Living Car Free - Is carfree feasible in America? (Room for Debate blog in nytimes.com)

A New York Times article this week described efforts in Vauban, Germany, a suburb of Freiburg, to go “car free.” The story mentioned attempts in some American communities to achieve something similar. While walkable communities have become common all over the United States in the last 15 years, going car-free is another challenge altogether. Is this a realistic goal in a car culture like ours? We asked some urban planners, developers and other experts to comment.


Witold Rybczynski, professor of urbanism
D.J. Waldie, author of “Holy Land”
Dolores Hayden, professor of architecture
Christopher B. Leinberger, real estate developer and author
Alex Marshall, transportation columnist, Governing magazine
J.H. Crawford, author of “Carfree Cities”
Marc Schlossberg, professor of public policy

I know the NY Times's article about Vauban has been discussed in a couple threads. I found this related blog piece to be much more valuable than the vauban article. I think everybody who's interested in carfree living should check out this multi-authored opinion piece.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/carless-in-america/

This link was posted in another thread, but after seeing it again, I re-read some of the comments. J.H. Crawford made some interesting points (I should pick up his book....)

I also read some of the user comments at the bottom of the article. Most of those were very thoughtful, too. There was 17 pages of comments, so this seems to be a hot topic.

I add a link back to LCF. :)

One of my favorite posts was this one from "Truth Teller":


OK, can we be done with all this “I live without a car, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah” nonsense? Starting with Commenter 1, “Wendy” in Atlanta who is just so smugly happy that she (he?) can get around and do so much without a car to No. 372, Randa, who wants to gloat about the possibilities of mass transit … Get this through your anti-liberty, socialist, planned economy and planned life, elitist heads: WE DON’T WANT TO DO OUR LIVES WITHOUT CARS. And we won’t. You wanna take the bus? Go for it. I choose not to and can afford not to and don’t intend to. And I feel not a whit of guilt or irresponsibility about that. Other than the fact that I’d rather drive a sporty little manually shifted, turbo-charged 19-mph speed demon, I’d happily tool around the ‘burbs and the ‘urbs in a gas sucking 19′ behemoth of an SUV. My money, my life, my choice. My liberty. Deal with it.

— Truth Teller

Yikes! :eek: Alright, already! Do what you want! Be happy! Just don't run me over with your car.:rolleyes:

This quote pretty much sums up what we're up against, and this from a person who's sympathetic to car-free:

We don’t yet have car-free cities in North America. This is mainly a failure of imagination. Americans are so used to driving everywhere that the mere thought of being without a car is terrifying.

This "failure of imagination" is, in my experience, about as easy to overcome as a heroin addiction. In my own case, I've never liked cars or car culture, but still, when I gave up my car several years ago, I have to admit that I was kind of alarmed. I felt stranded. It only took me a few days to realize that it doesn't really take much wit to get from point A to point B without a car, but I can well imagine that, for a person who's emotionally and cognitively attached to their car, the idea of not having a car at your disposal at all times is more than terrifying; it's unimaginable.

Personally, I don't think that a car-free life will ever be the norm on this continent. I still have hopes, though, that eventually we'll be able to move to a cultural climate where car-light is the norm in most of our urban areas. Barring a catastrophe, either economic or environmental, or both, I think that's the best we can hope for.

Barring a catastrophe, either economic or environmental, or both, I think that's the best we can hope for.

I'm afraid those won't be easy to bar.

453 people posted comments. That's pretty good.

I especially like post #327



I have been car free for several years now and while the transition took a couple of years, I would not like to go back to owning a car.
Grocery shopping can be done on a foot .or a bicycle with baskets. We purchased trikes a few years back that allows us to carry 6 bags of groceries, even if the payment is icy. Bicycle paths should be a huge factor in choosing where you live.
Being carless forces you to use your intelligence instead of just driving between gas stations and looking for parking places. Adjusting yourself to actually planning a day is necessary. Riding a bus usually involves walking or running and connects you with the public. Your world becomes larger because you spend more time seeing things between your destinations. Like bicycling you can become a pedestrian by simply getting off checking out a new area and getting back on-no need to become excluded because there is no parking.
Exercise, cleaner air & water, more disposable income, enjoying being in public are just a few of the benefits.
More people have to take part in this better experience.
If your community has poor public transportation you will have to avoid the activities that are catering to the car culture exclusively and find alternatives that are reachable by foot, bicycle or mass transit.

I'm not so sure going 100% car-free is a good thing for entire societies or a prescription to cure all ills. It's something to work toward and people who are capable of making it work should be encouraged, but as we learn to live longer thanks to science and medicine, we're living longer as older people. There are limits to what our joints will enable us to do on a bike when we reach a certain age, and unless they started paying pedicabs a competetive living wage, I don't see younger people queuing up to fill that void full-time to offset the need. There are entire regions of the country where biking for all needs just isn't practical in the middle of winter. -45F and ice/snow - you sort of negate the benefit of biking for anything more than biking's sake when it takes 5x longer to get across the sludge and you flash freeze your lungs.

The problem is that we just went blinkin' nuts with the car-centered sprawl. Biking is great when job, grocery, home, and entertainment are within a 20-mile radius of one another, but that's not how we spent our money and time. It's just too expensive to pay to reverse what's already been done. So what little land there is left to develop as a "whole" is seeing more bike-friendly planning, but you're not going to see a REAL trend until the paradigm shifts and people live closer to where they earn their money. Make the housing closer to downtowns a bit more affordable or attractive for families, and you're halfway toward solving the problem.

One of my favorite posts was this one from "Truth Teller":



Yikes! :eek: Alright, already! Do what you want! Be happy! Just don't run me over with your car.:rolleyes:

Truth Teller is often heard from trolling other article comments. I don't think he actually owns a car. I think he's a professional poster.

One of my favorite posts was this one from "Truth Teller":



Yikes! :eek: Alright, already! Do what you want! Be happy! Just don't run me over with your car.:rolleyes:

Typically when an individual starts asserting his "freedom" to stop others from breathing the government takes away that individual's right to breathe. Not sure what's so special about car owners that they're allowed to poison the rest of us, but if it doesn't stop then I'm going to start exercising my right to self defense.

To Truthteller and other like minded individuals: do you want to see the critical massers start carrying or do you want to do this the easy way?

Frugality is something people overlook in this debate. One of my main reasons for ditching the car was its astronomical costs. $500 per month debt payments (or more for many), $100 per month insurance, tons for gas, thousands upon thousands for repairs. All of it can be saved with a bicycle, which costs a tiny fraction of a car to buy and maintain even with regular service runs to the shop. Personal autos aren't just like drugs in their addictive nature, they cost as much money.

Not sure what's so special about car owners that they're allowed to poison the rest of us...

seriously.... why should i have to be exposed to exhaust?

i don't expose the rest to "my exhaust". last i knew, it doesn't cause cancer.

To Truthteller and other like minded individuals: do you want to see the critical massers start carrying or do you want to do this the easy way?

This line of thinking offends and alarms me a lot more than Truthteller's insistence on driving a big, stinky SUV. If you start threatening people with weapons because you don't approve of their lifestyle choices, you're no better than the Taliban. Also, from a purely practical point of view, I don't think it's very smart to turn motorist-vs-cyclist conflicts into actual combat with deadly weapons. (Actually, I can't imagine that even CM riders would get that stupid.)

This line of thinking offends and alarms me a lot more than Truthteller's insistence on driving a big, stinky SUV. If you start threatening people with weapons because you don't approve of their lifestyle choices, you're no better than the Taliban. Also, from a purely practical point of view, I don't think it's very smart to turn motorist-vs-cyclist conflicts into actual combat with deadly weapons. (Actually, I can't imagine that even CM riders would get that stupid.)

Poisoning your neighbors is not a lifestyle choice and fighting against it is not even remotely comparable to the radical actions of the Taliban.

I consider myself a very peaceful and tolerant person, which is why I am willing to give automobile drivers 20 or even 30 years to become aware of the destruction and injury they're causing and stop. However, when I see comments like Truthteller's I feel obligated to remind the world that if automobile drivers continue to physically harm us, our families, and the children of the world then we should and will retaliate and, if necessary, reciprocate with lethal force.

I believe that the tide is turning and people across the world are taking the necessary steps to stop poisoning us all, but if they don't follow it through to the end then I would not hesitate to defend the innocent victims and if people like Truthteller persist in causing them lethal harm then I will have no choice but to defend them with lethal force.

If that alarms or offends you then I have to question your sense of morality. Heroism to defend the innocent from grave and imminent danger (http://www.transalt.org/files/resources/blueprint/chapter18/chapter18e.html) should be encouraged and and you should be ashamed of yourself for disparaging it.

Poisoning your neighbors is not a lifestyle choice and fighting against it is not even remotely comparable to the radical actions of the Taliban.

I consider myself a very peaceful and tolerant person, which is why I am willing to give automobile drivers 20 or even 30 years to become aware of the destruction and injury they're causing and stop. However, when I see comments like Truthteller's I feel obligated to remind the world that if automobile drivers continue to physically harm us, our families, and the children of the world then we should and will retaliate and, if necessary, reciprocate with lethal force.

I believe that the tide is turning and people across the world are taking the necessary steps to stop poisoning us all, but if they don't follow it through to the end then I would not hesitate to defend the innocent victims and if people like Truthteller persist in causing them lethal harm then I will have no choice but to defend them with lethal force.

If that alarms or offends you then I have to question your sense of morality. Heroism to defend the innocent from grave and imminent danger (http://www.transalt.org/files/resources/blueprint/chapter18/chapter18e.html) should be encouraged and and you should be ashamed of yourself for disparaging it.

Well Mr. Mighty Moralist, how 'bout those nasty people of low morality who use electricity, produced by burning fuel, to live a lifestyle a little better than the cavemen?

And what is your high and mighty take on those nasty people of low morality who burn fuel to heat their home in order to live a lifestyle a little better than the cavemen?

I'm sure you only use cold water in your cave, because heating it requires poisoning innocent victims.

Is it possible that someone who is so Morally Righteous could possibly be a hypocrite only critical of those who burn fuel for tasks that he doesn't gain any benefit?

There are entire regions of the country where biking for all needs just isn't practical in the middle of winter. -45F and ice/snow - you sort of negate the benefit of biking for anything more than biking's sake when it takes 5x longer to get across the sludge and you flash freeze your lungs.


The only region of America where there are temps of -45F would be the morthermost parts of Alaska and Canada, or maybe altitudes above 15,000 feet. Hardly anybody lives in these regions--and cars don't work very well there either.

Winter riding in most of America is practical and fun. I've been doing it for several years in balmy southern Michigan.

(I did like the rest of your post. :))

Well Mr. Mighty Moralist, how 'bout those nasty people of low morality who use electricity, produced by burning fuel, to live a lifestyle a little better than the cavemen?

And what is your high and mighty take on those nasty people of low morality who burn fuel to heat their home in order to live a lifestyle a little better than the cavemen?

I'm sure you only use cold water in your cave, because heating it requires poisoning innocent victims.

Is it possible that someone who is so Morally Righteous could possibly be a hypocrite only critical of those who burn fuel for tasks that he doesn't gain any benefit?

You're right to point out the inconsistency of people who are militantly anti-car while still using carbon-generated electricity and burning natural gas to heat their homes. In many countries, including the US, buildings use more energy than transportation.

But you miss the more important point that there is a conflict between "lifestyle choices" (like SUV ownership) and the health and security of all the people and countries of the world. Pollution and global warming should be seen as a larger threat than the the Taliban and other terrorists. As Walt Kelly always said:



http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/pogo_1.gif

Well Mr. Mighty Moralist, how 'bout those nasty people of low morality who use electricity, produced by burning fuel, to live a lifestyle a little better than the cavemen?

And what is your high and mighty take on those nasty people of low morality who burn fuel to heat their home in order to live a lifestyle a little better than the cavemen?

I'm sure you only use cold water in your cave, because heating it requires poisoning innocent victims.

Is it possible that someone who is so Morally Righteous could possibly be a hypocrite only critical of those who burn fuel for tasks that he doesn't gain any benefit?

Talk is cheap. Neither words nor actions will ever be perfect, so what benefit is their to tainting either just for the sake of synchronization or consistency? Is it not better to try your best with actions and try your best with words, even if you're not equally apt with both? If you find a $100 bill on the street do you tear it up just to preserve the "consistency" or "integrity" of your budget? I'd keep the $100 because it's better to be "inconsistent" than a fool.

Just like everyone else I am not perfect and I harm others. However, when I do so I do it with the full knowledge that I may one day have to pay the price for my mistakes. I may one day find myself facing an angry mob who demands retribution for the mastectomies of their mothers or the asthma of their daughters. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be because even though none of us are completely harmless, responsibility and fear of the consequences is the only thing that keeps the harm to a minimum.

So I don't care if you call me aloof or hypocritical because I believe it's far more important to remind the world that we will all be held responsible for our actions and that I will personally see to it and encourage others to do the same. Talk is cheap. So while you can waste your time defending the superficial ideal of eschewing hypocrisy, I will proclaim the practical reality that harming others is treading on thin ice and that we all should thus behave accordingly or face the consequences...especially to people like Truthteller who not only refuse to recognize the harm they cause, but claim it as a right.

Talk is cheap. Neither words nor actions will ever be perfect, so what benefit is their to tainting either just for the sake of synchronization or consistency? Is it not better to try your best with actions and try your best with words, even if you're not equally apt with both? If you find a $100 bill on the street do you tear it up just to preserve the "consistency" or "integrity" of your budget? I'd keep the $100 because it's better to be "inconsistent" than a fool.

Just like everyone else I am not perfect and I harm others. However, when I do so I do it with the full knowledge that I may one day have to pay the price for my mistakes. I may one day find myself facing an angry mob who demands retribution for the mastectomies of their mothers or the asthma of their daughters. That's the way it is and that's the way it should be because even though none of us are completely harmless, responsibility and fear of the consequences is the only thing that keeps the harm to a minimum.

So I don't care if you call me aloof or hypocritical because I believe it's far more important to remind the world that we will all be held responsible for our actions and that I will personally see to it and encourage others to do the same. Talk is cheap. So while you can waste your time defending the superficial ideal of eschewing hypocrisy, I will proclaim the practical reality that harming others is treading on thin ice and that we all should thus behave accordingly or face the consequences...especially to people like Truthteller who not only refuse to recognize the harm they cause, but claim it as a right.

You are hypocritical, maybe more than you realize. It's one thing to recognize the harm you do and to change your behavior, and quite another to recognize the harm done by others and to force them to change their behavior, especially while the bulk of your own bad behavior remains unrestrained.

My own example might make this more obvious: A few years ago, I gave up the car, largely out of environmental concerns. I felt I had to make a moral choice about my own behavior, and I think, in my own personal situation, the choice to go car-free was a wise one. However, I still have a long, long way to go before I can even begin to tell people like Truthteller what to do with their time and money. I still use electricity, which, in most parts of the US and the world, is produced by the burning of coal, which produces far more CO2 than motor vehicles. I still eat meat several times a week, which has a far more pronounced negative effect on the environment than driving motor vehicles, according to a recent article in Scientific American. I buy manufactured goods made by hideously underpaid women and children in other countries, who work in unsafe conditions, and in areas not subject to the same environmental regulations in effect in Western countries. Much of the food I buy is harvested by underpaid, illegal-immigrant migrant workers, who enjoy none of the legal protections enjoyed by other workers in the US. I ride my bike on a vast network of roads that depends on the oil industry, because the roads I ride on are literally made of oil. In the context of all of this, a vast, unsustainable bag of sh*t just waiting to hit the fan, a guy petulantly insisting on his right to drive a vehicle twice as big as he'll ever need is small potatoes.

You are hypocritical, maybe more than you realize. It's one thing to recognize the harm you do and to change your behavior, and quite another to recognize the harm done by others and to force them to change their behavior, especially while the bulk of your own bad behavior remains unrestrained.

My own example might make this more obvious: A few years ago, I gave up the car, largely out of environmental concerns. I felt I had to make a moral choice about my own behavior, and I think, in my own personal situation, the choice to go car-free was a wise one. However, I still have a long, long way to go before I can even begin to tell people like Truthteller what to do with their time and money. I still use electricity, which, in most parts of the US and the world, is produced by the burning of coal, which produces far more CO2 than motor vehicles. I still eat meat several times a week, which has a far more pronounced negative effect on the environment than driving motor vehicles, according to a recent article in Scientific American. I buy manufactured goods made by hideously underpaid women and children in other countries, who work in unsafe conditions, and in areas not subject to the same environmental regulations in effect in Western countries. Much of the food I buy is harvested by underpaid, illegal-immigrant migrant workers, who enjoy none of the legal protections enjoyed by other workers in the US. I ride my bike on a vast network of roads that depends on the oil industry, because the roads I ride on are literally made of oil. In the context of all of this, a vast, unsustainable bag of sh*t just waiting to hit the fan, a guy petulantly insisting on his right to drive a vehicle twice as big as he'll ever need is small potatoes.

Are you saying that nothing we can do as individuals can make a difference? But at the same time nobody has a right to "force" behavior changes on others? Society and governments are always in the business of forcing people to modify their behavior. This is the main purpose of laws, regulations, taxes and subsidies.

Do you really think that it's OK to engage in reckless and wasteful behavior like SUV driving for the reason that a sack of poop is about to hit some fan? You don't think that the huge sack of poop is the result of billions of small individual bowel movements? Certainly we can voluntarily improve our own behavior, but this does little good if others are still free to profit from their own bad behavior.

I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell, what you're saying doesn't hold together. You are often quick to defend wasteful driving practices, while attacking other problematic behaviors that you and others engage in. If this isn't a form of hypocricy, I'm not sure that I understand the definition of the word.

In the context of all of this, a vast, unsustainable bag of sh*t just waiting to hit the fan, a guy petulantly insisting on his right to drive a vehicle twice as big as he'll ever need is small potatoes.

It's just that there are a large number of these people, involved in the most wasteful behavior... we'd be wrong not to point this out.




I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell, what you're saying doesn't hold together. You are often quick to defend wasteful driving practices, while attacking other problematic behaviors that you and others engage in. If this isn't a form of hypocricy, I'm not sure that I understand the definition of the word.

But at the same time, we need to be aware of our own misbehavior. As Bragi points out, it's easy to point the finger... Part of the task of becoming conscious of a situation is to expand our understanding of the problem and take action as much as we can. We can't stop wearing clothing because 99% of it is manufactured in less than ideal circumstance.

For myself, a big consideration is the number of airplane trips I make in a year. For practical purposes it would be almost impossible to visit family and still keep a job w/o the airplane. However, I do see it as a goal to reduce flying.

I think part of this comes down to not trying to develop a too-smug attitude about our beliefs. I've complained about Prius owners who look down on SUV owners... and I suspect rather smugly. They are right in one regard... their automobile choice is much better. The problem is that they haven developed the mind-set to realize that there are other transportation choices that would be much better than a small car.

But at the same time, we need to be aware of our own misbehavior. As Bragi points out, it's easy to point the finger... Part of the task of becoming conscious of a situation is to expand our understanding of the problem and take action as much as we can. We can't stop wearing clothing because 99% of it is manufactured in less than ideal circumstance.

For myself, a big consideration is the number of airplane trips I make in a year. For practical purposes it would be almost impossible to visit family and still keep a job w/o the airplane. However, I do see it as a goal to reduce flying.

I think part of this comes down to not trying to develop a too-smug attitude about our beliefs. I've complained about Prius owners who look down on SUV owners... and I suspect rather smugly. They are right in one regard... their automobile choice is much better. The problem is that they haven developed the mind-set to realize that there are other transportation choices that would be much better than a small car.

If this is what bragi meant, I understand it better now. (Sorry if I misread you bragi!) "Smug" means almost the same thing as "proud of a job well done". Only the connotation is different. I'm proud to be carfree, but I don't think I'm smug about it. (I know one regular here who would disagree!)

Are you saying that nothing we can do as individuals can make a difference? Butat the same time nobody has a right to "force" behavior changes on others? Society and governments are always in the business of forcing people to modify their behavior. This is the main purpose of laws, regulations, taxes and subsidies.

Do you really think that it's OK to engage in reckless and wasteful behavior like SUV driving for the reason that a sack of poop is about to hit some fan? You don't think that the huge sack of poop is the result of billions of small individual bowel movements? Certainly we can voluntarily improve our own behavior, but this does little good if others are still free to profit from their own bad behavior.

I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell, what you're saying doesn't hold together. You are often quick to defend wasteful driving practices, while attacking other problematic behaviors that you and others engage in. If this isn't a form of hypocricy, I'm not sure that I understand the definition of the word.

I've apparently done a poor job of expressing myself. As far as I can recall, I've never said it's okay to engage in reckless and wasteful behavior. I agree with you that behavior that negatively impacts society at large should be regulated and/or taxed. However, I think my post is pretty much the opposite of hypocrisy; before you attack the irresponsibility of your neighbors, you should at least contemplate your own shortcomings first. While it's easy to attack the act of driving an SUV, it's not the very worst thing that a person can do. (Though, from an environmental point of view, it's right up there.) I think Ben Franklin expressed it best: "Don't throw stones at your neighbor's windows if your own are made of glass." That's all I was saying. (That, and it's really, really stupid to even talk about threatening people with weapons just because you disagree with them, especially if the people with whom you disagree outnumber you 1000 to 1. )

I've apparently done a poor job of expressing myself. As far as I can recall, I've never said it's okay to engage in reckless and wasteful behavior. I agree with you that behavior that negatively impacts society at large should be regulated and/or taxed. However, I think my post is pretty much the opposite of hypocrisy; before you attack the irresponsibility of your neighbors, you should at least contemplate your own shortcomings first. While it's easy to attack the act of driving an SUV, it's not the very worst thing that a person can do. (Though, from an environmental point of view, it's right up there.) I think Ben Franklin expressed it best: "Don't throw stones at your neighbor's windows if your own are made of glass." That's all I was saying. (That, and it's really, really stupid to even talk about threatening people with weapons just because you disagree with them, especially if the people with whom you disagree outnumber you 1000 to 1. )

Thanks for the explanation, but most of the problem was my misreading rather than your misstating. That said, it's probably best to avoid the word "hypocrite" in most cases. More likely, some people are more advanced in one area than in another area, and their neighbor is the other way around. I'm better at avoiding waste in transportation, my neighbor does a better job of insulating his house and using fewer appliances. We're neither one hypocritical, and hopefully we're both striving to do better in the areas where we need improvement.

As for the advocacy of weapons--definitely a stupid move, although I can understand being angry enough to want to send that letter bomb. People who pollute a lot (like driving exccessive miles) are hurting everybody, and they don't help their case when they insist on their "right" to do this. I think that we have a right to curtail this behavior as it is not in our own best interests. The way to do that is through the democratic passage of laws and regulations, not the application of bombs and assault weapons.

I live in the San Francisco area where the weather is almost always suitable for riding a bike, but I grew up in Georgia and lived in DC for a fair while. I don't think areas like that could ever really be overall car free because the weather just makes it impossible for the elderly, sickly, etc to get out and get around without cars in 103 heat with 95% humidity, or a snowstorm, things like that. It could be done, was done until we invented cars, but these days, we simply have gone soft and spoiled.

I live in the San Francisco area where the weather is almost always suitable for riding a bike, but I grew up in Georgia and lived in DC for a fair while. I don't think areas like that could ever really be overall car free because the weather just makes it impossible for the elderly, sickly, etc to get out and get around without cars in 103 heat with 95% humidity, or a snowstorm, things like that. It could be done, was done until we invented cars, but these days, we simply have gone soft and spoiled.

I respectfully disagree with you. There's a big difference between not doing something because you are physically not able to do it, and not doing something because it's a little inconvenient. In the last six months, I've experienced a series of snow storms that almost paralyzed my city, followed by months of rather cold, rainy, miserable weather, i.e., a normal Seattle winter. (I have my ever-essential rain gear hanging to dry as I write.) All things considered, it's been way easier being car-free in these conditions than not, despite the occasional moments of physical discomfort. If you're only going to go car-free if conditions are perfect, you'll never be able to go car-free anywhere on the face of the Earth, except maybe San Diego. It's okay to be cold; it's okay to sweat. I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying the "we've become too soft to deal with weather" argument. If you're too soft to deal with the very minor adversities associated with cycling, you're too soft to be a human being at all.

I respectfully disagree with you. There's a big difference between not doing something because you are physically not able to do it, and not doing something because it's a little inconvenient. In the last six months, I've experienced a series of snow storms that almost paralyzed my city, followed by months of rather cold, rainy, miserable weather, i.e., a normal Seattle winter. (I have my ever-essential rain gear hanging to dry as I write.) All things considered, it's been way easier being car-free in these conditions than not, despite the occasional moments of physical discomfort. If you're only going to go car-free if conditions are perfect, you'll never be able to go car-free anywhere on the face of the Earth, except maybe San Diego. It's okay to be cold; it's okay to sweat. I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying the "we've become too soft to deal with weather" argument. If you're too soft to deal with the very minor adversities associated with cycling, you're too soft to be a human being at all.

It's about attitude and proper clothing, isn't it? My co-workers get cold scurrying across the parking lot in their skimpy clothes and loafers. I NEVER get cold in the winter because I dress right and keep moving. In the summer I enjoy a nice breeze on my bike and I know shady routes that don't have many traffic stops.

I admit that I don't enjoy riding in those cold November rains. But still, you only do short rides then, as much as possible. You take a hot shower when you get home and you're good as new. Summer rains just feel nice, and snow is a lot "drier" than cold rain.

I respectfully disagree with you. There's a big difference between not doing something because you are physically not able to do it, and not doing something because it's a little inconvenient...If you're too soft to deal with the very minor adversities associated with cycling, you're too soft to be a human being at all.

That's fine for you; even admirable. But why do you get to decide that for other people?


Are you saying that nothing we can do as individuals can make a difference? But at the same time nobody has a right to "force" behavior changes on others? Society and governments are always in the business of forcing people to modify their behavior. This is the main purpose of laws, regulations, taxes and subsidies.

Do you really think that it's OK to engage in reckless and wasteful behavior like SUV driving for the reason that a sack of poop is about to hit some fan? You don't think that the huge sack of poop is the result of billions of small individual bowel movements? Certainly we can voluntarily improve our own behavior, but this does little good if others are still free to profit from their own bad behavior.

I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell, what you're saying doesn't hold together. You are often quick to defend wasteful driving practices, while attacking other problematic behaviors that you and others engage in. If this isn't a form of hypocricy, I'm not sure that I understand the definition of the word.
The main purpose of laws and regulations may be to force behavior modification, but I think most would agree that that's a last resort and that less coercion is better.




...Winter riding in most of America is practical and fun. I've been doing it for several years in balmy southern Michigan...
That's your opinion (and mine, for the most part) but others clearly don't see it that way. I'm not very interested in imposing my worldview on others at the point of a gun (see above on "laws and regulations" to force others to modify their behavior).


Poisoning your neighbors is not a lifestyle choice and fighting against it is not even remotely comparable to the radical actions of the Taliban.

I consider myself a very peaceful and tolerant person, which is why I am willing to give automobile drivers 20 or even 30 years to become aware of the destruction and injury they're causing and stop. However, when I see comments like Truthteller's I feel obligated to remind the world that if automobile drivers continue to physically harm us, our families, and the children of the world then we should and will retaliate and, if necessary, reciprocate with lethal force.

I believe that the tide is turning and people across the world are taking the necessary steps to stop poisoning us all, but if they don't follow it through to the end then I would not hesitate to defend the innocent victims and if people like Truthteller persist in causing them lethal harm then I will have no choice but to defend them with lethal force.

If that alarms or offends you then I have to question your sense of morality. Heroism to defend the innocent from grave and imminent danger (http://www.transalt.org/files/resources/blueprint/chapter18/chapter18e.html) should be encouraged and and you should be ashamed of yourself for disparaging it.

Likening driving a car to poisoning your neighbors is gross hyperbole. The air in this country is significantly cleaner than it was forty or fifty years ago. The air here (in the developed world) is much better, even in our most polluted cities, than in any large city in the developing world. This is because we can afford to control pollution while they cannot. We can afford it because we are highly industrialized and highly efficient.

The best way to stop the most people from being "poisoned" is for the developing world to stop being poor. The best (only?) way for them to stop being poor is to industrialize. The only known way for the developing world to industrialize is for those who live there to enjoy the right to live under the rule of law (laws that protect citizens from their governments as much as anything else) and with secure property rights.

Almost everyone here on this forum is able to make choices about how to get to work, what to eat, where to live, what to live in, how to play, etc., etc. because of our freedoms under law and our prosperity. While we fiddle away about the glories of eating locally and lightening our footprints, carbon and otherwise, many people in sub-Saharan Africa are trying to avoid malaria and dysentery and to find enough to eat instead. We have that luxury, while they don't, because we can afford to. Prosperity brings greater choice. Prosperity results from freedom enjoyed under the rule of law. While Truthteller may also be engaging in more than a bit of hyperbole, his righteous insistence on his right to drive what he wants (within the law) is a fundemental part of the society that allows us the freedom to make choices to live frugally, or with a lighter footprint, or more locally, or however it is we want to live.

^ A very large reason (many would say the only reason) why rich nations are rich is because they develop economic and military strangleholds over nations that aren't rich. It's much more fun to wax poetic about democracy and prosperity and freedom, but in the end, when you've got all the guns and you run all the banks, it's not that hard to "industrialize".

The best way to stop the most people from being "poisoned" is for the developing world to stop being poor. The best (only?) way for them to stop being poor is to industrialize. The only known way for the developing world to industrialize is for those who live there to enjoy the right to live under the rule of law (laws that protect citizens from their governments as much as anything else) and with secure property rights.


Yes, we can all eat on the Ice Cream Mountain and swim in the Whiskey River. :rolleyes:

We're running out of stuff, dude, and we're running out of climate. Deal with it and stop pretending that reality isn't real.

^ A very large reason (many would say the only reason) why rich nations are rich is because they develop economic and military strangleholds over nations that aren't rich. It's much more fun to wax poetic about democracy and prosperity and freedom, but in the end, when you've got all the guns and you run all the banks, it's not that hard to "industrialize".

I don't think a careful, thoughtful reading of history or the current state of the world supports your assertions. Many places that enjoy vast richness in material resources are not places where the average citizen can prosper. Saudi Arabia and much of the rest of SW Asia come immediately to mind as do most of South and Central America. The common thread between those places is some combination of kleptocratic government, a lack of individual freedom, and poorly defined and/or inconsistent enforcement of property rights (e.g. your right to property ownership changes with the whim of the latest kleptocrat to rise to power).

Even if your assertions were accurate, they're far from dispositive. The propserity that allowed rich nations to exert that "stranglehold" on the poor resulted from the rule of law, codified individual freedom, and property rights. Did the British, French, Spanish, Portegeuse, Dutch, and others exploit other lands and people in the colonial period? Sure. They were in a position to do that, though, because they had had freedom, the rule of law, and property rights for centuries before (imperfectly implemented, without question).

Even if your assertions were accurate, they're far from dispositive. The propserity that allowed rich nations to exert that "stranglehold" on the poor resulted from the rule of law, codified individual freedom, and property rights. Did the British, French, Spanish, Portegeuse, Dutch, and others exploit other lands and people in the colonial period? Sure. They were in a position to do that, though, because they had had freedom, the rule of law, and property rights for centuries before (imperfectly implemented, without question).

:lol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg/362px-Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/62398/successful.jpg

Industrialized troll is industrialized! And added to the ignore list.

We're running out of stuff, dude, and we're running out of climate. Deal with it and stop pretending that reality isn't real.

While we're surely "running out of stuff" I think you grossly overestimate the rate at which that's happening.

I disagree that we're "running out of climate". Technological advances have already resulted in vastly cleaner air in the developed world and will, I predict, continue to do so.

I'm not pretending anything isn't real. In fact, I think I'm being extremely realistic. I just think that science and technology are superior ways to mitigate the real problems we have than forced adoption of some (largely arbitrary) standard of living.

I think almost everyone agrees that these things are desireable:

Cleaner cars, factories, and utilities;
more useful and more used mass transit;
local, non-industrialized food production;
better shelter, cleaner water, and fewer deaths from malaria and other preventable diseases in the developing world;


Those things are much more likely to result from technological advances than a reversion to a (mostly fictional and romanticized) simpler, more noble time.

I'm making these arguments in good faith and with at least an honest attempt at reason and logic. I hope those who disagree will do likewise and not resort to name-calling and the like.

That's fine for you; even admirable. But why do you get to decide that for other people?


I've never claimed that I get to decide for other people regarding their behavior or beliefs; see my previous posts on this thread. People will usually do what they do regardless of what I think, which is how it should be. However, I do think I have the right to disagree with other people's ideas, especially if they are especially stupid or reprehensible ideas, and I even to get disapprove of their behavior. If you don't like what I think, you have every right to disagree with me in turn, but at least come up with a rational counter-argument. Fox News tactics don't carry a lot of weight with me.

I've never claimed that I get to decide for other people regarding their behavior or beliefs; see my previous posts on this thread. People will usually do what they do regardless of what I think, which is how it should be. However, I do think I have the right to disagree with other people's ideas, especially if they are especially stupid or reprehensible ideas, and I even to get disapprove of their behavior. If you don't like what I think, you have every right to disagree with me in turn, but at least come up with a rational counter-argument. Fox News tactics don't carry a lot of weight with me.

bragi: "you're too soft to be a human being at all"

A charitable reading of that sounds to me like deciding for other people, but maybe I read too much into it. If not, I'm not sure what's irrational about the argument I made (short though it was). Your post implied (stated?) that people who had a different opinion than you as to what are acceptable levels of inconvenience or adversity were sub-human.

If your comments were meant to be tongue-in-cheek, I apologize for taking them too seriously.

I don't know what "Fox News tactics" are; I haven't Fox News in at least several years.

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/62398/successful.jpg

Industrialized troll is industrialized! And added to the ignore list.

Name-calling: The height of civil discourse.

:lol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg/362px-Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg

I have no idea how that's germane to this thread.

Well, I agree that the third world will need to bring themselves up. When they do, they will be bringing themselves up to try to model themselves after the lifestyle of the first world, with tech bought from the first world. Right now, the first world's lifestyle doesn't scale; we make too much pollution and blow through too much non-renewing resources, and when everyone else tries things go haywire. So we in the industrialized world need to work out how to adjust our lifestyles to one that is less destructive so that we won't be stuck trying to do damage control when everyone else jumps on board.

While we're surely "running out of stuff" I think you grossly overestimate the rate at which that's happening.

I disagree that we're "running out of climate". Technological advances have already resulted in vastly cleaner air in the developed world and will, I predict, continue to do so.

I'm not pretending anything isn't real. In fact, I think I'm being extremely realistic. I just think that science and technology are superior ways to mitigate the real problems we have than forced adoption of some (largely arbitrary) standard of living.


I think almost everyone agrees that these things are desireable:

Cleaner cars, factories, and utilities;
more useful and more used mass transit;
local, non-industrialized food production;
better shelter, cleaner water, and fewer deaths from malaria and other preventable diseases in the developing world;

Those things are much more likely to result from technological advances than a reversion to a (mostly fictional and romanticized) simpler, more noble time.

I'm making these arguments in good faith and with at least an honest attempt at reason and logic. I hope those who disagree will do likewise and not resort to name-calling and the like.

You're right that car emissions like sulfur and particularates have been cleaned up in a few countries. but no matter how many strides technology makes, internal combustion and diesel engines will always produce carbon dioxide, the substance mainly responsible for climate change. That is a matter of physics and chemistry that can't be changed by technologists.

As for the right to tell others what to do (mentioned on a couple of your other posts) I also agree with you. As indiduals, none of us have the right to tell others what to do. As a society, we do have that right, within the limit of laws and the Constitution. We have no qualms in telling others what to do about killing spouses or burning trash within the city limits. The cleaner air that you mention in this post came about because we told people what to do about pollution emissions. The Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, clearing the way for government to tell companies and individuals "what to do" when it comes to gas guzzler cars. And just the other day, the federal government released new standards for CO2 emissions from automobiles and light trucks.

You're right that car emissions like sulfur and particularates have been cleaned up in a few countries. but no matter how many strides technology makes, internal combustion and diesel engines will always produce carbon dioxide, the substance mainly responsible for climate change. That is a matter of physics and chemistry that can't be changed by technologists.
If, and it's a big if, CO2 is really the bugaboo that you think it is, why not sequester it through intentional oceanic algae blooms or into vast forests of carbon-hungry trees? Why focus exclusively on the production side?

As for the right to tell others what to do (mentioned on a couple of your other posts) I also agree with you. As indiduals, none of us have the right to tell others what to do. As a society, we do have that right, within the limit of laws and the Constitution. We have no qualms in telling others what to do about killing spouses or burning trash within the city limits. The cleaner air that you mention in this post came about because we told people what to do about pollution emissions. The Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, clearing the way for government to tell companies and individuals "what to do" when it comes to gas guzzler cars. And just the other day, the federal government released new standards for CO2 emissions from automobiles and light trucks.
I think we probably couldn't disagree more on the issue of telling others what to do. I don't really have any problem with individuals telling others what to do because we're free to ignore such busybodies. My problem is with the collective, often on the basis of shoddy evidence and/or poorly understood science, rushing to "solve" the latest crisis (e.g. the ice ages that we're predicted as lately as just before catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was predicted).

There's an obvious difference between telling people they can't drive a certain kind of vehicle and telling them they can't kill their spouse. I'm disinclined to explain it as I suspect you already understand it.

Yes, cleaner air (and water) came from telling people what to do. But that was in response to a situation that was causing direct and immediate harm to people. I don't think "climate change" is in the same category as 1950s industrial America (e.g. Pittsburgh). You may disagree with me about the severity and immediacy of global warming, but I think it's silly to equate it with the aforementioned Pittsburgh or the river of fire in Cleveland.

I think your closing lines about the SCOTUS and CO2 standards are a great example of the overreach of the federal government; not a vindication of your position. The government (at various levels) also mandated (or cajoled through the tax code) the production and use of biofuels. How'd that work out for anyone?

Cheers.

I think we have two different issues we are discussing, maybe more. Car free and ICE is not the same thing. We live in a society that wants remote control of everything. 90 percent of American drivers drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions. Our kids would rather play WII basketball than real basket ball.

I don’t believe it is practical to expect a society that values motivation by power, other than their own, will ever be self propelled vehicle free. The vast majority of Americans will opt for EV, Hydrogen cell or any number of other forms of transportation way before they will walk, cycle or use any other method requiring them to use their own power. And because that is the way the vast majority feels and operates things aren’t likely to change in our lifetimes. Even the Amish use horse drawn Carriages. But there will always be those of us who would rather cycle than drive.

bragi: "you're too soft to be a human being at all"

A charitable reading of that sounds to me like deciding for other people, but maybe I read too much into it. If not, I'm not sure what's irrational about the argument I made (short though it was). Your post implied (stated?) that people who had a different opinion than you as to what are acceptable levels of inconvenience or adversity were sub-human.

If your comments were meant to be tongue-in-cheek, I apologize for taking them too seriously.

I don't know what "Fox News tactics" are; I haven't Fox News in at least several years.

I think you're being disingenuous. I never used the term sub-human at all, and I'm actually a little irritated that you distorted the message in my post in this totally dishonest way. I simply meant that people who claim that the very minor adversities of bicycling are too much for them are probably not up to life's other, far more rigorous, adversities, either. (e.g., getting wet isn't a major problem compared to losing your house.) I can't imagine that it was all that hard to figure out.

You do score points, though, for being able to get a rise out of people.

I think you're being disingenuous. I never used the term sub-human at all, and I'm actually a little irritated that you distorted the message in my post in this totally dishonest way. I simply meant that people who claim that the very minor adversities of bicycling are too much for them are probably not up to life's other, far more rigorous, adversities, either. (e.g., getting wet isn't a major problem compared to losing your house.) I can't imagine that it was all that hard to figure out.


I'm being disingenuous when I equate the statement "you're too soft to be a human being at all" with the term sub-human? I might grant that it was a bit hyperbolic, but not disingenuous. More importantly, I don't think I was distorting your message.

Even your enhanced explanation here would seem to be contravened by the fact that there are hundreds of millision of people in the world who think the adversities of cycling (as we're discussing it here) are too much for them and yet are able to overcome the other adversities in their lives.

Bike commuting (which I do over half the time) and being car free (which I'm not) are difficult (or even impossible) for many people. Not being able to or not wanting to because of those difficulties does not make those people "too soft to be human at all".

I think we probably couldn't disagree more on the issue of telling others what to do. I don't really have any problem with individuals telling others what to do because we're free to ignore such busybodies. My problem is with the collective, often on the basis of shoddy evidence and/or poorly understood science, rushing to "solve" the latest crisis (e.g. the ice ages that we're predicted as lately as just before catastrophic anthropogenic global warming was predicted).

There's an obvious difference between telling people they can't drive a certain kind of vehicle and telling them they can't kill their spouse. I'm disinclined to explain it as I suspect you already understand it.

Yes, cleaner air (and water) came from telling people what to do. But that was in response to a situation that was causing direct and immediate harm to people. I don't think "climate change" is in the same category as 1950s industrial America (e.g. Pittsburgh). You may disagree with me about the severity and immediacy of global warming, but I think it's silly to equate it with the aforementioned Pittsburgh or the river of fire in Cleveland.

I think your closing lines about the SCOTUS and CO2 standards are a great example of the overreach of the federal government; not a vindication of your position. The government (at various levels) also mandated (or cajoled through the tax code) the production and use of biofuels. How'd that work out for anyone?

Cheers.
Sorry. I don't waste time arguing about the reality of global warming, creationism, or whether the earth is flat. I can''t imagine bigger wastes of time.

Toodles.

I think we have two different issues we are discussing, maybe more. Car free and ICE is not the same thing. We live in a society that wants remote control of everything. 90 percent of American drivers drive cars and trucks with automatic transmissions. Our kids would rather play WII basketball than real basket ball.

I don’t believe it is practical to expect a society that values motivation by power, other than their own, will ever be self propelled vehicle free. The vast majority of Americans will opt for EV, Hydrogen cell or any number of other forms of transportation way before they will walk, cycle or use any other method requiring them to use their own power. And because that is the way the vast majority feels and operates things aren’t likely to change in our lifetimes. Even the Amish use horse drawn Carriages. But there will always be those of us who would rather cycle than drive.

Agreed, mostly. Except you have a tendency to think only in terms of one country when you deterrmine what's feasible. I think we not only have to look at the whole world, but at the world of the foreseeable future--with 9 billion people, many of them new entrants to the middle class. What kind of car will be feasible in this world, and in what numbers?

I'm not an expert, but I'm thinking that the world of 2030 will need to go no further than a total of 2 billion cars. (There are currently about one billion cars in the world, with more than 25 % in the US alone.) This means that if there are more cars in China, India, "and the rest" in 2030, there must be fewer cars in America. This is where (voluntary) carfree living comes in, along with (involuntary) changes in the fuel economy and resources used in private cars. Non-automotive changes will be necessary also, such as improved public transit, more walking and cycling, better urban design, and carfree zones in most regions.

It's too early to know which power source will exist by then, but whatever it is, cars themselves must be drastically lighter, on the order of 500 pounds, and more aerodynamic. But as for the "death" of the car, I agree that probably won't happen, at least not in the first half of this century.

Sorry. I don't waste time arguing about the reality of global warming, creationism, or whether the earth is flat. I can''t imagine bigger wastes of time.

Toodles.

I hardly think a thoughful discussion on the severity or immediacy of global warming (or climate change or whatever it's called today) is the equivalent of a discussion on the flatness of the earth.

I too think discussions of religion on a forum like this are a really bad idea.

Agreed, mostly. Except you have a tendency to think only in terms of one country when you deterrmine what's feasible. I think we not only have to look at the whole world, but at the world of the foreseeable future--with 9 billion people, many of them new entrants to the middle class. What kind of car will be feasible in this world, and in what numbers?

I'm not an expert, but I'm thinking that the world of 2030 will need to go no further than a total of 2 billion cars. (There are currently about one billion cars in the world, with more than 25 % in the US alone.) This means that if there are more cars in China, India, "and the rest" in 2030, there must be fewer cars in America. This is where (voluntary) carfree living comes in, along with (involuntary) changes in the fuel economy and resources used in private cars. Non-automotive changes will be necessary also, such as improved public transit, more walking and cycling, better urban design, and carfree zones in most regions.

It's too early to know which power source will exist by then, but whatever it is, cars themselves must be drastically lighter, on the order of 500 pounds, and more aerodynamic. But as for the "death" of the car, I agree that probably won't happen, at least not in the first half of this century.

Well the title was about America so I was simply answering about America. But I don’t believe we will see a big surge in cycling or even walking in the US. And I don’t believe we will see 500 pound cars either. Most EVs weigh more than that and I believe something along those lines will be the future. There was a time when China looked like a sea of Bicycles whenever you saw pictures of their cities, now they have major highways and India is moving in that direction as well. Like I said ICE may have a limited shelf life but cars or some form of powered personal transportation is here to stay.

I don’t care if it is small transportation pods or air tubes the Americans we live near are not going to walk, bike or do anything else that requires them to use their own mussels as long as “anyone” will offer an alternative that will allow them to get from point A to point B by pushing a button, stepping on a go pedal, or pulling a lever.

Because we are speculating here I don’t believe our country would survive without some form of cars or personal transportation vehicles. 2030 is only just over 20 years away I doubt if people will be walking or cycling by then as a alternative to vehicles. Unless there is some major change in mass transportatin cars, or something very much like them, will be here for more years than any of us have left.

Because we are speculating here I don’t believe our country would survive without some form of cars or personal transportation vehicles. 2030 is only just over 20 years away I doubt if people will be walking or cycling by then as a alternative to vehicles. Unless there is some major change in mass transportation cars, or something very much like them, will be here for more years than any of us have left.

I agree with you here. Americans like the mobility a car affords, and many of us, like my father for example, view having to walk as almost a personal insult. However, I do think that in the next twenty years or so, private cars will have a slightly less dominant presence in our cities than they do now. Congestion will likely get worse, and fuel/energy prices, in the long term at least, will certainly increase, probably by a very significant percentage. I believe both of these factors will encourage a lot of people to consider other options. Even now, I've noticed a lot more people getting around without cars than a few years ago.

As a side note, I have to say that, even though I use public transportation at least a few times a month, I'm not that crazy about it. I don't think it's inefficient, nor do I mind the whole riding-the-bus experience, but I HATE having to orient my schedule around the bus schedule. I'd rather just jump on my bike whenever I want and go, or just walk, even if the total travel time is less by bus.

I agree with you here. Americans like the mobility a car affords, and many of us, like my father for example, view having to walk as almost a personal insult. However, I do think that in the next twenty years or so, private cars will have a slightly less dominant presence in our cities than they do now. Congestion will likely get worse, and fuel/energy prices, in the long term at least, will certainly increase, probably by a very significant percentage. I believe both of these factors will encourage a lot of people to consider other options. Even now, I've noticed a lot more people getting around without cars than a few years ago.

As a side note, I have to say that, even though I use public transportation at least a few times a month, I'm not that crazy about it. I don't think it's inefficient, nor do I mind the whole riding-the-bus experience, but I HATE having to orient my schedule around the bus schedule. I'd rather just jump on my bike whenever I want and go, or just walk, even if the total travel time is less by bus.

There we agree. I too see that we will need something different but I don’t think we have the infrastructure to support a real big change in method. We do not have standard works times in this country. Banks do not work the traditional 9 to 5 nor do factories and warehouses seem to have a standard work schedule. Now realize I am talking only from experience but just about every major US city I have visited West of the Mississippi has traffic on their freeways and expressways all day long. Thos cars are going to and from somewhere. I will be one of the first to admit I don’t know where all these people are going but in LA traffic gets heavy from 5 am till 10 am. You get a bit of a break till just before noon and another till about 2:30 or 3:00 PM. Then traffic is heavy till after 6:00 PM. The traffic pattern was pretty close in Salt Lake City all the way to Provo as we passed through last week. So people seem to “believe” they need to travel distances that simply aren’t practical for a majority of them by bike or walking.

So I don’t know the answer but I don’t believe people will go car free in excess of 10 percent in the next 50 years at least. I don’t believe we can change our system any faster than that. Like you I prefer to ride my bike many places. But I also have a family and I am the only one that prefers to cycle anywhere. I believe I am very typical as far as the future of being car free in America. I know I am way below average in my miles driven each year and even my insurance agent has commented on that. But I also believe people in this forum are such a minority we should all have AB negative blood.

I'm being disingenuous when I equate the statement "you're too soft to be a human being at all" with the term sub-human? I might grant that it was a bit hyperbolic, but not disingenuous. More importantly, I don't think I was distorting your message.

Even your enhanced explanation here would seem to be contravened by the fact that there are hundreds of millision of people in the world who think the adversities of cycling (as we're discussing it here) are too much for them and yet are able to overcome the other adversities in their lives.

Bike commuting (which I do over half the time) and being car free (which I'm not) are difficult (or even impossible) for many people. Not being able to or not wanting to because of those difficulties does not make those people "too soft to be human at all".

I'm tempted to stop responding to your posts; you seem unable to do anything other than to use what people say to re-state your opinions, which may or may not have anything to do with the matter at hand. It's sort of like watching Sarah Palin during her TV debate with Joe Biden. (It's the whole "talking points" thing all over again.) I suggest you listen to the point of view of others, think about their arguments, consider the possibility that they're not idiots, even if they say things you don't agree with, and then respond, in a way that's on topic, and that considers what they actually said, not what you imagined they said in light of your own limited agenda.

Now, one more time, about people who think cycling is too difficult: I never, not once, claimed that cycling is the best commuting option for everyone. If you live in a rural area, and have to commute to a job, cycling simply will not work. If you have physical limitations, it's clear that cycling is not going to be a major part of your regular schedule, either. On the other hand, for most reasonably healthy people who live in urban areas and who have a commute of 15 miles or less, one way, cycling is a no-brainer. It doesn't take the physical fitness of an Olympic athlete to ride a bike 15 miles. Even if you ride at a moderate pace, it's not much slower than driving in most urban settings over that distance. It's less expensive than driving a car, plus the health benefits are enormous. (There's a reason that even middle aged people in Amsterdam look pretty good compared to people the same age in Kentucky.) Yes, it's a little more demanding than jumping into an Escalade and driving to work. But not that much more, and the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. I can't think of a single person I've ever met that, once they tried bicycle commuting, wasn't really glad they did.

I don't think that being car-free will ever be the norm in this country, outside of NYC and SF. But I do think that, with the help of bicycles, more and more people will discover that being car-lite is a wise choice.