Living Car Free - If this happens many will go back to cars.......

Will we finally be rid of suits and and ties?!!!

I am entirely convinced that energy conservation will cause people to change the norms of "business attire" in the next few decades.

Of course, if nuclear power (which does not emit CO2) becomes affordable and plentiful everywhere (like it is in France) then people may see no reason to turn down the A/C.

I'm not really convinced that France has NOT already found just what the rest of the world needs as a replacement for coal plants. (let me guess... flame war here we come!)

Once upon a time in your part of Tennessee, it was acceptable for people to be sweaty. I have a feeling that at some point in the next several years, it will become acceptable once again.

Very true, indeed. That said, I feel sorry for older folk's who can't deal with heat very well at all.

Of course, if nuclear power (which does not emit CO2) becomes affordable and plentiful everywhere (like it is in France) then people may see no reason to turn down the A/C.

I'm not really convinced that France has NOT already found just what the rest of the world needs as a replacement for coal plants. (let me guess... flame war here we come!)

No flames, just facts. At the moment the nuclear industry emits CO2 from all the fossil fueled machines that mine and process and transport the uranium and build the nuclear reactors and transmission lines and tear them down and dispose of the waste etc. Whether it will be a viable power source without that oil input remains to be seen.

If you want oil to rise then you're ****ing nuts.

Well, I am long a lot of dec 08 oil and am thinking of going even longer (even at these levels), so I do want oil to go up. I guess I am ****ing nuts, but I had a pretty good day Friday.

PS. While depressing the economy, high oil prices wil eventually drive technological innovation.

No flames, just facts. At the moment the nuclear industry emits CO2 from all the fossil fueled machines that mine and process and transport the uranium and build the nuclear reactors and transmission lines and tear them down and dispose of the waste etc. Whether it will be a viable power source without that oil input remains to be seen.

That's plain wrong - the energy output of per unit weight of enriched uranium is way, way bigger than all of the energy expenditures on mining and enrichment. We are talking times, not percent here.

Very true, indeed. That said, I feel sorry for older folk's who can't deal with heat very well at all.
How did they deal in the past? They lived in heat all their lives and adapted to it, They were thinner, so they didn't retain heat. They sat in the basement or in the breeze a lot. They didn't live in massive concrete ovens.

That's plain wrong - the energy output of per unit weight of enriched uranium is way, way bigger than all of the energy expenditures on mining and enrichment. We are talking times, not percent here.

I wasn't arguing that, just the claim it emits no CO2. When all production and decommissioning is done by electrically powered machines it will be a carbon neutral industry.

And more expensive.

Whether it will be a viable power source without that oil input remains to be seen.

Fair enough. I suspect nuclear is still no more fossil-fuel dependent than the cleanest electrical-generation facilities known to humankind, keeping in mind the energy density of fission-fuel compared to the alternatives.

Nuclear power seems about as close to carbon-neutral as riding a steel bicycle with synthetic rubber tires.

I wasn't arguing that, just the claim it emits no CO2. When all production and decommissioning is done by electrically powered machines it will be a carbon neutral industry.

And more expensive.

Everything will be more expensive, but with oil at 150 even if a kilowatt is going to cost double, it's still very reasonable. And, per watt emitted, i suspect that "nucular" energy emits far less carbon.

PS. I am doing my reimbursements and noticed that, apparently, my firm purchases carbon offsets for all employee travel. Considering the cost of a business class ticket, extra 50 bucks (that's what carbon offset for a flight to london costs) is small change.

Once upon a time in your part of Tennessee, it was acceptable for people to be sweaty. I have a feeling that at some point in the next several years, it will become acceptable once again.

That's true and those who grew up around here without air conditioning don't seem to be bothered by heat. However, my body simply doesn't want to function in the summer. I can stand it up to around 85 degrees and then I start to become miserable. I am definitely a cold weather person; I have no problem riding to work when it's 11 degrees outside. That doesn't bother me in the least, and I'm in heaven when it's in the 30s or 40s outside. I've been working in warehouses for a few years now so you would think I'd start to get used to it, but I haven't. I've tried to use air conditioning as little as possible hoping I would adapt, but this level of heat is just not adaptable for me. And this is just June! I can't imagine what August will be like this year!

I think the most telling aspect of the oil crisis is the absolute silence from the Bush administration. Maybe because the whole master plan was to drive oil up for all is Texas buddies with this war in Iraq?

If the President instituted some emergency measures like an emergency 55 mph speed limit, and gas rationing, then maybe that would "maybe" drive home the crisis we are in.

Hell, most of the guys I work with think this is just a blip on the radar screen. One just bought a Dodge Powerwagon, the other a Chevy Tahoe.....? Ignorance is bliss...

Wow! I hope the writers of the "South Park" cartoon get to read this forum. This was under the topic of living car free. I thought I was signing on to a cyclist forum.

The World is changing. The price of oil is going up. Get over it.

For me is more about the cost of the car itself (car+insurance+maintenance+repairs+etc) than the gas.

Will we finally be rid of suits and and ties?!!!


I am entirely convinced that energy conservation will cause people to change the norms of "business attire" in the next few decades.

I'd be willing to guess that not many of the car free types who depend on bicycling all year to a job, wear suit and tie business attire, though there may be an exception or two.

Very true, indeed. That said, I feel sorry for older folk's who can't deal with heat very well at all.


How did they deal in the past? They lived in heat all their lives and adapted to it, They were thinner, so they didn't retain heat. They sat in the basement or in the breeze a lot. They didn't live in massive concrete ovens.

Your knowledge of history needs a little more work ,mate. Better do little homework. :rolleyes:

Your knowledge of history needs a little more work ,mate. Better do little homework. :rolleyes:
So no-one lived in Tennessee before air conditioning? Funny, I can't find that in the history books.

Well, I am long a lot of dec 08 oil and am thinking of going even longer (even at these levels), so I do want oil to go up. I guess I am ****ing nuts, but I had a pretty good day Friday.

PS. While depressing the economy, high oil prices wil eventually drive technological innovation.

+1 - heavily invested in I-Shares ticker OIL. Friday was very very nice.

So no-one lived in Tennessee before air conditioning? Funny, I can't find that in the history books.

Old saying: "Sherman did not conquer the South, Lenox Air Conditioners did".

How did they deal in the past? They lived in heat all their lives and adapted to it, They were thinner, so they didn't retain heat. They sat in the basement or in the breeze a lot. They didn't live in massive concrete ovens.

Let's not forget that they had a tendency to die a lot younger, too.

Old saying: "Sherman did not conquer the South, Lenox Air Conditioners did".


Japanese researchers in the 1930s discovered that pureblood Japanese born in the tropics had something like twice the number of sweat glands per square inch of skin as those born in Japan who then moved to the tropics as adults. So spending your infancy in heat has lifelong implications for your ability to tolerate heat. Sports physiologists have shown people of any age can acclimate to hot weather and greatly increase their tolerance of it if they exercise in the heat - it takes 5-21 days to adjust. People who live in airconditioned homes and cars their entire life aren't going to be able to tolerate unexpected heat waves the way people with live with it all the time can. They don't have the permanent increase in the number of sweat glands and they don't have the two or three weeks to adapt. Plus modern cities are concrete heat islands. Much hotter than sitting on a rural veranda sipping a mint julip.

Wow! I hope the writers of the "South Park" cartoon get to read this forum. This was under the topic of living car free. I thought I was signing on to a cyclist forum.

The World is changing. The price of oil is going up. Get over it.

I get a bit pissy over this forum's tendency to stray away from strictly bike-centric threads myself, but I've learned to appreciate it a little more recently; threads like this put the whole car-free thing in a larger, more compelling context. (And I don't doubt that almost every person who posts here has a sincere love of bikes, BTW, even though several of them talk about oil a lot more than they talk about hauling groceries.) If you want to talk bikes and nothing but bikes, I suggest the utility forum, which I personally often turn to for information.

3.99/gallon here and I have been noticing a significant amount of 2 wheel vehicles in general. Either bicycle or motorcycle/scooter. I think attitudes are finally shifting here in the states. The more people realize the cost savings and the efficiency of these types of vehicle, the more the infrastructure will adapt in a positive way.

I'm still waiting to see how the job situation goes in the next month or two. Either the car is being sold and the money invested or it gets sold/traded for a motorcycle/scooter to complement the bicycle.

How did they deal in the past? They lived in heat all their lives and adapted to it, They were thinner, so they didn't retain heat. They sat in the basement or in the breeze a lot. They didn't live in massive concrete ovens.

Heat and cold are problems for the elderly because as we get older our bodies lose some of the sensitivity to heat and cold - what this means is that some elderly people literally are not aware that they are dangerously cold or too hot, then they die.

"... massive concrete ovens." Extra thermal mass in the form of concrete is actually a really good thing, especially when combined with insulation on the outside. If the thermal-mass of a building is high enough then the building can passively (no energy required) average-out the day and night time temperature swings.

Buildings with low thermal mass, that are well insulated, can also do well, if it were not for those pesky things called doors and (opening) windows. Doors and windows are the technological equivalent of rolling a large stone in front of a cave entrance.

Usually there are just a few weeks in the summer in Portland when temperatures can head up to or go over 100 degrees F. I can get by quite comfortably with a single box fan placed in the window at the end of the hall-way on the second floor. At the end of the day when temperatures fall, I open the ground floor windows a few inches and the fan at the end of the second floor hallway is set to blow the hot air out of the house and draw cooler air in from outside through the ground floor windows.

I leave the fan on all night, and usually in the morning the whole house is pretty cool. Then all the windows get closed for the day. There is a two to three hour time lag between the outdoor temperature high and the indoor temperature high, so it is only late in the afternoon / early evening that it might get too hot. That time lag would be much greater if the house had greater thermal mass, i.e. was made of concrete. The addition of insulation on the outside would reduce energy requirements, in some climates, close to zero - a box fan compared to the compressor on an air conditioning system or heat pump, are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

If there is a lot of concrete available, i would say "yes please".

"... massive concrete ovens." Extra thermal mass in the form of concrete is actually a really good thing, especially when combined with insulation on the outside. If the thermal-mass of a building is high enough then the building can passively (no energy required) average-out the day and night time temperature swings.

That's a good point, but what about the heat island effect? Doesn't the urban temperature tend to run a few degrees higher than rural?

... Plus modern cities are concrete heat islands. Much hotter than sitting on a rural veranda sipping a mint julip.I am guessing you just do not like concrete :( Tall buildings cast long shadows and the canyons of New York are actually a positive in the fight against over heating - if it were not for the mass of air conditioning, all those damned cars and the absence of passive measures to reflect the sunlight from just the tops of the buildings, using the simplest of technology - mirrors. And those mirrors would not even need to be like the more technologically challenging parabolic mirrors used in solar concentrators. Plain cheap and cheerful flat mirrors are all that is needed.

Walk into a gully or narrow gorge on a hot day and the temperature drop is usually quite dramatic. It is not caused by the presence of a beautiful babbling brook, but by the absence of direct sunlight for the majority of the day because of the shadow from high sides that are in close proximity.

I am expecting mirrors and smart-windows to play a bigger role in general in the future.

I am guessing you just do not like concrete

Hey, one rebuttal per post!

That's a good point, but what about the heat island effect? Doesn't the urban temperature tend to run a few degrees higher than rural?

See above. :p

I don't think people should EVER be forced out of their Hummers, or their Cadillacs, or whatever. I drive a little fuel-efficient Toyota, but the more people driving big SUVs are paying $ for fuel and thus making the roads better with more taxes being dumped. If people stop driving and the fuel tax is insufficient to fix the roads after a hard winter's toll, expect the bike lanes and routes to be full of broken potholes and cause injuries. This is so badly flawed, I don't know where to start.

1. SUVs and Hummers are the ones that are responsible for getting the roads in a bad shape anyway. Smaller cars and bikes cause much less stress and much less wear and tear results.

2. Gas taxes fund primarily highway construction. Local roads tend to be funded out of local budgets, comprised of home owners' taxes.

There was a study that showed that if you look at how much damage a car does to the road, car drivers are underpaying their share of road repairs, even with fuel taxes. But of course they don't think that, and believe the roads are there only because they fill their tank every other day. Hence the SUV drivers "I own the roads" mindset. No, you, Mr. Jerk in an SUV, are getting subsidized roads, you big fat sh!thole.

This is so badly flawed, I don't know where to start.

1. SUVs and Hummers are the ones that are responsible for getting the roads in a bad shape anyway. Smaller cars and bikes cause much less stress and much less wear and tear results.

2. Gas taxes fund primarily highway construction. Local roads tend to be funded out of local budgets, comprised of home owners' taxes.

There was a study that showed that if you look at how much damage a car does to the road, car drivers are underpaying their share of road repairs, even with fuel taxes. But of course they don't think that, and believe the roads are there only because they fill their tank every other day. Hence the SUV drivers "I own the roads" mindset. No, you, Mr. Jerk in an SUV, are getting subsidized roads, you big fat sh!thole.

I am in complete agreement with you. Especially on your opening statement. There are many readers and contributors on BikeForums.net that are obviously up to par on the issues discussed. Alas, there are some that are too far gone to be helped.

I can only think of one improvement to BikeForums.net, the member that starts a new thread should have moderation rights on that thread. This would mean they could remove posts that are off-topic or deemed lacking in merit. Some might consider this draconian, they are free to not participate (in my threads) if that is how they feel.

This is so badly flawed, I don't know where to start.

1. SUVs and Hummers are the ones that are responsible for getting the roads in a bad shape anyway. Smaller cars and bikes cause much less stress and much less wear and tear results.

2. Gas taxes fund primarily highway construction. Local roads tend to be funded out of local budgets, comprised of home owners' taxes.

There was a study that showed that if you look at how much damage a car does to the road, car drivers are underpaying their share of road repairs, even with fuel taxes. But of course they don't think that, and believe the roads are there only because they fill their tank every other day. Hence the SUV drivers "I own the roads" mindset. No, you, Mr. Jerk in an SUV, are getting subsidized roads, you big fat sh!thole.

Cars don't just break the road alone, the weather plays a crucial role, as does incompetent construction practices.
If people didn't pay gasoline tax, I would imagine the roads to be in quite worse shapes.
Hummers *are* SUVs, why group them in any different? Is it because environmental nutjobs seem to hate the Hummer for no reason, compared to any other SUV?

If people didn't pay gasoline tax, I would imagine the roads to be in quite worse shapes.

A lot of things would be in worse shape. The concept that gas taxes are only used on roads and income taxes are only used to pay for missiles and property taxes are only used to pay for schools is laughable. In the end, it's all going to the government, and coming back from the government. The only dilineation being that some taxes are going to local governments vs the federal government, but if a local government had a surplus they'd probably use the funds to buy Treasury Bills and if the feds defaulted... taxes is taxes...



Hummers *are* SUVs, why group them in any different? Is it because environmental nutjobs seem to hate the Hummer for no reason, compared to any other SUV?

I pretty much hate them all. Not as much as I hate anti-environmental nutjobs though

If mother nature damaged the roads as much as cars do, then the bike path in my town would have needed to be repaved at some point in it's 11+ year existence. But so far it hasn't needed it, and it's in better shape than every street in this town, except maybe ones constructed in the last two months.

We're making things more efficient; Boeing continually makes airplanes better, and airplanes are the safest form of transportation around, also the quickest.

A measure of efficiency requires more than speed and safety.


Taxis, people with kids, people who drive far to work, etc. They all need cars to drive.

Taxis are not needed in a city/town that is not planned with the assumption that everyone owns and operates a car.

Having kids does not inherently require the parents to own or operate a motor vehicle.

People choose to work far from home or live far from work. They are not forced to do this.

I think you are confusing school with roads in regards to taxes. Gas tax pays for the roads, and doesn't pay for schools. And cheaper gas doesn't exactly make schools suffer. They're unrelated.


Actually, far more of the money for road maintenance comes from the general fund than comes from gas tax. (At least here in the US... may well be very different in other countries, most of which have a LOT higher gas tax than the US does!) These same general funds pay for everything else, INCLUDING schools.... so spending more of that general fund on roads CAN mean less spent on schools, police, fire, whatever.

Here in the US the gas tax is also not related to the price of gasoline... it's been set at a certain number of cents per gallon for over a decade... In other countries the tax is not only much higher, I believe in most places it's a percentage rather than a set amount per gallon.

If you want oil to rise then you're ****ing nuts.
It's not just about people in cars. The cost of food, shipping, etc. Call a plumber to come fix your sink, and see that a fuel surcharge has been added. Same if you want to take a plane. Even Lance Armstrong couldn't bike across country!

People need cars for many purposes; do you think a disabled person is going to have a fun time trying to ride a bicycle? And on their disability check, their cost of living rises sharply with the cost of fuel, food, etc. Ha-ha, that'll show those people to be disabled. Maybe next time they should just...ride a bike?

Or when I need to deliver supplies somewhere. It would be ridiculously impracticable for people to ride bikes everywhere, unless you're unemployed or work in an office.

I ride for recreational purposes but I don't act so smug when the economy is dying off.

How'd you like it if you went to buy a part for your bike and it skyrocketed because the fuel price to ship it to the store and to create it? Bikes don't fly on a pretty little cloud to the retailers. It would be good if oil prices were low and people were considerate about their conservation needs, but I don't think it would be cool to WISH for it. You want to pay 300% more for a loaf of bread? It's not just about bicycles. Any first-year economist could tell you that.

+1000!!!

Just go to http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I dare any of you to feel smug about the rising cost of oil after reading this.

If you want oil to rise then you're ****ing nuts. ...

You did not quote anybody in your reply, so it is difficult to determine who you are accusing of being "nuts" and also who said they "want the price of oil to rise".

Having witnessed pretty much all replies to your drivel point out that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed and your arguments are specious, I have to ask you if you have recently reassessed who exactly it is that might be nuts?

For the record, I for one, would like to see the price of oil rise, conditioned on the basis that sufficient measures are put in place to facilitate a transition away from an oil based economy with as little pain for society as possible.

In reality there will inevitably be a lot of pain for all of us. I think it is better to face the music today, while there is still some chance at doing it in a controlled fashion, because the longer it is left to market forces, the worse it will be.

+1000!!!

Just go to http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I dare any of you to feel smug about the rising cost of oil after reading this.

Congratulations, yours is apparently the first reply to see "Mr double-oh jimbo's" post in a positive way. Presumably you disagree with all of those that have pointed out that Mr00jimbo is pretty much wrong about everything he says.

From the site you link to above: These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global "Peak Oil."

I am not feeling at all smug about Peak-Oil. I believe I fall into the category of "rational, professional, conservative individual that is absolutely terrified". I have and continue to advocate for immediate measures to mitigate a tiny part of the pain that is ahead. It is already too late to do all that is required and now we should all be thinking about damage limitation and triage.

Mr00jimbo advocates for people to continue to have the freedom to continue to drive their gas-guzzling cars and business-as-usual, in short, for people to be selfish morons with no regard for anyone or anything other than themselves. And you think that is worth "+1000!!!".

That's a good point, but what about the heat island effect? Doesn't the urban temperature tend to run a few degrees higher than rural?

Oh yes (!) it sure does. As much as 10 > 15 Degrees at times(!!!:eek::eek:) in closed in big mega cities.

you'll be beating them off with your frame pump"

Uh... OK... if that's what you're into ...I mean I've heard that there are all kinds out there in SF, but man, I had NO idea...

+1000!!!

Just go to http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I dare any of you to feel smug about the rising cost of oil after reading this.

People are compartmentalizing their smugness. Peak oil deniers are getting pwned, so the Cassandras who predicted it and were ridiculed can feel smug about that. At the same time we're all going to suffer, so nobody can feel smug about the overall situation.

3.99/gallon here and I have been noticing a significant amount of 2 wheel vehicles in general. Either bicycle or motorcycle/scooter. I think attitudes are finally shifting here in the states. The more people realize the cost savings and the efficiency of these types of vehicle, the more the infrastructure will adapt in a positive way.

The problem with this is that I think a lot of these people are the same who bought a motorcycle as a toy. Something to be seen on, something fun, not necessarily with the thought that it is a utilitarian vehicle as well. A lot of people in my neck of the woods favor this combo: late model Harley, late model full-size pickup. Along with the wife's car. And the kids'. So yeah, eventually, when they are paying, what?, $100+ to fill up their F-350, they think, "Hey, filling up the bike is nowhere near this expensive," and if they look into it, they find that their Harley gets something like 3 times the milage of their truck. They might even brag about it at work. But give them something to do that day, like stop for groceries or something, or maybe it's raining, and it's right back into the behemoth they were using most of the time.

Good to see people out on two wheels more, but it's going to take continued insanity/reality at the gas pumps to keep them out there and actually getting the gear and bike that can be used for everyday transportation. Same thing as bicycles, really.

Highly volatile oil prices are actually to be expected following peak oil. The prices are higher and higher, but also very volatile, because of speculation and the lack of free production capacity to buffer any disruptions.

This is what happens when the production of a finite mineral resource reaches peak. It has already happened to at least molybdenum. When nobody can increase production, prices go up. The slightest disruption or decline in existing production causes a supply crunch and the prices to jump more. If there is any flexibility in the demand, people try to find alternatives. If they do, demand falls and the prices fall. Until the next drop in production, and so on and so on. The entire situation is obviously very susceptible to market speculation.

So oil prices will go both up and down and the shifts can be dramatic, but the price will likely never drop to pre-peak levels and the long term trend will be up and up.