Some other forums I visit have an "Idiotic thread area" where the dumb crap is forwarded to.


Yes, and that, in part, was the reason the LCF forum was created in the first place -- because the people over in A & S at the time didn't want their forum dominated by peak-oil and "I'm car free so I'm better than you" posts. Sound familiar? The Utility Cycling forum came later when people wanted an outlet for the useful posts that cropped up here from time to time, without having to wade through "peak-oil" discussions. I'm really not sure what can be done to isolate the peak-oil threads any more than they already are.

Rowan, has it occurred to you that there is a very direct relationship between the phenomenon of living without a car and the concept of Peak Oil? I mean, if we run out of oil, I think LCF will have a lot more traffic.

You assume that there will be no alternative to power cars by that time. Given that the technology already exists, and that there are probably at least 30 years to improve on it before current oil reserves run dry, that's a pretty brave assumption. It's also, in my view, one of the reasons why cycling advocacy is such a pointless activity these days. Instead of promoting the benefits of cycling, the message seems to be "cars are bad, so you should drive less". It doesn't seem to be convincing the people who drive everyday.

Also the Just-In-Time, shipped 1000's of miles, warehouse-on-wheels concept of Wally-world will also become less and less competitive, which will expand the niches of local producers.

It will sound like heaven right up until the day before it actually happens. For example, "local producers" can't actually grow every variety of crop known to mankind. You might just find your choice of local produce somewhat limited. You might also find your cycling experience deteriorates somewhat, as you'll lose your advantage in gridlock.

Why this forum becomes the dumping ground for car-specific threads is beyond me. It seems only slightly less appropriate than the people who have to link every other gas-related news story they come across on the net.

If you can think of somewhere better to put them, feel free to make a suggestion, because as long as people have the free time to post these things, they aren't going to stop.

Not warm enough here for that today. :p

It's ALWAYS warm enough for pedaling & sweating -- last winter, I rode to work in -5F temps, and when I got there, my hair under my balaclava and cap was wet.

I agree with the OP. Most posts here get dragged down by the same 5-10 people who will argue for days trying to disprove each others math or predict the future. Sometimes I look at a post because it has many pages of replies. I assume there will some interesting discussions but for the most part it's page after page of what I've already mentioned above. I have definitely seen this forum go downhill in the past year or so. I Think it would improve if more people went out and rode their bikes instead of sitting by the computer posting 24 hours a day.

Check out the vintage bike/ commuting forums for a change of pace. It seems there is a much greater level of respect for each other and much less gutter sniping.

You assume that there will be no alternative to power cars by that time. Given that the technology already exists, and that there are probably at least 30 years to improve on it before current oil reserves run dry, that's a pretty brave assumption.


Actually it's you, who is making the brave assumption - but it's not really your fault.

Technophilia (the idea that we'll innovate our way out of any problem) is a function of having access to too much cheap energy over the last 200 or so years.

I don't think you have a clue how much raw juice we use...
It would take building a 1 GW nuke power plant, every day, for 38 years to match the the 14 TW of energy we extract every year from the millions of years of stored crude that we currently bathe in.

[color=red]It will sound like heaven right up until the day before it actually happens. For example, "local producers" can't actually grow every variety of crop known to mankind. You might just find your choice of local produce somewhat limited.


OMG... You mean, I'll actually have to adapt my menu to the local seasons?
Have humans ever suffered such an indignity ?

OMG... You mean, I'll actually have to adapt my menu to the local seasons?
Have humans ever suffered such an indignity ?

:roflmao:


Tonight for dinner we have potatoes; fried, sliced, boiled, baked or....:eek::p

I agree, I try to eat as much locally grown inseason stuff as I can, fortunately I live in a relatively temperate climate and the local organic farm also has hydroponic greenhouses:D so tomatoes and lettuce are year round fare for us. I have long subscribed to the 100 mile diet (http://100milediet.org/) theory. About the only thing I don't get from known local sources is my coffee and oj.

Aaron:)

OMG... You mean, I'll actually have to adapt my menu to the local seasons?
Have humans ever suffered such an indignity ?

? People may have to move from otherwise barren and marginal locations to places which can support more food growth & a more temperate climate (without a/c, of course) ?

I like cars. They can be fun to tinker with. And it strikes me as more than a little odd that a bike centric forum can provide me with more day to day cargeeking than bikegeeking. And when it's the Living Car Free forum that does that, it strikes me as just plain silly.

I treat the oil alarmist threads pretty simply. First appearance, I check. Yup, it's yet another car obsessed thread. Usually, a thread like that dies within a day or two. If it makes 3-4 pages of responses, I check again. Maybe it's gone OT enough from the original thread that it's back on topic for the forum again. Sometimes, I win! Other times, it's still car centric silliness. Then I ignore it again til it hits 6-7 pages of responses. By that time it's almost certainly back on topic for the forum.

Actually it's you, who is making the brave assumption - but it's not really your fault.

Technophilia (the idea that we'll innovate our way out of any problem) is a function of having access to too much cheap energy over the last 200 or so years.

I don't think you have a clue how much raw juice we use...
It would take building a 1 GW nuke power plant, every day, for 38 years to match the the 14 TW of energy we extract every year from the millions of years of stored crude that we currently bathe in.

Yes, but if you look at what he said, he was pointing at the date at which we run out as the one that is significant. I would argue that the date at which world production peaks is far more significant, as that is when the world will need to go on a diet. There would still be lots of oil, just less of it than the preceding year. That day will of course come far sooner than the day when oil runs out (if they ever run out, really - there will always be some oil that can never be economically recovered).

When will the peak be? We won't know with certainty until we are past the peak, but many who have studied the issue believe that peak isn't far off. Perhaps 2010-2015. Perhaps even sooner. Some have suggested that we may have already passed peak. That's why there is such intense interest in the subject right now.

I suppose I'm probably one of the more guilty parties on this site, as I've always been fascinated with transportation technology in all forms that crawl across the land. Which means, bicycles, motorcycles, automobiles, trucks, buses, streetcars and trains. I've gotten slightly obsessed with what I consider 'rational transportation technology' - limiting one's use of transportation to something appropriate to the distance covered and load to be carried at that time, with some consideration for the day's weather and the expected mode of dress for that day (if that is a factor - your job may vary).

Obviously from my last few month's worth of posts, I refuse to allow any means of transportation to be off-limits for what I would normally consider political reasons. Every option is a useful tool, the bottom line is picking the proper tool for the job.

Sorry if I've discussed motorcycles and scooters too often in a forum that some members feel should be limited to bicycles only, but the hard, cold reality is that, unless you're willing to do some serious limitations as to where you live and/or how you spend your time, a bicycle only existence is extremely difficult to do. Even if that limited life fits you perfectly at the moment. It may not at some later date. 40 years ago, an urban bicycle-only life fitted me wonderfully. It doesn't now. And there are environmentally-only-slightly-dirtier alternatives that allow a lot more freedom in one's way of living.

Gotta admit, though, that I do enjoy the input, especially at the times when I seriously disagree with the presenter. I've learned a fair bit. Hopefully, I've been able to teach an equal amount.

I just checked the index page for this subforum. At least 80 % of the thread titles indicate that the topics are about cycling, bike equipment, interpersonal relationships and other "on topic" ideas. Less than 1/5 deal with peak oil, pro-car or anti-car rants, or other clearly political topics. We're evidently making a mountain out of a molehill.

Also, I can't help but notice that the people who complained the loudest about the threads here have rarely or never started a thread of their own. As always, it's easier to whine about others than it is to make a valid contribution of one's own.

So here's a challenge to you whiners: start a new thread of your own that's reflective of your ideas of what this forum should be about. While you're at it, participate fully in the threads that interest you. Express your ideas, and try to post threads that will carry the conversation forward. As it is, these "on-topic" threads often die a quick death because nobody has enough to say to carry them forward.

I just checked the index page for this subforum. At least 80 % of the thread titles indicate that the topics are about cycling, bike equipment, interpersonal relationships and other "on topic" ideas. Less than 1/5 deal with peak oil, pro-car or anti-car rants, or other clearly political topics. We're evidently making a mountain out of a molehill.

It gets really hard to say where the line for "on topic" should be drawn.

Talk about the availability of mass transit, for example. On the surface, it doesn't involve bicycles (heck, there are people in NYC who LCF but don't own a bicycle). Yet for some people a bicycle commute can involve a leg of the journey that involves a train or a bus. So questions about whether bicycles are permitted on trains would always seem appropos. But then again, commuting is only one aspect of the transportation puzzle and not all other trips can be made by bicycle. So to be truly car free and not just car-free-lite, one really would need a decent public transportation network that is nearby.

But to have a decent public transportation network, you need to have a good number of people who would use it. Otherwise it would have been a waste of money to build. Denser forms of development are easier and cheaper to support with public transit, and suburban sprawl is much harder and more expensive. So then you get into questions of how the society at large is organized. Why is it that we have such sprawl, for example? What are the things that made such sprawl possible, and what is it that people are looking for when they choose to live so far out? And why is it that instead of little corner grocery stores, we have big box stores that are miles from home?

Sprawl has other problems for bicycle commuters as well - lack of good and safe routes, and long distances. If you are living in more a more compact community, then your bicycle trips are likely to be much shorter, and it is likely that you have better routes to choose from. As well as having better mass transit options.

And if it weren't for cheap gas and the automobile, would sprawl have ever have happened? At the end of WWII, many cities had decent public transit systems - typically streetcars. At roughly that period in time, we made a choice to take a different path.

You see where I am going with this, of course. None of us really live off in the woods by ourselves - we are all members of a society, and the degree to which LCF is possible for each of us is isn't entirely in our hands. Yes, we can make personal decisions about where we live and who we work for, but just the day-to-day stuff like having child care, a grocery store or a theater nearby and bikable/walkable play a role in determining the degree to which LCF is easy or hard. And the harder it is, the fewer the people will be able to pull it off.

In 1974 I was woke up by some of my friends who to this day remind me of what I said, in part,,"I HATE CAR'S"........

I don't like working on them, I am a mechanic to at times I have to.
My job dictates I drive a service truck, so I have to.
My wife is physically unable to get around without her car, and to go with her, I have to ride with her.

Every chance I get to go ANYWHERE, alone, (off the clock),, I WILL ride.

I don't feel worthy to be in this "Living Car Free" section of the forum, as I am not free to be car free.
Or I would post a lot more here.

My job dictates I drive a service truck, so I have to.

I'm really not sure why so many people equate *working* behind the wheel with using a car for personal use. Perhaps is because so many people identify closely with their work, or perhaps its because the car-free movement has mad little progress in publicizing its agenda. I know a car-free police officer who drives in a patrol car all day.

If you don't use a motor vehicle for personal transport, you're car-free in my books.


My wife is physically unable to get around without her car, and to go with her, I have to ride with her.


There will always be a small segment of society with mobility challenges. One of my close friends uses a wheelchair - he and his mother (also in a wheelchair) share a customized van to get around, with some limited use of public transit as well. As a dedicated "car-free nut", I have no problems with that. That is not what the car-free movement has issue with.

I think you should post here all you want.

I'm really not sure why so many people equate *working* behind the wheel with using a car for personal use. Perhaps is because so many people identify closely with their work, or perhaps its because the car-free movement has mad little progress in publicizing its agenda. I know a car-free police officer who drives in a patrol car all day.

If you don't use a motor vehicle for personal transport, you're car-free in my books.

There will always be a small segment of society with mobility challenges. One of my close friends uses a wheelchair - he and his mother (also in a wheelchair) share a customized van to get around, with some limited use of public transit as well. As a dedicated "car-free nut", I have no problems with that. That is not what the car-free movement has issue with.


Yup, it's all about doing what you can, not fulfilling a super-human standard.

In 1974 I was woke up by some of my friends who to this day remind me of what I said, in part,,"I HATE CAR'S"........

I don't like working on them, I am a mechanic to at times I have to.
My job dictates I drive a service truck, so I have to.
My wife is physically unable to get around without her car, and to go with her, I have to ride with her.

Every chance I get to go ANYWHERE, alone, (off the clock),, I WILL ride.
I don't feel worthy to be in this "Living Car Free" section of the forum, as I am not free to be car free.
Or I would post a lot more here.

Since I <insert rationalization or legimate reason here>;) I'll never be truely car free. I figure if I make one trip by bike/walking/transit to do one thing that someone else would have driven I am living car free, at least for a moment. Maybe not as much as some of the rest of the folks but as best I can at the time. Hopefully I do it in a way that makes someone want to also instead of thinking $*#@)(@#$ out of my way ;)