Living Car Free - Is car-free/light a left wing cause or is it conservative and fiscally responsible?

That's right, I'm going to stir it up.

In another thread something along the lines of "I stopped in LCF and it was just as I suspected -- a bunch of lefties" was posted. I'm almost as lefty as it gets, so I resemble that remark. But choosing a bicycle over an automobile where appropriate seems very conservative and self-reliant to me. Seems that all of us lazy lefties looking for a government handout would be demanding free cars and subsidized gasoline for the masses. Riding a bicycle takes effort.

Or do I have it wrong? Is the real problem here that we lefties who choose bicycles, walking and public transit are simply too lazy to earn enough money to comfortably drive reliable automobiles AND buy food, shelter and all the other necessities?

My honest opinion is that most conservatives are anything but and are hypocritical. They could prove me wrong by embracing, you know, living conservatively. Perhaps in smaller homes and with fewer cars. Perhaps they could buy less foreign oil. I don't see many eager to do this. Do they not understand that better bicycle infrastructure means more poor people actually able to get to work and able to live within their means?

One of the many reasons that I use my bicycle as primary transportation (and a very cheap old car as secondary) is that I save money. I don't have to live so hand-to-mouth. If there is a hurricane or some other disaster that causes a gasoline shortage, I can still get around. I don't need a 5 or 10 year loan to buy a bicycle. I can even pay CASH for a REALLY *****IN' bicycle. How is this not conservative?

LOL, I can say "ass" but I can't say "b*i*t*c*h*i*n."

Well, I suspect that those who are too lazy to get out of their cars are also those who are too lazy to vote.

As far as political parties go, both seem to be just about as deeply into the corporate pockets as the other. I find little difference between them and expect any real democracy to be broken down in the next decades. It's a puppet show with the Republicans cast as hysterical whiners promoting an agenda that is good for the rich and bad for the poor, or Democrats who speak in decent terms but then vote like Republicans.

So I can only decide that I must provide for myself, and the key to this is removing the cost and environmental decay caused by the motorcar.

Well said.

Conservative in the common political sense and conservative as a matter of how one chooses to live are often miles apart. You’ll need a car to go that far.

My honest opinion is that most conservatives are anything but and are hypocritical. They could prove me wrong by embracing, you know, living conservatively. Perhaps in smaller homes and with fewer cars. Perhaps they could buy less foreign oil. I don't see many eager to do this. Do they not understand that better bicycle infrastructure means more poor people actually able to get to work and able to live within their means?

Sadly, you're right about this. As a conservative, it frustrates me to no end to see people wasting money and living like idiots. They translate "conservative" to mean "I don't give a rat's-behind" and go on their merry way. I am what I would call a true conservative... I don't spend money I don't have, I live within my means, and want to teach others to do the same. I disagree with liberals on many levels (particularly man-created global warming and other alarmist garbage) but on the other hand, I *am* concerned about the environment, because who wants to live in a toxic wasteland with no wildlife left? I'm against large businesses... not because I'm against making money, but I'm against making money using destructive and illegal business methods. Sadly, there's not many companies left that don't operate this way.

Similarly, I own a van and a car, but i'm driving the car less and less... because it costs so much to keep it up. I love driving it, I don't feel guilty at all (it's a small inexpensive sports car) but when push comes to shove, I don't have to have it. It's a luxury I worked hard to pay for, and I treat it as such. It needs a new battery right now, and I don't want to spend the $75 to replace it when I only drive it twice a week now.


One of the many reasons that I use my bicycle as primary transportation (and a very cheap old car as secondary) is that I save money. I don't have to live so hand-to-mouth. If there is a hurricane or some other disaster that causes a gasoline shortage, I can still get around. I don't need a 5 or 10 year loan to buy a bicycle. I can even pay CASH for a REALLY *****IN' bicycle. How is this not conservative?

I started riding my bike to get in shape, and because I enjoy it. The saving money and not buying gas was an added benefit, but not my primary reason. I am reducing wear and tear on my car, that's just as important to me as not buying foreign oil... that's protecting my investment.

Suffice to say, there *are* real conservatives out there, and you might have more in common with them than you might think.

Suffice to say, there *are* real conservatives out there, and you might have more in common with them than you might think.

And you might have more in common with us lefties than you think, too ;).

I'm against large businesses... not because I'm against making money, but I'm against making money using destructive and illegal business methods. Sadly, there's not many companies left that don't operate this way.

And I'm not sure that's going to change soon. UCF Business School Cheating Scandal (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-11-08/news/os-ucf-cheating-test-20101108_1_apparent-cheating-exam-students)

And you might have more in common with us lefties than you think, too ;).

In some ways, yes. It's foolish to lump people into one of two categories, where there are so many areas these descriptions cover. Financially and morally, I'm about as conservative as it gets. I don't want to get too deep in to it, but let's just say I'm not impressed with the modern political/social system, and one side always trying to out-do the other. Somewhere down the line conservatives changed their message to "you must make as much money as possible, no matter what the consequences" and I don't agree with that. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. People who preach "living within your means" are viewed as wacko nutjobs, even though people are going bankrupt left and right.

I've learned over the years that there are tons of hypocrites on both sides of the fence. I despise them, one and all.

Eeeeek politics, my head is already hurting:)

Eeeeek politics, my head is already hurting:)

I'm really only likely to upset myself bringing it up, but that post in the other thread made me do it. And I do think (and I think FunkyStickman agrees) that it's worth discussing.

Don't think it should have anything to do with politics.
You choose how to get around because of your political views? Probably not.
Personal views, on the other hand, play the biggest role. Personal views influence political views. So you can be LCF/LCL and a lefty, and I can be LCF/LCL and a righty. My reasons may be different than yours and those reasons probably influence our political views. Not all liberals drive hybrids and hug trees. Just like not all conservatives drown baby seals in petroleum. Hope you get my gist.

People who preach "living within your means" are viewed as wacko nutjobs, even though people are going bankrupt left and right.

I've learned over the years that there are tons of hypocrites on both sides of the fence. I despise them, one and all.

You and me both. From one wacko nutjob to another.

I'm really only likely to upset myself bringing it up, but that post in the other thread made me do it. And I do think (and I think FunkyStickman agrees) that it's worth discussing.
Eh i dont blame ya for starting the thread, that guy kinda got me hot headed, i think it was the communist comment that did it. Im just not a political person ive got far to many other things that id rather use my time for.

Eh i dont blame ya for starting the thread, that guy kinda got me hot headed, i think it was the communist comment that did it. Im just not a political person ive got far to many other things that id rather use my time for.

It was bait, and I did not want to hijack the other thread.

It's easy to make assumptions about people based on their choice of transportation, but those choices are not necessarily correct.

Last December, someone assumed I was an anti-car zealot and environmental activist when I said I would rather ride a bike than drive a car. Not so. I get more pleasure out of riding the bike. I know some cyclists who lean towards socialism, some who are devout libertarians and others who hold to other political views. No problem. We're cyclists, united by a love of the bike, not by a political ideology.

As for my own politics, I don't affiliate myself with any political party. One reason is because I wish to appear neutral in my role at the newspaper. More importantly, I haven't yet found any party I can fully embrace.

It's easy to make assumptions about people based on their choice of transportation, but those choices are not necessarily correct.

Last December, someone assumed I was an anti-car zealot and environmental activist when I said I would rather ride a bike than drive a car. Not so. I get more pleasure out of riding the bike. I know some cyclists who lean towards socialism, some who are devout libertarians and others who hold to other political views. No problem. We're cyclists, united by a love of the bike, not by a political ideology.

As for my own politics, I don't affiliate myself with any political party. One reason is because I wish to appear neutral in my role at the newspaper. More importantly, I haven't yet found any party I can fully embrace.
Couldn't be said any better +1

Its all in the definition of conservative. You could be anti abortion and be all for deficit spending. Or you could be more libertarian and want less government involvement and less spending. Thats clearly the issue with our 2 party system. There are huge parties that claim to be conservative and liberal but they are each are more conservative and more liberal that the other depending on the specific issue. I think you'll find far more libertarians on this forum that you would god, guns and gays republicans. Fundamentally neither of these groups are open to signifiant amount of change in their lifestyles so thats why there are more "liberals" here. One must also understand that the fraction of people LCF and LCL are so small that we are all outliers.

Conservative in the common political sense and conservative as a matter of how one chooses to live are often miles apart. You’ll need a car to go that far.

Yep, the labels are backwards. I can't picture Abee saying "drill baby drill".

Its all in the definition of conservative. You could be anti abortion and be all for deficit spending. Or you could be more libertarian and want less government involvement and less spending. Thats clearly the issue with our 2 party system. There are huge parties that claim to be conservative and liberal but they are each are more conservative and more liberal that the other depending on the specific issue. I think you'll find far more libertarians on this forum that you would god, guns and gays republicans. Fundamentally neither of these groups are open to signifiant amount of change in their lifestyles so thats why there are more "liberals" here. One must also understand that the fraction of people LCF and LCL are so small that we are all outliers.

This is a good observation, as well.

In the spirit of keeping this suitable for LCF and not Foo, I'll say there can be plenty of reasons for going carfree/light. Anything from exercise, to financial reasons, to reducing your environmental impact, and last (but not least) for fun. The act of being carfree doesn't make you one or the other, but separates the talkers from the doers. I don't consider myself a hardcore commuter yet, as I still have my car... but as I said, it's gathering dust at the moment. I got to the point where I would feel physically ill when my car wouldn't start, and I realized it was beginning to creep into my thoughts all the time. Something like having to replace all 4 tires (which I couldn't afford) flung me into a tizzy, and I knew something had to change.

Now the car's paid for, and no longer a source of stress. I still can't afford a cargo bike, but I haven't had reason to need one yet. I have entertained the thought of selling it and buying a few good bikes... I would probably get more use out of the bikes nowdays, since I don't race my car anymore.

The stress of the expense of cars has always annoyed me. Why do I have to maintain this huge, wasteful, monstrosity? Even a paid-for car is not cheap. A sudden repair can require you to cough up $800 right now, today. Even if someone gives you a brand new, free car, you are on a journey to the end of the cars life. And then if you are dependent on it you've got to buy another. It's never ending slavery. In my opinion. But I have a choice to end that slavery.

It's already been said, but I will echo: personal conservatism is not the same thing as political conservatism in America at all. In my case, I have no problem being labelled a left-winger, environmentalist, etc.; but it's quite funny because the reasons people tend to label me as such (ride my bike lots, compost, use biodiesel in my car) are largely, in my mind, conservative reasons. I ride my bike for pleasure, of course, but also because it is cost effective and gives me exercise, and conserves fuel resources for when I actually need them. I compost because less trash means I don't need to rely as much on community services, and I can use the compost in the yard rather than wasting money, resources, and packaging on fertilizer. I use biodiesel because it burns cleaner and all that, but to be honest, my main reason is f*ck terrorists who make money off of middle eastern oil. F*ck 'em.

You'd think that conservatives would appreciate those arguments, and some of them do. But people get so caught up in lifestyle definition that they end up losing a lot of personal freedom -- i.e. 'I can't do that because people would think I'm a liberal/conservative/nerd/gay/etc'. That's just America these days, I guess.

That's right, I'm going to stir it up.

In another thread something along the lines of "I stopped in LCF and it was just as I suspected -- a bunch of lefties" was posted. I'm almost as lefty as it gets, so I resemble that remark. But choosing a bicycle over an automobile where appropriate seems very conservative and self-reliant to me. Seems that all of us lazy lefties looking for a government handout would be demanding free cars and subsidized gasoline for the masses. Riding a bicycle takes effort.

Or do I have it wrong? Is the real problem here that we lefties who choose bicycles, walking and public transit are simply too lazy to earn enough money to comfortably drive reliable automobiles AND buy food, shelter and all the other necessities?

My honest opinion is that most conservatives are anything but and are hypocritical. They could prove me wrong by embracing, you know, living conservatively. Perhaps in smaller homes and with fewer cars. Perhaps they could buy less foreign oil. I don't see many eager to do this. Do they not understand that better bicycle infrastructure means more poor people actually able to get to work and able to live within their means?

One of the many reasons that I use my bicycle as primary transportation (and a very cheap old car as secondary) is that I save money. I don't have to live so hand-to-mouth. If there is a hurricane or some other disaster that causes a gasoline shortage, I can still get around. I don't need a 5 or 10 year loan to buy a bicycle. I can even pay CASH for a REALLY *****IN' bicycle. How is this not conservative?The problem is that right wing socialists have no insight or self-awareness of how they are sucking at the public teat.

Here in Seville, the right (much more moderate than American "conservatives") has fought tooth and nail against all of the improvements we've made to our cycling infrastructure. Meanwhile, in the States, the Republicans are now poised to cancel the Obama administration's major high speed rail initiatives. I can't imagine how anyone who follows the issues and is serious about promoting car free living could support the right.

There is a very good argument for right wing environmentalism, and even right wing cycling and rail advocacy. It's called "user-pay". If you use a highway, pay the full cost. If you want to release emissions, pay the full cost. If people and companies had to pay the real cost of private cars, suburban sprawl or pollution, they would be flocking to bike stores and railway stations and low rise apartment buildings, and clamouring for green products and technology, because they would be so much cheaper. Unfortunately right wing voters and politicians don't actually act on their highly vaunted free-market, capitalist principles - instead they leach off others and are oblivious to their own hypocrisy.

Here in Seville, the right (much more moderate than American "conservatives") has fought tooth and nail against all of the improvements we've made to our cycling infrastructure. Meanwhile, in the States, the Republicans are now poised to cancel the Obama administration's major high speed rail initiatives. I can't imagine how anyone who follows the issues and is serious about promoting car free living could support the right.
I have to agree with this. I want government to sponsor and co-ordinate (not necessarily pay for) initiatives that I think are vital to our national security and global prosperity. Specifically, I want the development of sustainable energy and transportation systems, and mitigation of global warming. I think we need high order co-operation to accomplish these goals. The market has no incentive to accomplish these goals, although they will benefit the market. We will need national governments to plan and work together to accomplish these goals.

I don't want more government spending, but I do want government to invest in important goals. More than invest, I want government to inspire and co-ordinate people (including businesses) to work together. I look at history and wonder what the world would be like if government had not led the way on big projects like the Erie Canal, transcontinental railways, the electrical grid, and yes, even the interstate highway system,

But conservatives can't even see that global warming is a problem, or that oil is not a good way to keep going. They are so stuck on their need to paralyze government that they can't see the need to work on important problems. They make America small and they threaten the world's future.

That's right, I'm going to stir it up.

In another thread something along the lines of "I stopped in LCF and it was just as I suspected -- a bunch of lefties" was posted. I'm almost as lefty as it gets, so I resemble that remark. But choosing a bicycle over an automobile where appropriate seems very conservative and self-reliant to me. Seems that all of us lazy lefties looking for a government handout would be demanding free cars and subsidized gasoline for the masses. Riding a bicycle takes effort.

Or do I have it wrong? Is the real problem here that we lefties who choose bicycles, walking and public transit are simply too lazy to earn enough money to comfortably drive reliable automobiles AND buy food, shelter and all the other necessities?

My honest opinion is that most conservatives are anything but and are hypocritical. They could prove me wrong by embracing, you know, living conservatively. Perhaps in smaller homes and with fewer cars. Perhaps they could buy less foreign oil. I don't see many eager to do this. Do they not understand that better bicycle infrastructure means more poor people actually able to get to work and able to live within their means?

One of the many reasons that I use my bicycle as primary transportation (and a very cheap old car as secondary) is that I save money. I don't have to live so hand-to-mouth. If there is a hurricane or some other disaster that causes a gasoline shortage, I can still get around. I don't need a 5 or 10 year loan to buy a bicycle. I can even pay CASH for a REALLY *****IN' bicycle. How is this not conservative?


Not necessarily. Not every righty is a raving SUV maniac it's more an issue of doing things logically and with a fiscal basis. ICE engine vehicles are the means of providing the roads that we all use. The problem with getting rid of cars is there isn't a good way to draw the same amount of revenue by taxing bikes and Motorcycles. Cars and trucks are taxed by weight to do the same with nothing but HPVs and Motorcycles you'd be looking at the mother of all gridlock. Let's not forget the whole Auto insurance industry, without ICE vehicles there would be little need for Insurance as speeds would be much slower.

Barring these issues then riding a bike is truly the most conservative means of transportation for the reasons you pointed out.. :thumb:

Barring these issues then riding a bike is truly the most conservative means of transportation for the reasons you pointed out.. :thumb:

A visitor from a distant start would no doubt conclude:
- Riding a bicycle is a very conservative activity.
- Squandering resources is greed.

But conservatives can't even see that global warming is a problem, or that oil is not a good way to keep going. They are so stuck on their need to paralyze government that they can't see the need to work on important problems. They make America small and they threaten the world's future.

Roody, unfortunately this mindset is not just reserved for conservatives. You can see much the same train of thought going on among many "liberals". It seems more like an upper middle class desire to retain current wealth.

That's why you don't see much reaction from the so-called Left. There's no real stomach for this fight.

However, as you eloquently point out, a society without a clear vision of the future is essentially rudderless... and very likely unable to weather the next storm.

I know some cyclists who lean towards socialism, some who are devout libertarians and others who hold to other political views. No problem. We're cyclists, united by a love of the bike, not by a political ideology.As for my own politics, I don't affiliate myself with any political party. One reason is because I wish to appear neutral in my role at the newspaper. More importantly, I haven't yet found any party I can fully embrace.

Once again it shows how fragile our relationship in this forum is. Correctly Newspaperguy points out what should be only to find that by tossing in a few phrases someone can come in and get us to turn on each other like dogs in a pen when someone tosses in a Steak.
We don’t see things outside of cycling the same way and cycling is only one part of our mindset. If we get off of the main idea of our own personal reasons for cycling then we move away from what should be to a political debate that has no true answer. :rolleyes:


Is everyone in this forum liberal? Not from reading the responses they aren’t. Can they then vote differently than the liberals in this forum? I don’t need to answer with a new speaker of the House coming in January. Does that make us less devoted to bicycles? I would hope not and if it does we are doomed to have little or no impact on our respective communities or even friends. :eek:


If we were to make up a list of five or six things that are important to us and why we cycle how many of us would have the same five? My bet is not many but if we ever hope to promote cycling as a viable form of local transportation we better find a way to get some ideas in common. And that means people living in the cities and the suburbs will have to learn to live with each other’s decisions about where the best place to live is.
:innocent:

... ICE engine vehicles are the means of providing the roads that we all use. The problem with getting rid of cars is there isn't a good way to draw the same amount of revenue by taxing bikes and Motorcycles...

That is just not true. There have been a number of analyses of road funding in various regions and the bottom line is those of us who drive very little or not at all are subsidizing those who use cars as their primary means of transportation. The last one I saw put up on BF recently had cars paying one-tenth of their way while cyclists were paying ten-times their costs. Even the Interstate freeways are subsidized out of the federal general fund.

Cars and trucks are taxed by weight to do the same with nothing but HPVs and Motorcycles you'd be looking at the mother of all gridlock.

You've forgotten that bikes and motorcycles use a tiny fraction of the road, most bike trips are pretty short, and the wear and tear either class of vehicles creates is trivial. A network of bike paths and rails would be far cheaper to build and maintain than a highway system.

Once again it shows how fragile our relationship in this forum is. Correctly Newspaperguy points out what should be only to find that by tossing in a few phrases someone can come in and get us to turn on each other like dogs in a pen when someone tosses in a Steak.
We don’t see things outside of cycling the same way and cycling is only one part of our mindset. If we get off of the main idea of our own personal reasons for cycling then we move away from what should be to a political debate that has no true answer. :rolleyes:


That's what's wonderful about living in a liberal democracy or participating in an internet forum. We don't have to agree. And as activists we don't even have to have the same total agenda to work together - we just have to find common ground.

That's what's wonderful about living in a liberal democracy or participating in an internet forum. We don't have to agree. And as activists we don't even have to have the same total agenda to work together - we just have to find common ground.
Showing we are diverse people united by a common cause is something that can benefit us. Instead of cycling as part of a specific lifestyle and ideology, it becomes something that transcends the ideology and is for everyone.

As a self-proclaimed "conservative," please do not confuse "Conservative" with "conservative." One is conserving nothing, least of all individual rights; the other is attempting to save wherever possible.

As a self-proclaimed "conservative," please do not confuse "Conservative" with "conservative." One is conserving nothing, least of all individual rights; the other is attempting to save wherever possible.

There ya go! :thumb:

FWIW politically I am a right leaning centrist...except on the days I lean to the left:lol:

I know people from all political leanings that ride bikes, however the bulk seem to be from a liberal bent rather than the other side of the fence.

Aaron :)

I stopped caring about politics a long time ago. Majority of politicians are corporate puppets and those few who really care about the people are allowed to speak, but not to take too much action. Now and then something is done to pretend that the government cares about people and make the flag-waving Americans proud and happy. This same kind of crap goes in other parts of the world. Those in power will always abuse it, no matter which side they're on. Corporations run this world and it's only going to get worse.

I stopped caring about politics a long time ago. Majority of politicians are corporate puppets and those few who really care about the people are allowed to speak, but not to take too much action. Now and then something is done to pretend that the government cares about people and make the flag-waving Americans proud and happy. This same kind of crap goes in other parts of the world. Those in power will always abuse it, no matter which side they're on. Corporations run this world and it's only going to get worse.

I am in complete agreement with you, however I suspect that there is some upcoming stuff that is going to bring a lot of the corporations to their knees, it will trash the world economy but that is the shakes. And the chips will fall where they will.

Aaron :)

I am in complete agreement with you, however I suspect that there is some upcoming stuff that is going to bring a lot of the corporations to their knees, it will trash the world economy but that is the shakes. And the chips will fall where they will.

Aaron :)

I doubt. Those will deep pockets will survive. Corporations may dissolve but someone will pocket most of the money, new corporations will raise. It's the poor and middle class that are going to suffer most in case of any economic crash as we have witnessed in the last few years.

What can happen? The world will run out of oil, gas and coal? Maybe, but see above: the rich will still find ways to profit, those at the bottom of the food chain will be hit the hardest. The Chinese will crash the Western economy? Unlikely, they're benefiting from it. A worldwide man-caused or natural disaster will bring the economy down? Again, the corporations have the resources and power to face that, we don't. We've let it go too far, it can't be undone. Lust for riches and power knows no boundaries.

We are getting ready to run into a new cycle of solar storms, this is also a peak cycle. EMF storms that can destroy power grids are a distinct possibility. That is in addition to peak oil and an overburdened banking system. We just saw the impact caused by the residential mortgage melt down, the business mortgage meltdown is coming, probably in the next year or so.

I agree there will always be someone with the money, but there is going to be a lot of money that is no good. Way too many corporations are under capitalized and can/could only survive with a bail out from the US government...this is the second time that Chrysler has done it. The next time I don't think the government will be capable of it.

Aaron :)

As far as political parties go, both seem to be just about as deeply into the corporate pockets as the other. I find little difference between them and expect any real democracy to be broken down in the next decades. It's a puppet show with the Republicans cast as hysterical whiners promoting an agenda that is good for the rich and bad for the poor, or Democrats who speak in decent terms but then vote like Republicans.

This is a good answer.

I would call being car free a conservative action, due to it being an action towards self-sufficiency. I would not want that to be confused, however, with any of the so-called right-wing agenda. The current political powers seem to have very little to do with the original ideas of conservatism or liberalism, and they seem to push for a redefinition of their particular word to whatever agenda that party is pushing at the time.

I guess my biggest motive for taking the bait from the post in the other thread and starting this one was to prove that we are NOT just a bunch of tree hugging lefties.

I guess my biggest motive for taking the bait from the post in the other thread and starting this one was to prove that we are NOT just a bunch of tree hugging lefties.
Agreed. People see a car-free bikey person and make their assumptions (and it's understandable). They're often shocked to find that I am a gun-toting, meat-eating, pro-choice, free-speech, anti-corporate, pro-drug legalization nutburger. "But wait... you ride a bike. How can you hold liberal and Conservative views together?" <sigh> I do get a kick out of keeping them guessing, though.

I guess my biggest motive for taking the bait from the post in the other thread and starting this one was to prove that we are NOT just a bunch of tree hugging lefties.

What's wrong with being a "tree hugging lefty"? I'm a liberal environmentalist and damned proud of it.

Agreed. People see a car-free bikey person and make their assumptions (and it's understandable). They're often shocked to find that I am a gun-toting, meat-eating, pro-choice, free-speech, anti-corporate, pro-drug legalization nutburger. "But wait... you ride a bike. How can you hold liberal and Conservative views together?" <sigh> I do get a kick out of keeping them guessing, though.

I don't see any inconsistency in your views. The conflict is there among both parties, though. They want to reserve the right to do as they please, and deny rights to someone else who makes choices which do not meet their approval.

The answer to the original question is that poltitical views would seldom be the 'driving' force behind not driving. If it is consistent with someone's green views, then they might proudly let others know that they are not burning gas. But, in reality, things have to line up for most people to go car free. Your family situation, health, etc. have to allow the decision to make sense for you. And, I suspect most car-free people, like me, really enjoy riding, or they would not be out there on two wheels for long.

What's wrong with being a "tree hugging lefty"? I'm a liberal environmentalist and damned proud of it.
Nothing wrong with that. There are some who are transportation cyclists for those reasons. I would still hope a car-free or car-light lifestyle could attract those who have other political leanings.

As a self-proclaimed "conservative," please do not confuse "Conservative" with "conservative." One is conserving nothing, least of all individual rights; the other is attempting to save wherever possible.

Good point. Precisely why I have difficulty with party labels and political/social thought. I'm a frustrated Canadian Red Tory who has been abandoned by the demise of the old Progressive Conservative Party.

That's right, I'm going to stir it up.


The whole American left/right labeling is garbage which serves to give people some sense of identity and distract them from real issues. For example American "liberals" and "conservatives" are both for spending more on our military than the rest of the world.



Or do I have it wrong? Is the real problem here that we lefties who choose bicycles, walking and public transit are simply too lazy to earn enough money to comfortably drive reliable automobiles AND buy food, shelter and all the other necessities?


I have a nice German sports sedan but am happier and become less fat when I use my road bike for the 24 mile round trip to my office instead.


Do they not understand that better bicycle infrastructure means more poor people actually able to get to work and able to live within their means?


Government is mostly about controlling people. Practical and theoretical
implications are largely irrelevant.

Otherwise both "liberals" and "conservatives" would be against zoning laws limiting residential housing density and the number of unrelated people who can occupy a "single family" residence - "liberals" for "humanitarian" reasons (keep the people close to jobs where costs of living are high) and "conservatives" for "property rights" reasons (do what you want with your property).

What people find entertaining about me being car free is im currently an unemployed diesel mechanic working in a parking garage, yays both my professions have to do with fuelies.

What's wrong with being a "tree hugging lefty"? I'm a liberal environmentalist and damned proud of it.

Not one damn thing. I lean so far to the left that I have to strap a boulder to the right side of my bicycle.