems due to exhaust pollutants. Health problems due to pollutants in our water system. Weight related and cardio related health issues (Including diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, etc)... when you spend 3 hours a day driving to and from work it doesn't leave much room for regular exercise.

social... studies show that the more time you spend commuting, the less family time you get (Huh... we needed studies to tell us that???) So our families suffer. Spread out communities tend to be less tight knit... you don't know your neighbor's as well (Sure... if you're not spending time with your family, what time are you going to spend really getting to know your neighbors?) Plus, with the layout in many neighborhoods... they're downright hostile towards anyone wanting to even walk from one house to another... let alone walking to see someone on the next block. Then there's the crime: If nobody knows their neighbor's, they don't look out for each other as well... sure, if you see something that's obviously out of line, you're going to call the police. How about the moving truck out in front of the person's house 3 doors down from you? You didn't even know they were moving? They're not... someone broke into their house and is methodically cleaning them out... and nobody even paid attention.

My wife and I saw a very good example of differences in philosophies in neighborhood design last week.

We rode our bike through an old neighborhood... all the houses were towards the front of the lot... some of them had front yards, others were almost right on the street. People were out working in their yards, walking, talking with their neighbors, or even just sitting on their front porches. We cut through the alleys... almost every house had a small garage, and many had parking for more than one car. But the cars were not the FOCUS of the neighborhoods.

Another, newer neighborhood was only a few blocks away.... every house had a driveway... most houses had parking in the front for at least two cars... some a garage. The neighborhoods looked like they'd been designed around the cars, not the people. In this neighborhood we saw a lot fewer people out walking around, talking, whatever.

I want a neighborhood that's designed for people. Not one that's designed for cars. ;)

I love bikes but now it is for recreational purposes. I live in an area where it gets to 115* in the summer and I have 2 kids to haul around so that is one reason this wouldn't work, and yes it is a choice and that is cool at we all have choices. I think if I lived and worked in like Santa Monica it would wor well as you want a bike there as traffic sucks and that is the best way to get around. You would have to give up the car to afford the insane rent there.

I love bikes but now it is for recreational purposes. I live in an area where it gets to 115* in the summer and I have 2 kids to haul around so that is one reason this wouldn't work, and yes it is a choice and that is cool at we all have choices. I think if I lived and worked in like Santa Monica it would wor well as you want a bike there as traffic sucks and that is the best way to get around. You would have to give up the car to afford the insane rent there.

Well maybe you could start with something easy if you're interested. Just pick one errand that you do in your car, and try doing it with your bike instead. Maybe if you have to drive a couple miles to pick up some DVDs or a bottle of wine, you could try doing this by bike. Or ride to the gym instead of drive.

Another thing a lot of carfree people do is family activities. Instead of driving your kids to the park or tennis courts, ride with them. If they don't ride, walk with your kids to a nearby park, or to a relative's house for a little visit. Or leave the car parked and play frisbee or monopoly at home. These are the kinds of things that your kids (and you) will remember for the rest of their lives.

There's lots of things you could try doing carfree, just to see if you like it. It's really about looking at life a little differently, and getting to ride your bike a lot more.

I realize this is the living car free forum, but do you advocate the elimination of all motorized vehicles or just cars? I just don't see how modern society could function with out cars as vast distances to be cover like yesterday I went to the Orange county car show about a 21/2 hour drive, it would have taken all day to get there on a bike. I just think it is old fashioned thinking and really not practical in todays world, but I love a good debate.

If you live in a medium-sized or large city, it's not really practical to have a car. You don't even have to consider societal effects. Just from a purely self-centered point of view, dealing with cars in an urban area just isn't practical. They're expensive to own and operate, parking is a pain in the ass, you have to spend a lot of time cleaning and maintaining them, and they depreciate almost instantly. Not having a car frees up a lot of money, that you can use to live in a more pleasant neighborhood, travel more, further your education, or just drink better beer in larger quantities. The idea that one has to own a car is the greatest fraud ever foisted upon modern man, that is, if you live in a city. If you live in rural Nebraska, a car isn't such a bad idea.

And another thing: for the sake of argument, let's say you do live in a city, but you have a family with kids, and don't have the desire to figure out how to live without any cars at all, so you decide a car is something you want. Okay, but does your family really need more than one? Doesn't it make more sense to use the money you would've spent on the second car to save for the kids' college? (I'm reminded of the family who lost their home because they bought two SUVs, and to make the car payments, decided to refinance the house with an ARM.)

The car free thing would work if you are single and everything is close by. The trend I am seeing is people with family's are moving further out away from the city for better neighborhoods as down town is not where you really want to live in many large citys. Crime seems to be much higher in the city witch seem do be going down hill thus people wanting to get away from that. I know people that commute over 60 miles one way, bu t they have a more affordable house.

You're acting defensive about it. Peopl just spent time syaing we aren't trying to "convert" anyone. It's just that there are a lot of times where people drive when they really don't have to.

If you live in a medium-sized or large city, it's not really practical to have a car. You don't even have to consider societal effects. Just from a purely self-centered point of view, dealing with cars in an urban area just isn't practical. They're expensive to own and operate, parking is a pain in the ass, you have to spend a lot of time cleaning and maintaining them, and they depreciate almost instantly. Not having a car frees up a lot of money, that you can use to live in a more pleasant neighborhood, travel more, further your education, or just drink better beer in larger quantities. The idea that one has to own a car is the greatest fraud ever foisted upon modern man, that is, if you live in a city. If you live in rural Nebraska, a car isn't such a bad idea.

And another thing: for the sake of argument, let's say you do live in a city, but you have a family with kids, and don't have the desire to figure out how to live without any cars at all, so you decide a car is something you want. Okay, but does your family really need more than one? Doesn't it make more sense to use the money you would've spent on the second car to save for the kids' college? (I'm reminded of the family who lost their home because they bought two SUVs, and to make the car payments, decided to refinance the house with an ARM.)

Some people are just financially irresponsible and live beyond their means, am ARM is the dumbest scam you could ever fall into next to reverse mortgage. I have lived without a car for many years and now I have 2 cars and an SUV and I wouldn't go back as when it is freezing cold or 100* outside, that climate control with remote start is sure nice, in fact I looking at a Cadillac CTS for the wife, so basically simple living, been there done that, and it sucked and not going back, as I think it is a form of self abuse in my opinion.

I don't think we should eleminate cars. But 90% of the people in the world don't need them.

I don't think we should eleminate cars. But 90% of the people in the world don't need them.

90%? that is pretty high, that would eliminate almost everything on the road! I gotta say you guys just aren't living in reality, people just are not going to give up their cars, especially in states like California, and what about Alaska, try going car free there. All I can say is you guys have a nice little delusional little fantasy going on here and to think that most people will give up there cars, never going to happen.=, people are not going to step backwards and live a harder life, for what carbon credits, what a sham that is.

Some people are just financially irresponsible and live beyond their means, am ARM is the dumbest scam you could ever fall into next to reverse mortgage. I have lived without a car for many years and now I have 2 cars and an SUV and I wouldn't go back as when it is freezing cold or 100* outside, that climate control with remote start is sure nice, in fact I looking at a Cadillac CTS for the wife, so basically simple living, been there done that, and it sucked and not going back, as I think it is a form of self abuse in my opinion.

I don't own a car, and don't feel like I'm suffering any abuse at all; quite the opposite. If you want to own a car, or in your case cars, though, you obviously don't need my approval. However, I think three cars for two adults is way more than enough to avoid a feeling of utter, soul-crushing deprivation. I suggest you cut back to maybe a Prius and a Vespa, since you don't seem to want to get on a bicycle for practical purposes, which is of course entirely your choice. As for simple living sucking, well, it depends on what you think is important. Ghandi liked simple living, as did Jesus, Thoreau, and the Buddha. People who thought simple living sucks include Henry VIII, Leona Helmsley, Lady Macbeth, most Mafia bosses, Idi Amin, and Pablo Escobar. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

90%? that is pretty high, that would eliminate almost everything on the road! I gotta say you guys just aren't living in reality, people just are not going to give up their cars, especially in states like California, and what about Alaska, try going car free there. All I can say is you guys have a nice little delusional little fantasy going on here and to think that most people will give up there cars, never going to happen.=, people are not going to step backwards and live a harder life, for what carbon credits, what a sham that is.

I can think of at least one member here on the board, Cosmoline, that lives car free in Alaska and seems to be doing just fine. No people aren't going to give up their cars, they will give up their families, their homes and their health before they give up their cars. FWIW I was car free/car light up until 10 years ago...a decision that I regret even now. I am in the process of getting back to car light just as fast as I can go. I see nothing delusional about living car light/car free. It is a personal choice and when the price of gas doubles and doubles again and then becomes difficult to even purchase those of us that have made our choices will most likely be that much better off for it.

I got a taste of what gas shortages look like back in the 70's then again in 2005 when I was working in Mobile, AL when Katrina came through. I happen to take a bike with me most places I work, I try to get a motel close enough to the job site that I can ride if possible. That was one of the places. When the shortages hit most of my co workers were wanting/needing to leave work early so they could go spend 2-3 hours sitting in line waiting for a chance to buy 8 gallons of gas. I left work on time, got paid for my full work week, rode past long lines of cars and still got to the hotel and relaxed before they did. The tank of gas that was in my work truck lasted over a month until the crunch went away. The US will have no choice the personal automobile is going to go the way of the dinosaur, we cannot continue to sustain the type of lifestyle that has developed in this nation. Someone called it the Jiminy Cricket syndrome...if you believe hard enough it will come true...I don't think so. I also don't think cars contribute that much to Global Warming, but they sure contribute to a lot of other social ills; drunk driving, accidents, lost productivity, etc, etc. We kill over 40,000 people a year in this country with automobile accidents with a fairly high percentage of those being caused by drunk drivers but you don't see the outrage over that.

Aaron:)

...not practical in todays world,...

Some of today's world was made the way it is because motorized transport made it possible. Now we "need" card because we created the need.

I have two cars, and pretty much need them with two kids in school. I just think we've gone off the deep end by using them for EVERYTHING. Now that I ride a bike more, I see, as one example, how we beat our cars to death by daily commuting to work. If thousands of people are all commuting to the same place at the same time (downtown to work), a train would be a more efficient way of getting them there, instead of having each person drive his own motorized vehicle. And if the trip were less than five miles, bicycles would be best. If I have to go a hundred miles out of town on a Thursday to visit my mother, it would be wasteful to run a train just for me, but a personal motorized vehicle would be an appropriate tool.

I realize this is the living car free forum, but do you advocate the elimination of all motorized vehicles or just cars? I just don't see how modern society could function with out cars as vast distances to be cover like yesterday I went to the Orange county car show about a 21/2 hour drive, it would have taken all day to get there on a bike. I just think it is old fashioned thinking and really not practical in todays world, but I love a good debate.

I certainly would not advocate the elimination of all motorized vehicles, nor even cars. Cars are necessary, I don't think anyone is going to deny that. The problem is that people use them far more than is necessary; that's what I'd like to change.

By the way, since this discussion turns, sometimes, to the distances people commute... I should mention that my commute is about 62 miles, which would be about ten miles less as the crow flies. I think that's pretty long, but I don't see a better option (my wife's commute is less than half a mile); and it turns out I quite enjoy my long commute, since it gives me a nice quiet bike ride (5.5 miles) a relaxing hour on the train, and finally an invigorating 2.5 miles of biking through NYC traffic.

The car free thing would work if you are single and everything is close by. The trend I am seeing is people with family's are moving further out away from the city for better neighborhoods as down town is not where you really want to live in many large citys. Crime seems to be much higher in the city witch seem do be going down hill thus people wanting to get away from that. I know people that commute over 60 miles one way, bu t they have a more affordable house.

Yeah...I would have to agree there.

My kids and family will come first, and for me...that means living 18 miles away from my place of employment, in order to live in a relatively affordable house (nothing spectacular either...unless 2000sq feet is the new McMansion), in a decent neighborhood, and where crime and other inner city riff-raff is not commonplace. I'm not alone...or there wouldn't be many other people making 20+ mile commutes into work. Yeah some do this mostly under the label of consumerism, having to have a brand new 4000sq foot house on an acre of land and drive the Explorer 50 miles back and forth to work...but I suspect most just want their kids to be raised in a nice neighborhood with good schools and unbroken homes. Fortunately, a 36 mile roundtrip commute is doable for me on a bike 1 day a week, and driving halfway and riding the rest is doable 3-4 days a week. I'll reach 3000 miles for the year sometime later this month. And I say, well, thats 3000 less miles that I put on the car and insurance against my ass becoming as wide as the doorway. My plan is to actually move my clan into an area closer to my job (5-8 miles away in a more expensive neighborhood) and get rid of one of our vehicles in 3-4 years. IMHO, its a better economic choice, a healthier choice (if I lived 5-8 miles away I would bike to work close to everyday) and a better environmental choice.

Another thing, about having a wife and kids...they take time and energy...sometimes I like the convenience of driving somewhere close (like to the store for something needed last minute, or for some other kind of chore) just because its a time saver. And moreover...its just easier going somewhere with the 5 month old and the 3 year-old in the minivan. If I was single, and had more time on my hands...yeah, I'd use the car a whole lot less and bike a whole lot more.

Another problem...at least in my locale...is government/civil engineering. Infrastructure in place in alot of areas does not lend itself to be very bike friendly, and "representatives" (from both parties mind you) often don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to civic planning, zoning, and often throw tax dollars at the "issue of month" or some silly PC feel good legislation instead of implementing common sense solutions to problems or creating actual improvements to "people-moving" related things. And if you sit in Chicago area rush hour traffic you'll know that there is always room for improvement there. I mean, how about putting the money used for all those stupid "Drug-Free" and "Gang-Free" signs and give citizens a MUP along Forest Preserve land that parallel a major street? (where there is nothing but over growth and even no ped access) How about striping bike lanes in neighborhoods that people will actually USE them? How about a COMPLETE sidewalk or bike lane over ALL bridges and overpasses? Ugh...we're really not even talking about alot of money here based on the amount of money wasted by local government on some really stupid stuff.

My kids and family will come first, and for me...that means living 18 miles away from my place of employment, in order to live in a relatively affordable house (nothing spectacular either...unless 2000sq feet is the new McMansion), in a decent neighborhood, and where crime and other inner city riff-raff is not commonplace. I'm not alone...or there wouldn't be many other people making 20+ mile commutes into work. Yeah some do this mostly under the label of consumerism, having to have a brand new 4000sq foot house on an acre of land and drive the Explorer 50 miles back and forth to work...but I suspect most just want their kids to be raised in a nice neighborhood with good schools and unbroken homes. Fortunately, a 36 mile roundtrip commute is doable for me on a bike 1 day a week, and driving halfway and riding the rest is doable 3-4 days a week. I'll reach 3000 miles for the year sometime later this month.

I think it's cool that you ride so much and try to drive less.

Your bigotry is not so cool. A lot of good people (myself included) would be surprised to learn that we're nothing but "riff-raff".

One of the main reason the cities are in bad shape is BECAUSE of the car. The wealthier people started moving to the suburbs about 60 years ago. Soon, most of the good jobs followed them out there. Now, many people in the city have no way to get to the jobs in the suburbs. They can't work because they don't have a car, and they can't afford a car because they don't work. There is no public transit that serves the cities because the suburban voters always turn down regional transit plans. The school systems suck, and it's almost impossible for their kids to get the education that would get them out of the hellhole. It takes a lot to make the suburban lifestyle possible.

I just think we've gone off the deep end by using them for EVERYTHING. Now that I ride a bike more, I see, as one example, how we beat our cars to death by daily commuting to work. If thousands of people are all commuting to the same place at the same time (downtown to work), a train would be a more efficient way of getting them there, instead of having each person drive his own motorized vehicle. And if the trip were less than five miles, bicycles would be best. If I have to go a hundred miles out of town on a Thursday to visit my mother, it would be wasteful to run a train just for me, but a personal motorized vehicle would be an appropriate tool.

That's a good point. What really beats a car up is when it gets driven for a short distance and then turned off. The car never gets a chance to get up to operating temperature if you drive it a short distance. And, half of our trips are under 5 miles, just the right length for bicycling. :D

90%? that is pretty high, that would eliminate almost everything on the road! I gotta say you guys just aren't living in reality, people just are not going to give up their cars, especially in states like California, and what about Alaska, try going car free there. All I can say is you guys have a nice little delusional little fantasy going on here and to think that most people will give up there cars, never going to happen.=, people are not going to step backwards and live a harder life, for what carbon credits, what a sham that is.

Do we still need to have that diner at Denny's, cager-boy? ;)

You mention a couple of states in America, while I was talking about the world. Much of the world doesn't suffer the sprawl we do, you know.

90%? that is pretty high, that would eliminate almost everything on the road! I gotta say you guys just aren't living in reality, people just are not going to give up their cars, especially in states like California, and what about Alaska, try going car free there. All I can say is you guys have a nice little delusional little fantasy going on here and to think that most people will give up there cars, never going to happen.=, people are not going to step backwards and live a harder life, for what carbon credits, what a sham that is.

Specialized fan -
I cannot understand why you come in this forum if you are so completely against being carfree or, apparently, car-lite. It has been stated multiple times that we are not here to convince everyone to give up their cars. This is a decision that people make based on how they want to live their own lives.
I think it's absolutely unneccesary for most people to have SUVs, especially 2 of them along with another car for only 2 drivers. I think it's sad that there are people who drive 5 blocks when walking is completely doable. Cars are necessary at times for certain people or certain situations, but it's a convenience I, and many people in this forum, choose to forgo. I am not making a political statement or judging anyone who owns a car.
I am having a hard time not judging you, however. Your open hostility and blanket statements regarding the state of mind of the carfree community make me believe you to be an ignorant and intolerant person, who is teaching his children that to live happily means to depend on a car (expensive ones at that) and to completely disregard the life choices of others as below you.

Also, it was stated that 90% of people COULD give up their cars, not that anyone is trying to make this happen, or that anyone thinks it ever WOULD happen. Although I have no doubt that there are a few of us that "aren't living in reality" ;) I do doubt that it actually has anything to do with living car-free.

I realize this is the living car free forum, but do you advocate the elimination of all motorized vehicles or just cars? I just don't see how modern society could function with out cars as vast distances to be cover like yesterday I went to the Orange county car show about a 21/2 hour drive, it would have taken all day to get there on a bike. I just think it is old fashioned thinking and really not practical in todays world, but I love a good debate.

Traveling vast physical distances is sooooo 20th century. Why travel vast distances when you can electronically receive all the same information anywhere on earth (wirelessly even!).

It's better to limit your travels to human powered feats. It's better for your body, better for the environment, better for the social fabric of your community. Get to know your neighbors. You'll get along with them better. Don't intrude so much on the space of people who are physically separated from you. You'll get along with them better. Share information with everyone. Your culture, technology, and intelligence will increase.


I love bikes but now it is for recreational purposes. I live in an area where it gets to 115* in the summer and I have 2 kids to haul around so that is one reason this wouldn't work, and yes it is a choice and that is cool at we all have choices. I think if I lived and worked in like Santa Monica it would wor well as you want a bike there as traffic sucks and that is the best way to get around. You would have to give up the car to afford the insane rent there.

So what are you wondering about? If you choose to live in an area where "this wouldn't work" then you are choosing to pollute the environment and perpetuate the car culture. If you choose to live in an area where "it would work well" then you choose to not pollute the environment and lessen the car culture.

You are correct, everyone has choices. However, I don't think I'd agree that choosing to pollute the environment is "cool". Do you think it's "cool" when people choose to pollute the environment?


Some people are just financially irresponsible and live beyond their means, am ARM is the dumbest scam you could ever fall into next to reverse mortgage. I have lived without a car for many years and now I have 2 cars and an SUV and I wouldn't go back as when it is freezing cold or 100* outside, that climate control with remote start is sure nice, in fact I looking at a Cadillac CTS for the wife, so basically simple living, been there done that, and it sucked and not going back, as I think it is a form of self abuse in my opinion.

What if it wasn't "freezing cold or 100* outside"? Then would you still agree that living without a car is "basically simple living" that "is a form of self abuse"?

You know, you can control the climate outside too. You don't even need a remote! All you have to do is move to a better climate.


90%? that is pretty high, that would eliminate almost everything on the road! I gotta say you guys just aren't living in reality, people just are not going to give up their cars, especially in states like California, and what about Alaska, try going car free there. All I can say is you guys have a nice little delusional little fantasy going on here and to think that most people will give up there cars, never going to happen.=, people are not going to step backwards and live a harder life, for what carbon credits, what a sham that is.

Trying living without a snowmobile in Antarctica. Ain't gonna happen. Does that mean that everyone should buy snowmobiles? No, it means people shouldn't live in Antarctica.

Who is "you guys" that "think that most people will give up there cars"? I didn't see anyone say that "most people will give up their cars".

Your bigotry is not so cool. A lot of good people (myself included) would be surprised to learn that we're nothing but "riff-raff".


I meant nothing personal in making my post. If you took it as such, I apologize.

My only point was that my first priority in deciding a place to live was based on wanting to raise my kids in a neighborhood where crime, seedy activity and behavior, gang activity, etc. is less concentrated and less common, as well as feeling comfortable leaving the wife and kids at home when I'm at work. In my locale...that means living in an area further away from the city center and further from some areas closer to my workplace.


One of the main reason the cities are in bad shape is BECAUSE of the car. The wealthier people started moving to the suburbs about 60 years ago. Soon, most of the good jobs followed them out there. Now, many people in the city have no way to get to the jobs in the suburbs. They can't work because they don't have a car, and they can't afford a car because they don't work. There is no public transit that serves the cities because the suburban voters always turn down regional transit plans. The school systems suck, and it's almost impossible for their kids to get the education that would get them out of the hellhole. It takes a lot to make the suburban lifestyle possible.

It is an interesting point, maybe it is true in Lansing...but I find it hard to believe that "people in the city" can't work because they "don't have a car". Alot of the vehicles I see in such areas are more expensive and more elaborate than the ones I own. And, again, in my locale, public transit is widely available and accessible for those who live in the perimeter areas around downtown. Light rail (Metra) is successful and accessible in the suburbs.

Now jobs going to the suburbs, in my locale...thats because of taxation, real estate costs, and in some cases...crime. If your ever in Chicago, drive through Oak Brook or Schaumburg...they are prime examples of this.

As far as school systems sucking...well...IMHO alot of that has to do with parental involvement, a stable family life, kids having something positive to shoot for (i.e. accomplishment), self discipline, and a basic sense of knowing right from wrong. In order for schools to be considered a "learning environment" you gotta have AT LEAST 3 out of those 5 things. Throwing more government money at it ain't the answer either. IMHO...its not a resource problem...its a people problem.

Do we still need to have that diner at Denny's, cager-boy? ;)

You mention a couple of states in America, while I was talking about the world. Much of the world doesn't suffer the sprawl we do, you know.

And most of that sprawl is caused by parking spaces, garages, driveways and extra roadways. Its a self creating need.

Traveling vast physical distances is sooooo 20th century...
Aye. Give me Convenience City and high speed Internet instead of endless freeways and suburbs. Why should everyone need to spend hours and hours every week driving hundreds of miles just to accomplish daily life??

I meant nothing personal in making my post. If you took it as such, I apologize.

My only point was that my first priority in deciding a place to live was based on wanting to raise my kids in a neighborhood where crime, seedy activity and behavior, gang activity, etc. is less concentrated and less common, as well as feeling comfortable leaving the wife and kids at home when I'm at work. In my locale...that means living in an area further away from the city center and further from some areas closer to my workplace.

First priority is not the issue here. It's the second priority, namely, locale. Obviously there are areas low in crime which are closer to city centers in some locale. Low crime could easily be your first priority and if environmental responsibility, or reducing US oil dependence, or auto collision related deaths/injuries, etc were your second priority then your choices wouldn't be restricted to owning a car. However, this isn't an option for you because your second priority is locale. The essential issue here is that locale is a higher priority for you than reducing your personal auto dependence. It has nothing to do with your first priority.

Also, what about the overall safety of your family? Shouldn't that be more important than just safety with respect to crime? Because this study says cars make sururbs riskier than cities (http://www.danenet.org/bcp2006/docs/lat_15apr96_violence.html).



Jim Hedlund, associate administrator for traffic safety programs of the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said that national figures indicate rural driving is roughly twice as dangerous for young people, with 34% of the fatalities of 15- to 20-year-olds occurring in urban areas, and 66% occurring in rural precincts.

"It's very clear rural [driving] is more dangerous than urban [driving] for kids and everybody else," Hedlund said.

Durning reported that crime rates vary little by neighborhood in Seattle-- and that violent crime is more commonly committed by acquaintances than by strangers.

His conclusions took experts by surprise at the National Safety Council, a private research organization funded largely by businesses.

"It seems counterintuitive," said Alan Hoskins, manager of the council's statistics department. But, he said, "certainly driving pretty hazardous for teenagers; and clearly teenagers do more driving in the suburbs than urban teenagers do in the city."

First priority is not the issue here. It's the second priority, namely, locale. Obviously there are areas low in crime which are closer to city centers in some locale. Low crime could easily be your first priority and if environmental responsibility, or reducing US oil dependence, or auto collision related deaths/injuries, etc were your second priority then your choices wouldn't be restricted to owning a car. However, this isn't an option for you because your second priority is locale. The essential issue here is that locale is a higher priority for you than reducing your personal auto dependence. It has nothing to do with your first priority.

Also, what about the overall safety of your family? Shouldn't that be more important than just safety with respect to crime? Because this study says cars make sururbs riskier than cities (http://www.danenet.org/bcp2006/docs/lat_15apr96_violence.html).

Very interesting study. It concludes that driving in the suburbs is bigger risk for kids than drugs and crime in the inner city. I'd like to see somebody follow up with an epidemiological study of actual death and injury rates. I hope mwrobe and other parents read this.

People obviously have a very emotional reaction to crime, especially when kids are involved. And our society also has a very lackadaisacal attitude toward auto deaths. Auto deaths are "acceptable casualties." Nobody is outraged by the 400,000 auto deaths every year, but political careers are made by the alarm over a much smaller number of crime deaths.

Very interesting study. It concludes that driving in the suburbs is bigger risk for kids than drugs and crime in the inner city. I'd like to see somebody follow up with an epidemiological study of actual death and injury rates. I hope mwrobe and other parents read this.

People obviously have a very emotional reaction to crime, especially when kids are involved. And our society also has a very lackadaisacal attitude toward auto deaths. Auto deaths are "acceptable casualties." Nobody is outraged by the 400,000 auto deaths every year, but political careers are made by the alarm over a much smaller number of crime deaths.

Durning apparently discusses it his 1996 book, "The Car and the City". You can purchase it on paper from Amazon or download it for free here:
http://www.sightline.org/publications/books/the-car-and-the-city/carcity

There are also some good citations to peer reviewed journal articles in this 2005 blog entry from Durning:
http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2005/07/25/security_and_th

In particular you might be interested in the following article from William Lucy PhD, published 2003 in the American Journal of Public Health:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/9/1564

Lucy's analysis includes actual death rates. Furthermore, looking at articles which cite Lucy reveals other hidden dangers of nonurban areas such as delayed EMS response times.

All I can say is you guys have a nice little delusional little fantasy going on here and to think that most people will give up there cars, never going to happen.

I come to this forum because I have given up my car, and enjoy communicating with like-minded others. That doesn't mean I think most people will give up their cars; of course they won't. Most people are not as smart as me; that goes without saying.

No no no. Most people aren't as smart as me. Not you. Jeeze... :p

Durning apparently discusses it his 1996 book, "The Car and the City". You can purchase it on paper from Amazon or download it for free here:
http://www.sightline.org/publications/books/the-car-and-the-city/carcity

There are also some good citations to peer reviewed journal articles in this 2005 blog entry from Durning:
http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2005/07/25/security_and_th

In particular you might be interested in the following article from William Lucy PhD, published 2003 in the American Journal of Public Health:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/9/1564

Lucy's analysis includes actual death rates. Furthermore, looking at articles which cite Lucy reveals other hidden dangers of nonurban areas such as delayed EMS response times.

Thanks very much for the info, makeinu. I was unaware of the book. I'll try to order it from the library or my independent bookstore. :)

Just about anything is doable in todays society if you are stubborn enough.

This is exactly my line of thinking. I honestly believe no one needs a car, but then again I'm defining "need" here as being absolutely necessary. Living without a car is only going to be as hard as you want to make it for yourself.

Durning apparently discusses it his 1996 book, "The Car and the City". You can purchase it on paper from Amazon or download it for free here:
http://www.sightline.org/publications/books/the-car-and-the-city/carcity

There are also some good citations to peer reviewed journal articles in this 2005 blog entry from Durning:
http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2005/07/25/security_and_th

In particular you might be interested in the following article from William Lucy PhD, published 2003 in the American Journal of Public Health:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/9/1564

Lucy's analysis includes actual death rates. Furthermore, looking at articles which cite Lucy reveals other hidden dangers of nonurban areas such as delayed EMS response times.

Hey, I was checking out the first link to the blog at Sightline Institute and I saw a new blog entry (http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/10/08/safe-streets-bicycle-neglect-7) by Durning. This one is called "Safe Streets (Bicycle Neglect #9)". Here's the concluding paragraph:


Back to where I began: is cycling safe enough for my son Peter? Easily. The modest risks are swamped by the benefits. Still, it’s not as safe as it should be. All by myself, I cannot give Peter the safety levels of Germany or the Netherlands. I can’t personally install citywide bike facilities, pass new traffic laws, and provide comprehensive mobility education to all. But I can carefully choose his routes with him, teach him to ride legally and cautiously, and provide ongoing education about how to get around safely.

Beyond that, I just have to remember that what’s really dangerous isn’t biking (or walking), it’s sitting around. Not pedaling can kill you.That's a great web site and a great blog (The Daily Score). Have you ever posted any of this on the Advocacy & Safety Forum? It's better than most of the links I've seen there. Thanks again!!! :)

http://www.sightline.org/

The car free thing would work if you are single and everything is close by. The trend I am seeing is people with family's are moving further out away from the city for better neighborhoods as down town is not where you really want to live in many large citys. These trends are slowly reversing (http://www.blogto.com/city/2007/10/urban_parenting_changing_the_face_of_real_estate_in_toronto/). Of course, Toronto has never been a high-crime city, but it does sprawl quite a bit, which means lots of people were and are choosing the suburbs. But more and more people are choosing urban areas, and more and more suburbs are built to be walk-friendly with "everything nearby".

About the car thing, - when I was a cash poor alternative lifestyler with two wee kiddies living on 10 acres of land I used a bicycle to get around if I was on my own and an old 350cc twin cylinder motorcycle and sidecar outfit if I needed to carry anything heavy or take my children anywhere. The sidecar outfit was good in traffic, had a small footprint on the road, was way more manoverable than any car and it could just about go anywhere if I wrapped around 30 feet of rope around the back tyre. My children loved it and it cost very little to run too. Nobody really 'needs' a car unless they have a significant disability.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/9402/mykindofladyxh2.jpg
(Please note, - I like this old photo because it fits so perfectly with the spirit of what I was doing when my kiddies were small. Unfortunately it is NOT a photo of me and my family)

Hey, I was checking out the first link to the blog at Sightline Institute and I saw a new blog entry (http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/10/08/safe-streets-bicycle-neglect-7) by Durning. This one is called "Safe Streets (Bicycle Neglect #9)". Here's the concluding paragraph:

That's a great web site and a great blog (The Daily Score). Have you ever posted any of this on the Advocacy & Safety Forum? It's better than most of the links I've seen there. Thanks again!!! :)

http://www.sightline.org/

Nope, I just found out about it myself. The blog is good, but I'm more excited about the peer reviewed articles the blog cites. After all, facts are facts and blogs are, well, generally not facts.

Don't get me wrong. Peer review in itself doesn't make facts either, but at least peer reviewed articles generally attempt to support their arguments with factual data which I can analyze for myself.

You should post about it in advocacy.