There are numerous fires in my area and I have my Tahoe(evil SUV) and one of my other cars packed with stuff so if I have to bail I can do so in a hurry, oh did I mention that it is windy as hell here and I bike is useless in 60 MPH winds. Glad I have my SUV it might just save my ass tonight.

So that law requiring everyone to live out in the woods passed afterall eh? :rolleyes:

Naw; still tied up in committee. But they passed the one where if you do live out in the woods, and they're on fire, you're required to post pointless drivel to the internet.

And misspell it, as well.

I don't get it... Are you trying to brag that you figured out a way to be able to live in a dangerously fire-prone area? Or are you recommending that the rest of us also purchase similar vehicles, so that we can live in unsafe areas? Yeah, I wish I could live there; it sounds great :rolleyes:

I'm not jealous of your "escape vehicle"; just like if you lived in Fallujah I wouldn't be jealous of your flak-vest.

And don't kid yourself, that's not even why you bought it, and we all know it.

:roflmao:


Oh, and just an FYI: My bike works just fine in 60 mph winds. Not always fun, but it works. ;)

And misspell it, as well.

For some reason I can't explain, it makes me smile to see a mod making fun of a troll-post rather than just deleting it.

There are numerous fires in my area and I have my Tahoe(evil SUV) and one of my other cars packed with stuff so if I have to bail I can do so in a hurry, oh did I mention that it is windy as hell here and I bike is useless in 60 MPH winds. Glad I have my SUV it might just save my ass tonight.Your interesting idea of driving two cars simultaneously aside, evacuation by car just might work in remote areas with relatively few other people on the road at the same time. Everywhere else, you'll have lots of traffic. You need something more off-road capable than the Tahoe to beat that. Here's a thread about Katrina traffic jams in New Orleans:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=140604

--J

For some reason I can't explain, it makes me smile to see a mod making fun of a troll-post rather than just deleting it.

It's always fun to see a moderator get into the spirit of things.

We just had a long holiday weekend here in NZ. According to the radio reports on Friday night traffic was banked up for 8kms on the roads out of our largest city, Auckland. The capital, Wellington, was a little better at 5kms. Now if that'd been an evacuation and not just people trying to get away for a break over the 3 day weekend things would've been considerably worse. A car might be great for getting away from danger if you're the only one on the road, but as soon as several thousand other folk have exactly the same idea a car is worthless.

Sounds like you need to move somewhere safe.
How far out do you live? Like Deliverance far? http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/8524/picccrj7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

You guys are all a bunch of jerks! This guy is just giving his own reasons for why he is not car free, that's all. Myself, for example, I live on the moon and my bike seems to lose performance in zero gravity plus the commute time is a little ridiculous. Sure, I could live somewhere else and not own a gas guzzling rocket ship decked out in space survival gear but I'm an American, dammit, and guzzling gas is a right given to me by God himself.

You guys are all a bunch of jerks! This guy is just giving his own reasons for why he is not car free, that's all. Myself, for example, I live on the moon and my bike seems to lose performance in zero gravity plus the commute time is a little ridiculous. Sure, I could live somewhere else and not own a gas guzzling rocket ship decked out in space survival gear but I'm an American, dammit, and guzzling gas is a right given to me by God himself.

He's a troll. We're giving him back exactly what he wants. Don't get yourself all worked up on his behalf, he really doesn't deserve it. ;) (Oh, and you're pretty good at this. :D )

You guys are all a bunch of jerks! This guy is just giving his own reasons for why he is not car free, that's all. Myself, for example, I live on the moon and my bike seems to lose performance in zero gravity plus the commute time is a little ridiculous. Sure, I could live somewhere else and not own a gas guzzling rocket ship decked out in space survival gear but I'm an American, dammit, and guzzling gas is a right given to me by God himself.

I don't think that's the case. Glad to hear your happy with your God given rights.

You guys are all a bunch of jerks! This guy is just giving his own reasons for why he is not car free, that's all. Myself, for example, I live on the moon and my bike seems to lose performance in zero gravity plus the commute time is a little ridiculous. Sure, I could live somewhere else and not own a gas guzzling rocket ship decked out in space survival gear but I'm an American, dammit, and guzzling gas is a right given to me by God himself.

I hear the moon is like paradise: Good schools (thanks NASA!), plenty of parking, and low precipitation.
:roflmao:

I hear the moon is like paradise: Good schools (thanks NASA!), plenty of parking, and low precipitation.
:roflmao:

You forgot the low congestion, pollution, and crime rate.

For some reason I can't explain, it makes me smile to see a mod making fun of a troll-post rather than just deleting it.

Yes, it's far out, man, it brings to mind an archaic sense of the word 'mod,' as in Ronnie Lane and Steve Marriott.

Your interesting idea of driving two cars simultaneously aside, evacuation by car just might work in remote areas with relatively few other people on the road at the same time. Everywhere else, you'll have lots of traffic. You need something more off-road capable than the Tahoe to beat that. Here's a thread about Katrina traffic jams in New Orleans:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=140604

--J

I evacuated from Slidell, LA to Baldwin, LA, and suffered only a ten mile stretch of stop-and-go traffic near Morgan City that resulted from me missing a turn to stay off Hwy 90, and a three mile stretch of slow traffic near Covington, LA where cars were being directed off the highway. I enjoyed a pleasant backroads drive, looking at all of the beautiful scenery along the way. My route looked something like this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=1553966527790077244,30.497660,-90.104500%3B9213663134892738551,30.505380,-90.278010%3B13514998673213837790,30.503170,-90.415180%3B14172752689425607341,30.467570,-90.457340%3B12246163722872742681,30.288440,-90.700560%3B336472634011552033,29.867500,-91.206280&time=&date=&ttype=&saddr=slidell,+la&daddr=N+Collins+Blvd+%4030.497660,+-90.104500+to:US-190+%4030.505380,+-90.278010+to:LA-3158+%4030.503170,+-90.415180+to:30.517315,-90.464172+to:US-51-BR+%4030.467570,+-90.457340+to:LA-22+%4030.288440,+-90.700560+to:LA-70+%4029.867500,+-91.206280+to:baldwin,+la&mra=dpe&mrcr=3,4&mrsp=4&sz=9&sll=30.178373,-90.576782&sspn=0.982962,2.570801&ie=UTF8&z=9&om=1

It was so pleasant, in fact, that a portion of it might be my first century route, if I ever get myself into that sort of shape. Of course, for the car free folks, I have to say the that crossing under I-10 near Sorrento was just scary. It was jarring. Cops were everywhere, cars were parked on the interstate, the Waffle House and McDonald's were packed with people sporting the thousand yard stare of someone who'd been on the road for six hours at 3mph. The scene was toxic, and I was glad to hit the restroom, grab my McMuffin and go.

Now, I'm not saying that a bike would have been bad. Heck no, if I were in New Orleans proper, it would have been great. If my car had failed in traffic, I would have loved having a bike. As it was, I took my mother with me, and loaded the Jetta, and everything went fine. The important thing is leaving early, and avoiding everyone's first choice route. I'm not car free now, but I'm seriously considering it, mostly for heath and financial reasons. Car lite might be a better choice, as my Jetta seems to fixed costs of about $53/mo. I'd have to pay more for cable TV. I'll just use gas as I need it, and use my bike so I don't need it so often.

My point: Cars are tools. Do you need one? Maybe. Some people live farther from supplies than their fitness, and/or practicality allows them to travel. Some people aren't possessed of the health required to make these trips on their own, and a car provides them mobility. Some people have a high enough income and lead busy enough lives that the car pays for itself, and the time lost to slower transit represents a financial burden. I don't doubt OP was a troll, but the evacuation from Katrina was one of the times I most appreciated owning a reliable car.

Some people have a high enough income and lead busy enough lives that the car pays for itself, and the time lost to slower transit represents a financial burden.

Why do some people always assume that traveling in a car is always faster and more expensive than other forms of transit? You know, some people have a high enough income and lead busy enough lives that taking the Acela express train pays for itself. The time lost to cheaper, slower transit (such as driving) represents a financial burden.

Why do some people always assume that traveling in a car is always faster and more expensive than other forms of transit? You know, some people have a high enough income and lead busy enough lives that taking the Acela express train pays for itself. The time lost to cheaper, slower transit (such as driving) represents a financial burden.Makeinu, are you saying that I assume such a thing?

.... I live on the moon and my bike seems to lose performance in zero gravity ...

The moon has gravity.:D

I evacuated from Slidell, LA to Baldwin, LA, and suffered only a ten mile stretch of stop-and-go traffic near Morgan City that resulted from me missing a turn to stay off Hwy 90, and a three mile stretch of slow traffic near Covington, LA where cars were being directed off the highway. I enjoyed a pleasant backroads drive, looking at all of the beautiful scenery along the way. My route looked something like this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=1553966527790077244,30.497660,-90.104500%3B9213663134892738551,30.505380,-90.278010%3B13514998673213837790,30.503170,-90.415180%3B14172752689425607341,30.467570,-90.457340%3B12246163722872742681,30.288440,-90.700560%3B336472634011552033,29.867500,-91.206280&time=&date=&ttype=&saddr=slidell,+la&daddr=N+Collins+Blvd+%4030.497660,+-90.104500+to:US-190+%4030.505380,+-90.278010+to:LA-3158+%4030.503170,+-90.415180+to:30.517315,-90.464172+to:US-51-BR+%4030.467570,+-90.457340+to:LA-22+%4030.288440,+-90.700560+to:LA-70+%4029.867500,+-91.206280+to:baldwin,+la&mra=dpe&mrcr=3,4&mrsp=4&sz=9&sll=30.178373,-90.576782&sspn=0.982962,2.570801&ie=UTF8&z=9&om=1

It was so pleasant, in fact, that a portion of it might be my first century route, if I ever get myself into that sort of shape. Of course, for the car free folks, I have to say the that crossing under I-10 near Sorrento was just scary. It was jarring. Cops were everywhere, cars were parked on the interstate, the Waffle House and McDonald's were packed with people sporting the thousand yard stare of someone who'd been on the road for six hours at 3mph. The scene was toxic, and I was glad to hit the restroom, grab my McMuffin and go.

Now, I'm not saying that a bike would have been bad. Heck no, if I were in New Orleans proper, it would have been great. If my car had failed in traffic, I would have loved having a bike. As it was, I took my mother with me, and loaded the Jetta, and everything went fine. The important thing is leaving early, and avoiding everyone's first choice route. I'm not car free now, but I'm seriously considering it, mostly for heath and financial reasons. Car lite might be a better choice, as my Jetta seems to fixed costs of about $53/mo. I'd have to pay more for cable TV. I'll just use gas as I need it, and use my bike so I don't need it so often.

My point: Cars are tools. Do you need one? Maybe. Some people live farther from supplies than their fitness, and/or practicality allows them to travel. Some people aren't possessed of the health required to make these trips on their own, and a car provides them mobility. Some people have a high enough income and lead busy enough lives that the car pays for itself, and the time lost to slower transit represents a financial burden. I don't doubt OP was a troll, but the evacuation from Katrina was one of the times I most appreciated owning a reliable car.


I will be glad when you guys get some TV's in NO. I knew about katrina and NO possibly flooding days before it actually happened. Most people there seemed SHOCKED that it happened. Hell I could have walked at least 75 miles north before the hurricane struck. On my bike I could have been 400 miles north of NO.

I will be glad when you guys get some TV's in NO. I knew about katrina and NO possibly flooding days before it actually happened. Most people there seemed SHOCKED that it happened. Hell I could have walked at least 75 miles north before the hurricane struck. On my bike I could have been 400 miles north of NO.You know how the news can be - they seem to pick the dimmest, most out-of-sorts person to give a soundbite. Well, I don't own a TV, but I try to know what's going on. Here's the thing: nearly everyone knew New Orleans would flood. I knew it, the newspapers knew it, the people on the radio knew it, people on the street knew it. You couldn't go near any form of media or any human without hearing that New Orleans would flood, and that Katrina looked like "the big one". ("The Big One" seemingly ingrained in New Orleans culture as a hurricane that would seriously damage the city, and usually a prelude to someone older talking about the last big one, usually Betsy.) Officials were begging people to leave. Begging!

In the future, I'd like to see trains and/or barges on the Mississippi used to speed evacuations. Now that I live in Hammond, I think I'm fairly safe from storm surge.

The moon has gravity.:D

Oh sure, the moon does but that big gap between the moon and earth is rather troublesome. If you don't get enough momentum...

Makeinu, are you saying that I assume such a thing?

Well, in the context of the following statement you did:
Some people have a high enough income and lead busy enough lives that the car pays for itself, and the time lost to slower transit represents a financial burden.

Saying that driving a car pays for itself means that it results in a higher net income than all other possible choices. In the context of a busy high income life, it's only fair to say that driving a car pays for itself if choosing to drive always results in a higher net income independent of the other choices you might make for your busy high income life.

This makes sense. For example, suppose you were a consultant that had a choice between two jobs (job A and job B), both with a business dress code. Then you might say that buying a new suit pays for itself. However, if job B had a casual dress code then it wouldn't make sense to say that buying a new suit pays for itself because not buying the suit and taking job B is better than buying the suit and taking job B.

Likewise, in the context of a busy high income life, one can choose to drive and live in suburban sprawl, not drive and live in suburban sprawl, drive and not live in suburban sprawl, or not drive and not live in suburban sprawl. Although driving and living in suburban sprawl may result in a higher net income than not driving and living in suburban sprawl, it may also be true that not driving and not living in surburban sprawl results in a higher net income than driving and not living in suburban sprawl. Furthermore, it may even be true that not driving and not living in suburban sprawl results in a higher net income than driving and living in suburban sprawl. Therefore, choosing to drive a car is not necessarily the choice of highest net income. So it's not fair to say that it pays for itself.

There are numerous fires in my area and I have my Tahoe(evil SUV) and one of my other cars packed with stuff so if I have to bail I can do so in a hurry, oh did I mention that it is windy as hell here and I bike is useless in 60 MPH winds. Glad I have my SUV it might just save my ass tonight.

I am not making light of your situation, but you insist that you need an SUV for this, and you don't. All you need is a motor vehicle, and an empty road. The point you miss is that you may not have an empty road...

East Hill

Well, in the context of the following statement you did:


Saying that driving a car pays for itself means that it results in a higher net income than all other possible choices. In the context of a busy high income life, it's only fair to say that driving a car pays for itself if choosing to drive always results in a higher net income independent of the other choices you might make for your busy high income life.

This makes sense. For example, suppose you were a consultant that had a choice between two jobs (job A and job B), both with a business dress code. Then you might say that buying a new suit pays for itself. However, if job B had a casual dress code then it wouldn't make sense to say that buying a new suit pays for itself because not buying the suit and taking job B is better than buying the suit and taking job B.

Likewise, in the context of a busy high income life, one can choose to drive and live in suburban sprawl, not drive and live in suburban sprawl, drive and not live in suburban sprawl, or not drive and not live in suburban sprawl. Although driving and living in suburban sprawl may result in a higher net income than not driving and living in suburban sprawl, it may also be true that not driving and not living in surburban sprawl results in a higher net income than driving and not living in suburban sprawl. Furthermore, it may even be true that not driving and not living in suburban sprawl results in a higher net income than driving and living in suburban sprawl. Therefore, choosing to drive a car is not necessarily the choice of highest net income. So it's not fair to say that it pays for itself.

I think you're forgetting that I used this word (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/some). That should make things clear.

Look, bicycles are great. They are. You're totally preaching to the choir here. They are the answer to so many things, it's really amazing. I just want to point out that it's easy, having answered so many questions with "cycling" to start answering every question with cycling. Sometimes, cycling isn't the answer. I ride my bicycle to work. I don't do it every day, but I do it often. Riding my bicycle is slower than riding my car, and no part of the route exceeds 25mph or passes beneath a traffic light. Only ignoring stop signs on the bike but stopping for them in the car will give favor to the bicycle. I understand that in a tightly packed urban area with high vehicular traffic, a bicycle will win nearly every time. For a thirty mile suburban/rural mixed commute, the car will win nearly every time. If the time difference comes from your earning time, then you start building the scenario I portrayed. Of course, if the time difference comes from your family time, that might be worth something to you as well.

Am I this person? No. I'm single, and live alone. I make decent, but not great money. I live close to work. My employer has a covered bike rack that is always empty, but never enough parking. The route between work and home is residential, slow, low in traffic, well maintained, and wide. My job role excuses me from wearing a suit. I have flexibility in my hours. I can choose to telecommute. It almost never snows here. Winters are mild. I suppose my situation could be better, but not by much. Maybe a change room would be nice.

My point: Cars are tools. Do you need one? Maybe. Some people live farther from supplies than their fitness, and/or practicality allows them to travel. Some people aren't possessed of the health required to make these trips on their own, and a car provides them mobility. Some people have a high enough income and lead busy enough lives that the car pays for itself, and the time lost to slower transit represents a financial burden. I don't doubt OP was a troll, but the evacuation from Katrina was one of the times I most appreciated owning a reliable car.
Very wise observations, especially when you take into account North American planning and development patterns. I think that many of the posters on this thread are taking what the OP is trying to say in the context of past behavior, however.

I know Juha and I will be most interested to hear how this one-person-driving-two-cars-simultaneously plan works out.

I'm guessing that (as hard as it may be to believe it) the OP might actually have a wife that could drive one of the cars.... though I certainly wouldn't want my wife in a separate vehicle from me under the conditions you're likely to experience in an evacuation.

I know... I've been there. They evacuated over 20,000 people from the mountains I lived in back in Arizona during a wildfire... Three of us took three vehicles (Mostly to keep them from getting damaged in case the fire DID come through our town) .... it was a pain in the ass to keep the three of us together and we likely had much less traffic than what is around the OP's area. (Population was a lot more spread out and we went a different direction than most of the evacuees)

Even when we managed to stay together till we got to the place where we evacuated to, my wife got hurt and couldn't drive one of the cars back. We had to leave our car there when we returned, and I had to get a ride back out there to pick it up.

Never again... the other car wasn't worth the aggravation. If I had to do it over again, my wife and I would be in the same vehicle.

I think Roody and others have pointed this out before: it is interesting how often people jump in to the "Living Car Free" forum with a first post explaining in a rather aggressive way why they can't do without a car. Like....okaaay....that's fine.... And your reason for posting this in the living car-free forum is....?

Boredom?

I think you're forgetting that I used this word (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/some). That should make things clear.

Look, bicycles are great. They are. You're totally preaching to the choir here. They are the answer to so many things, it's really amazing. I just want to point out that it's easy, having answered so many questions with "cycling" to start answering every question with cycling. Sometimes, cycling isn't the answer. I ride my bicycle to work. I don't do it every day, but I do it often. Riding my bicycle is slower than riding my car, and no part of the route exceeds 25mph or passes beneath a traffic light. Only ignoring stop signs on the bike but stopping for them in the car will give favor to the bicycle. I understand that in a tightly packed urban area with high vehicular traffic, a bicycle will win nearly every time. For a thirty mile suburban/rural mixed commute, the car will win nearly every time. If the time difference comes from your earning time, then you start building the scenario I portrayed. Of course, if the time difference comes from your family time, that might be worth something to you as well.

Am I this person? No. I'm single, and live alone. I make decent, but not great money. I live close to work. My employer has a covered bike rack that is always empty, but never enough parking. The route between work and home is residential, slow, low in traffic, well maintained, and wide. My job role excuses me from wearing a suit. I have flexibility in my hours. I can choose to telecommute. It almost never snows here. Winters are mild. I suppose my situation could be better, but not by much. Maybe a change room would be nice.

Some people. Location is not part of one's identity. A person, restrained only by a busy life and a desire to leverage their income to save time, has more choices than just tackling suburban sprawl with a car or without a car. They can tackle suburban sprawl via relocated, whether it simply be moving a couple miles down the road to live next to the train station or moving to another part of the country where there are train stations a few miles down the road.

That was the point I was trying to make. Too many people rule out relocation from the start. Even you did it here. You are not where you live.

Why do you measure the time difference between driving and cycling for a given location and conclude that the choice to cycle is the cause? Why not measure the difference between driving in suburbia and cycling somewhere more urban and conclude that living in suburbia is the thing robbing you of earning time and family time? The reality is that there are many factors which can contribute to lost time. Arbitrarily labeling one of them as a given (location) and another as a cause (cycling) doesn't make any sense because both factors contribute to the loss of time equally. If you're going to say driving instead of cycling pays for itself then you might as well also say that relocating pays for itself. But then you realize that, at the heart of the matter, it's really tackling suburban sprawl that pays for itself. Jumping directly to the methods available to tackle it (such as driving instead of cycling) only obscures the question of which method is best.

I hear the moon is like paradise: Good schools (thanks NASA!), plenty of parking, and low precipitation.
:roflmao:

And.... it's fireproof!

There are numerous fires in my area and I have my Tahoe(evil SUV) and one of my other cars packed with stuff so if I have to bail I can do so in a hurry, oh did I mention that it is windy as hell here and I bike is useless in 60 MPH winds. Glad I have my SUV it might just save my ass tonight.

Till all of you get gridlocked in the traffic jam on the one lane dirt road and you get passed by a guy with a mountain bike and a Bob trailer minutes before the fire catches up to your vehicle. ;)

I think Roody and others have pointed this out before: it is interesting how often people jump in to the "Living Car Free" forum with a first post explaining in a rather aggressive way why they can't do without a car. Like....okaaay....that's fine.... And your reason for posting this in the living car-free forum is....?

Especially when, like Specialized Fan, they sound like they're defending car ownership rights, almost like the NRA defends automatic assault weapons. For both, an indefensible defense, IMO.

I've asked Specfan his reasons for posting here, and so far he's elected not to answer.

I've asked Specfan his reasons for posting here, and so far he's elected not to answer.

One of this forum's longest-posting grumpy contrarian members, and many of you probably know who I'm thinking about, has also declined to answer when asked the same question.

One of this forum's longest-posting grumpy contrarian members, and many of you probably know who I'm thinking about, has also declined to answer when asked the same question.

Well they certainly don't have to tell us if they don't want to. it would be interesting though...

You know, I am old enough to have seen the Santa Ana winds whipping through canyons and fueling fires which have destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres over the last few decades.

This coming spring, millions of people will once again be astonished that mudslides will occur on the denuded slopes, and the houses which have not been burned by fires now, will slide down the canyons.

And people will insist on rebuilding in those very same areas.

East Hill

You know, I am old enough to have seen the Santa Ana winds whipping through canyons and fueling fires which have destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres over the last few decades.

This coming spring, millions of people will once again be astonished that mudslides will occur on the denuded slopes, and the houses which have not been burned by fires now, will slide down the canyons.

And people will insist on rebuilding in those very same areas.

East Hill

And they'll also insist on subsidization from FEMA to offset the costs of their own stupidity. (Actually--who's stupid? Those who rebuild in dangerous areas, or those of us who let the government bail them out time after time?)

so, if I read SpecFan right, he thinks he should have his...how'd he put it?...oh, yes, "big ass grocery hauler ... so he can get a latte in 110 degrees," just in case of wildfire.
Now I live in wildfire territory, not in direct threat, but close enough (I well remember the Hayman smoke tower on day two), and yes, you'd want to evacuate as fast and as efficiently as possible.
My trike will never be out of gas. I'll never mislay the key. I'll not be stuck on a particular road (although, yes, my trike has a few more limitations to say, a mountain bike, but for an evacuation, it'll do).

as I said before,:
Frankly, I'd rather not deal with a car, but that's me, and I'm not going to go in somewhere where people are discussing their honking SUVs and say, "hey bikes rule!!!!!111!!!1", which is, basically what you did, adding a latte on the end.

A counter argument could be "using a car is one way to not have to deal with the clerks and policies about bags. I found it far easier to not fight that battle."

That, I could have respected.

One of this forum's longest-posting grumpy contrarian members, and many of you probably know who I'm thinking about, has also declined to answer when asked the same question.


Careful what you wish for.

so, if I read SpecFan right, he thinks he should have his...how'd he put it?...oh, yes, "big ass grocery hauler ... so he can get a latte in 110 degrees," just in case of wildfire.
Now I live in wildfire territory, not in direct threat, but close enough (I well remember the Hayman smoke tower on day two), and yes, you'd want to evacuate as fast and as efficiently as possible.
My trike will never be out of gas. I'll never mislay the key. I'll not be stuck on a particular road (although, yes, my trike has a few more limitations to say, a mountain bike, but for an evacuation, it'll do).

as I said before,:
Frankly, I'd rather not deal with a car, but that's me, and I'm not going to go in somewhere where people are discussing their honking SUVs and say, "hey bikes rule!!!!!111!!!1", which is, basically what you did, adding a latte on the end.

A counter argument could be "using a car is one way to not have to deal with the clerks and policies about bags. I found it far easier to not fight that battle."

That, I could have respected.

Hey, the latte was originally my idea! *glad he could contribute to the 'personality'*

There are numerous fires in my area and I have my Tahoe(evil SUV) and one of my other cars packed with stuff so if I have to bail I can do so in a hurry, oh did I mention that it is windy as hell here and I bike is useless in 60 MPH winds. Glad I have my SUV it might just save my ass tonight.

I don't understand you, Specialized fan. If you look, you can find many more situations where car-free wouldn't work. Consider some of the following:
• You work in sales and you cover a wide area.
• You make your living delivering pizzas and you need to supply your own vehicle.
• You're elderly, you have mobility issues and you live in a community without transportation alternatives.
• You live in a rural area, 30 to 100 kilometres from the nearest community.
• You're caring for someone who cannot move without assistance.
• You're an artist and you need a car (or other vehicle) to haul your artwork to the various galleries and shops.
• You're a market gardener and you make your living selling fresh fruits and vegetables at the local farmers' market each week.

All of these are legitimate examples and I know people in each of these situations. For them, car-free is not possible. Your example of the fires is another valid case.

But in the end, all these examples, as legitimate as they are, can easily be used as excuses. In each of these cases, it's possible for the people to cut back on vehicle use — sometimes drastically — even if they cannot give up the car altogether. It's also possible in each of these cases to cut back on fuel consumption by switching to a fuel efficient vehicle instead of picking a gas guzzler.

You can complain about why you can't do something or you can look for ways to do what you can, even if it's not as much as you'd like to do. The choice is yours.

Hey, the latte was originally my idea! *glad he could contribute to the 'personality'*

yeah, well, buy local. :)


ok, so my grumpy needs work....

Especially when, like Specialized Fan, they sound like they're defending car ownership rights, almost like the NRA defends automatic assault weapons. For both, an indefensible defense, IMO.

I've asked Specfan his reasons for posting here, and so far he's elected not to answer.

Hmmm. I absolutely believe I have a right to own a car. I'm less sure I have a right to drive it.

Especially when, like Specialized Fan, they sound like they're defending car ownership rights, almost like the NRA defends automatic assault weapons. For both, an indefensible defense, IMO.

I've asked Specfan his reasons for posting here, and so far he's elected not to answer.

I post here to provide a counter argument as I am fascinated by certain people who seem to be totally anti car and I must admit this backwards thinking is odd to me as when I was car free I hated it as yes I love riding my bike, but there are so many instances where a car is just faster safer and easer to get done. There ia absolutely I could run all of the errands and get to the gym and yes get my Star bucks fix on a bike with the time constraints as everything is very spread out and I have 2 kids to haul around.I don't care how good a shape you are in you couldn't do the errands I do in the time I do it in unless you can do 50 MPH up a hill while carring 1 to 200LBS , I'd pay to see that.

I don't get it... Are you trying to brag that you figured out a way to be able to live in a dangerously fire-prone area? Or are you recommending that the rest of us also purchase similar vehicles, so that we can live in unsafe areas? Yeah, I wish I could live there; it sounds great :rolleyes:

I'm not jealous of your "escape vehicle"; just like if you lived in Fallujah I wouldn't be jealous of your flak-vest.

And don't kid yourself, that's not even why you bought it, and we all know it.

:roflmoa:

I post here to provide a counter argument as I am fascinated by certain people who seem to be totally anti car and I must admit this backwards thinking is odd to me as when I was car free I hated it as yes I love riding my bike, but there are so many instances where a car is just faster safer and easer to get done. There ia absolutely I could run all of the errands and get to the gym and yes get my Star bucks fix on a bike with the time constraints as everything is very spread out and I have 2 kids to haul around.I don't care how good a shape you are in you couldn't do the errands I do in the time I do it in unless you can do 50 MPH up a hill while carring 1 to 200LBS , I'd pay to see that.Well, it's great that you came back, anyway. Some trolls don't.

Much of the modern world is designed around the car, so of course it's difficult to live in suburban California without one. People who want to live without a car will choose to live somewhere where it's easier to manage without one. So it's not so much that you need a car, as you've picked a lifestyle and location that makes you need one.

Hmmm. I absolutely believe I have a right to own a car. I'm less sure I have a right to drive it.
Yes, well, you're just old-fashioned like that, Sammy. ;)

I post here to provide a counter argument as I am fascinated by certain people who seem to be totally anti car and I must admit this backwards thinking is odd to me as when I was car free I hated it as yes I love riding my bike, but there are so many instances where a car is just faster safer and easer to get done. There ia absolutely I could run all of the errands and get to the gym and yes get my Star bucks fix on a bike with the time constraints as everything is very spread out and I have 2 kids to haul around.I don't care how good a shape you are in you couldn't do the errands I do in the time I do it in unless you can do 50 MPH up a hill while carring 1 to 200LBS , I'd pay to see that.

And neither could you do the errands I do in the time I do it in a car. So what?

Even murder has circumstances in which it's justifiable. That's why we need to avoid those circumstances.