Jim from Boston

+1. Nicely stated @wolfchild

I only picked up on this thread this morning, already with 98 replies within about two days. I just skimmed it though due to lack of time (not lack of interest) in order to reply. Nonetheless I enjoy reading and/or participating even in "chit-chat." I have described susbscribing to Bike Forums as a virtual hobby.

It's interesting to come late upon a thread, and see how far afield it's gone from the OP. Often I just start at the last post and read in reverse.

Roody

Do you foresee driving your dog to the vet while at the same time performing resuscitation? I'm not sure that's a good idea. Calling a cab would be another option. Arranging in advance with a neighbor to provide transport in case of an emergency would be another.

If neither of these options can work, and you do get the car, I wonder if you will start using the car for a lot of non-emergency trips once you have it? That would be too bad! It's doubtful that your health will improve if you drive more and exercise less.

cooker

I'm assuming the incident also got you wondering about whether either of you might need to be urgently driven to the hospital. Do you live in a fairly remote location and with no ambulance service etc.?

kickstart

Its also ironic that participating in this forum is contrary to what some are pontificating against in the first place. They vilify "sedentary" activities they don't approve of, but spend plenty of time being "sedentary" posting here.

They rely on ideology and esoteric rhetoric to gloss over pragmatism and the real world in general.

gregf83 

I don't think it's an 'injustice'. It's difficult to make everyone happy when distributing taxes collected and I'm sure their could be a lengthy discussion on the fairness of a given taxation system. Those that can't afford a car pay a small fraction of the per capita road costs compared to those driving Porsches.

Contrary to your opinion, I think it would be an excellent idea on many levels for the US to implement fuel taxes similar to that seen in Europe and use the funds to improve public transit. Might not change congestion but it would get rid of many of the 4x4s commuting to work with one passenger.

cooker

Some people seem to think that is a bad thing and shouldn't be discussed. However for many people, LCF is a deliberate choice, bucking the norm of western industrialized society. It may be purely an economic choice or a fitness choice, but for some it is an ideologicall choice based on minimizing what they view as the harm they might do to to others and the environment through car ownership/use. They are perfectly entitled to believe that this particular choice is superior to what others have chosen. It does not mean they are smug or overall superior to others, if they make that choice, or if they explain it in this forum.

Roody

It seems to be pretty common around here that one person in the family prefers being carfree, while others want to keep a car. In my case, I was carfree for years until my son and his family moved in with me, along wit two cats and a car. My son's mother-in-law is the actual owner of the car. She works in a suburb, not too far away, where the cycling is awful and there is no bus service. She would be unable to ride or walk to work in any case, as she has chronic leg problems. So the car is not only a luxury for the family, but also an economic necessity since she would be unable to work without it. However, sometimes it seems like the car is almost a negative economically, especially as it has had its own chronic health problems. (Expensive repairs, IOW.)

It was funny to se how difficult it was for my DIL to adapt when the car was in the shop. She said that she was going to be unable to do the grocery shopping. My son and I were able to explain some alternatives to her, and she ended up taking the bus to the store and cabbing home. She doesh't ride, or walk much.

My grandson adapted well. For once, he had to walk to school and back home. He used to do a lot of walking and riding with me when he was younger, but he was always driven by a parent to and from school. He discovered that one of his school friends lives near us, so sharing the walk made it a lot more fun. He continues to walk most of the time even since we got the car back--so that was the good side of it, I guess.

My son and I had no trouble adapting to the lack of a car, since we have been carfree for much of our lives. My son very much missed the car, since he enjoys driving and riding, but I barely noticed its absence other than the impact on other family members. I hate the fact that I have to subsidize the car financially, but I get it. I really do understand when people say that they NEED a car. This would be a different matter if we had decent transit. I have arranged my life so that I can get everywhere I need to go by bus, but this isn't currently an option for other family members.

One time when I really appreciated the car was right after my hospitalization this spring. I had a lot of doctor appointments and cardiac rehab sessions to attend, and I was in poor shape to walk, even to the nearby bus stop. But after the acute recovery, being carfree has been a real boon to my rehab. Walking more than an hour a day is built right into my lifestyle, so I don't have to make so much "extra time" for exercise.

I'm not sure how this TLDR post answers the OP question, except that I wouldn't have much reason to give up being carfree, but other members of the family have different needs and different choices, which I respect.

Roody

A little balance and moderation is usually a good thing. And please be mindful of the fact that YOU are one of the most ideologically driven posters on this subforum, along with a few others who are loud complainers about this forum being "too ideological". Anti-carfree dogma is practically a holy war for you guys!

2manybikes

I assume you mean too much time taken out of your day, or something about the commute was inconvenient? Not actually too long?
I have been known to take the car to as many places as possible in one day, so I could ride all day the next day, or had previously spent a whole day on the bike.
I buy as much as possible on the internet, that is a big help to stay out of the car. I don't go "shopping" or "browsing'. I just get something I already decided I need.

And, yes the old joke is based in reality. After spending 12-14 hours on the bike the day before, I started driving 20 mph in a 35 mph zone yesterday. I finally realized what I was doing. Bailey is conditioned to the trike always going less than 20 mph. At 20 mph he stops sticking his head put the window. Took him for a ride in a motorcycle side car once. He was fine until harder acceleration made engine noise and we went over 20 mph.

I-Like-To-Bike

Everything that costs anything is "an injustice" for those who cannot afford the bill, or don't wish to pay for it.

Refresh my memory please, which slice of the population in Western countries do you claim does not derive any benefit from the existence of the street and road transportation network used by motorized vehicles?

wphamilton

Also along those lines, at 50+ we sometimes have outpatient procedures. I was curious when they asked at sign-in for my driver, so I asked if I could just walk. No, they need a driver. the bus driver? Nope. Tandem bike? No, it has to be a motor vehicle. You're not even signing in unless you're there in a vehicle and they lay eyes on your driver. I relented of course and introduced my wife, but it did strike me as forcing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

Roody

Something similar happened when my sister and I took my dad for minor outpatient surgery. We understood the need for having a "responsible driver". But I had to return to my own city by bus that day, so the plan was for my sister to drive me to the bus station while my dad was in the OR. However, the clinic staff must have overheard us talking about this plan. They told her that she HAD to stay on the premises for the entire procedure, and couldn't even leave for a few minutes to drive me to the station. Otherwise, they would cancel the operation. We felt bad, but all we could think to do was "sneak out" after the procedure started. Fortunately, they never even noticed that she was gone for a few minutes.

Another time, I was in the hospital overnight for a minor work injury. At discharge time, they asked when my ride would arrive. I said I would be walking and/or taking the bus. The nurse refused to discharge me unless I had a ride, even though she had just explained in my discharge instructions that I had NO RESTRICTIONS whatsoever. I ended up telling them that my son couldn't get there for a couple hours, so I would just wait for him in the cafeteria. Then I again "snuck out" and enjoyed a relaxing walk home.

So often, the things that make being carfree or even carlight difficult are ridiculous policies that are designed exclusively for dedicated car users. Often, they have you over a barrel where trying to explain your situation will do no good whatsoever, so you're forced to do an "illegal" work-around.

I-Like-To-Bike

No taxi service in your area? Or would the medical facility not accept that mode of transportation?

wphamilton

Taxi was also excluded, unless you could convince the driver to remain in the waiting room for the duration.

Their big concern I think is that people under the influence of anesthesia and pain medication, and otherwise with degraded capacity from their procedure, will lie about taking a bus or cab (and other reasonable scenarios) and get in their car and drive instead. There is a potential liability. So even though there may be imaginative ways around it, they just make it as difficult as possible.

Roody

I think a competent patient is presumed to tell the truth to caregivers. Courts won't allow damages to liars, AFAIK. If the patient is unable to consent--a child or mentally compromised person--it makes sens to have the responsible party remain on the premises.whether they are able to drive, or must not walk out, is usually a straightforward medical decision.

wphamilton

In a more perfect legal world, we could make our own decisions about our competence after a medical procedure, and assume full responsibility of the consequences. To ourselves and anyone else impacted. Therefore they would have no liability, no obligation and no say in the matter. In reality, the center would be held liable if they don't take every reasonable precaution and the patient drove into somebody. It is understandable to that extent. I think they take it too far however.

chewybrian 

No, it is an injustice to ask for the poor to pay for the rich. Your tortured logic is the type used to justify spending government money to build stadiums because it will 'create jobs'. I love football, but I don't see why it should be subsidized, when we could keep the money, or spend it on hospitals or schools.

There are many unintended consequences of any such choice, and economics is complicated, at best. Subsidizing transport means apples are cheaper here in Florida, and oranges cheaper in Michigan. Roody can have orange juice for breakfast and I can have a Granny Smith for lunch. Without the subsidy, we both might have taken a cheaper substitute. The positive spin would be that we 'created jobs' at both ends of I-75. But, is that the real outcome? We took money from both of us to make the goods appear cheaper, so that both of us made choices that would not have made sense if we both had to pay the bill at the register.

If we are choosing against the free market, how can this be the most efficient outcome?

+1

I-Like-To-Bike

Applying your brand of free market "logic" why should anybody subsidize the poor? If they want/ask for goods and services, let 'em pay for it at the true market cost, or do without, eh?

kickstart

But it's you and a few others who set the tone by turning everything into an ideological debate. Someone posts why they went back to owning a car, and the fingers start wagging.

Walter S

I took the logic to be that even those that don't drive benefit materially from the road network so there's nothing wrong with asking the carfree to chip in.

What's tortured about that?

Mobile 155

Very few times do we seem to agree or see eye to eye but just maybe this time is one of them. Medical rules seem to be the one place where advanced planning does little good for the truely car free.

You our description of your recent recovery and one hour walks sounds like we have something in common.

I recently went in for an out patient procedure and was told I had to have a driver drop me off and pick me up. I was also informed I had to have someone stay with me for 48 hours after I got home. I asked what would happen if I lived alone and they said I would have to stay in the hospital till they released me. It didn't matter because I ended up being shipped to another hospital for surgery and a 4 day recovery.

They said I could be released on day 4 only if my family or care giver came and picked me up. To make sure I didn't game the system they wouldn't take the PM wires out of my chest till my wife and best friend arrived to get me. Then the nurse rolled me to the door and waited till the car pulled up before I could leave.

So I agree they can stack the system against those that wish to be "honestly" car free.

tramptrade 

Yes, absolutely it made us think differently.

We are not remote, but we do live in an ocean-side community with limited infrastructure. We can be at the hos[ital in approximately 2-3 minutes by car, whereas an ambulance may take 5-7 just to reach us. In dire emergency that can make all the difference.

cooker

Highway 401 near me is 16 lanes wide in some segments. The ambulance only needs one lane each way. As well, it would be a lot less busy if the highway only had one lane each way.

tramptrade 

I hope that I will never again have to save either of my dog's lives. Do I think trying to save the dog while driving would be prudent? I can't really say for sure. I just know that we would do what we felt we had to do at the time. Whether that involved jumping in the car and getting to emergency services can only be determined during an actual emergency event. Bear in mind that emotions run high and split-second decisions can be made that may or may not be the right ones.

I do know that if something terrible happened and I felt that I could have prevented it by having a car that I can easily afford, I would have a hard time forgiving myself.

Relying on a cab in an emergency pretty much guarantees a disastrous outcome. At the time of the incident we did consider neighbours, but a quick look around showed that no cars were in any driveways - hence no assistance from them was available. We are a tight community and we do look out for each other, but in that instance we were very much on our own.

You may have missed it in my original post but we did get a car that same week.

In my original post I may not have been that clear, but we are not in "poor" health, just that we are in our early 50s and we are not what we used to be.

I will not lie and say we have never used it for non-emergency trips because indeed we have. However, we do remain committed to using it as little as possible and our health does continue to be decent with the amount of exercise we get just living and riding where we do.

A simple 10 minute walk to the local convenience store involves a steep (23%) hill climb. We live at the bottom of a bluff a hundred yards or so from the ocean so to get anywhere here we have to climb some nasty hills. Most people here are in decent shape as we are an active community compared to many, and because of the hills and the beach a simple walk requires more output than somebody who lives on flat ground and never walks on sand.

kickstart

Would 2 lanes be sufficient for all the commercial, service, and public transit traffic of the community?