cooker

The person who posted the Nolte picture said it was the "outside" perception, not ours.

Machka 

+1

Half the people where I work ride bicycles ... it's considered quite a normal thing to do. And just about everyone walks.

Machka 

This was indeed my situation when I was car-free. I had a good job, I could have afforded to purchase a car ... I just didn't want to at that time.


I actually find the assumption hinted at, insinuated, and alluded to here now and then that "car-free = poverty stricken" to be a little bit insulting.

Rcrxjlb

Back to the original question: Why buy a car and give up living car-free?

1.New job too far away
2.Knee gave out, can't cycle past 2 miles
3.Just hit the lottery, gotta buy a mansion & a Bentley!
4.Girlfriend pregnant, gonna need a mini-van now...!

I-Like-To-Bike

You are correct, I stand corrected, the outside perception might be held by some people, somewhere, as maybe unscientifically noticed by somebody. Nobody previously posted the picture-association on LCF or posted anything about LCF posters' views on this alleged perception.

chewybrian 

I specifically chose the Nick Nolte picture because it was about drunk driving. I was responding to another poster who stated his impression that DUI's were a primary reason many of us were here. I also have had people tell me they assumed I had a DUI because I was not driving, and I have seen others post the same experience.

When you earlier presented your perception as fact, in order to blast someone else, google said the truth was 180 degrees in the other direction. Evidently, you did not feel that needed a reply. I presented my perception as my perception, and nothing more. Instead of stating your perception to be different, or stating facts pointing in any direction, you simply make a vague implication that I could be mistaken, and therefore should feel bad. OK, I feel bad.

Roody

I don't think there are ANY of what are being called "true believers" on this forum. Personally, I have never made statements any more extreme than what you are saying here, except to add that I do believe that some highway funding should go to construction of bike/walking infrastructure, rather than designing streets and highways exclusively for cars. I wouldn't think this would be SO controversial a position to post on a bicycle forum!

I think it's revealing that those who are complaining about "extremist" carfree posts have consistently refused my requests that they post direct quotations from the posts that they think are offensive or "anti-car".

Machka 

Why not post a direct link to the thread/post you're referring to.

Roody

I can't find it. But you're right. If I'm complaining about people not quoting posts they object to, I shouldn't do the same thing. I will delete my post. Would you mind doing the same with yours? Or at least, would you please delete the quotation of my post? (It doesn't do much good if I delete my post, but it's still published in your post that quotes it.)

Meerkat80

We haven't had a car for a year, it wasn't a huge ideological decision, we just weren't using it, it was falling apart and we live somewhere where cycling is popular and safe and public transport is good. When the kids were young we lived out in the middle of nowhere and a car was really useful.

At the moment I'm happy without one but who knows how I'll feel if the kids go off somewhere to college, or one of us gets ill, but at the minute this is how we live.
I agree with people assuming you've got a DUI though, that's happened a lot. A bit like if you don't drink. My sister stopped drinking for health reasons and everyone assumed she was either pregnant or an alcoholic

Walter S

I get the essence of your position. But what is a "true believer"? What kind of "extreme" position do they hold?

Ekdog

Firstly, welcome to the forum.

Secondly, your point about people assuming that you're a drunkard or whatever: that's something that comes up a lot in this forum. What I can't figure out is why they care. I stopped giving a **** about what such people think when I was a teenager.

chewybrian 

It depends who you ask. To some, it is extreme to say that we should increase taxes on gas to pay for roads. It really is over the line to think I should not have to pay for the luxury of others. Some think it is extreme to require safe access to streets to anyone who is not in a car. I mean, who do I think I am, to say I should be able to walk to the 7-11?

But, it mostly means the straw man hippie hipsters that a few pro-car zealots use for target practice when they don't feel like using logic. They embiggen positions taken about environmental issues and such as if we all want to outlaw powered locomotion and have the government provide us all with pedal powered zeppelins.

To be fair, there are a few times when we get a little day-dreamy in here, and have ideas that may not be practical for now. And, it is fair and even amusing to take a shot at us at those times. But, a couple people have taken that as a full-time job with over-time pay, taking shots when they are needed, and when they are not.

It gets old.

I-Like-To-Bike

While a couple of people seem to working full time as unofficial LCF hall monitor/content and style moderator/"needed" pot shot approval authority.
Different strokes, eh? Happy Thanksgiving!

jon c. 

I don't know anyone who would think someone who was carfree was so because of a DUI. Perhaps it depends on where you live. If there is any assumption made, it is a thought that maybe the carfree person has a fear of driving, which is perceived as a bit unnatural in this culture.

Mobile 155

While it is off topic I define a true believer differently than simply picking on dreamers.
1. A true believer is anti car and thinks the world would be better off without them.
2. A true believer believe cars caused the growth of the suburbs.
3. A true believer thinks the suburbs are a bad thing.
4. A true believer thinks the only solution is a massive move to dense urban living.
5. A true believer thinks people who left the dense urban core are dodging the tax support they need to function.
6. A true believer believes car ownership is a social issue.
7. A true believer not only believes we should all live close together we should have to use public transport that makes us commute close together at the same time.
8. A true believer thinks all of the social problems of large urban areas are solvable even if they are getting worse.
9. A true believer thinks there is no solution that includes personal powered transportation.
10. A true believer thinks that if people just tried commuting by foot, bike or mass transit they would never want cars. (The examples of China, Japan and India are ignored or rationalized.)
11. A true believer will accept less pay or fewer work hours to be a true believer.

As a bonus above and beyond true believer.
12. A Grand High Wizard true believer would condem meat and only eat organic grown local produce.

while this list was full of hyperbole and intended as humor the idea is there to a greater or lesser extent. With all of the diversity mentioned these true believers seem to live here in a greater degree, not saying they are more than a composit, than any other forum in BF forums.

have a great Thanks Giving even the Grand High Wizards. (Smile they are just words)

Walter S

Fear of driving? What, just because it's among the top ten things that will kill you??

Ekdog

They believe in such radical ideas as carfree living. How shocking!

tandempower

Is specially usage of bad and/or awkward grammar in policing of bad grammar is not likely to improve grammar anymore then grammar policing improves grammar although maybe more in some more wrong cases like this one currently being written here

But people who intentionally prefer to LCF may have better reasons than people who just drive because that's what they do.

Of course it is, but the disturbing thing about the "throw in the towel metaphor" is that it shouldn't be a fight to LCF in the first place.

This is a spurious comparison that is often made without considering that widespread driving might not be part of what makes the developed world better; in fact, it is a big part of why we haven't prospered more for all our advances than we have.

Sprawl and density are not the only two choices. Sprawl occurs largely because all the land area used for roads and parking work like spacers in between the areas people use when they're not in the car. Likewise, residential housing is often located far from other areas in order to get away from the bustle of all the motor-traffic. How many people seek a home far away from a busy highway or multilane road vs. how many would seek to live a long way from a popular non-motorized path/road?

And as for the argument that LCF brings crime, that falls into the same category with the argument that guns kill people instead of people killing people, only it's worse since obviously more crime is committed by car than by bicycle or walking/transit.

People accepting UHI as a fact of life won't stop them from wreaking havoc. Air conditioning displaces the heat from buildings AND adds to it, so dealing with urban heat using air conditioning is not a sustainable solution.

To bring it back to the thread topic, UHI heat and lack of shade are all reasons to give up LCF, but doing so adds to the vicious cycle that causes the heat and lack of shade in the first place, which is the need for all the lanes and parking lots for everyone to drive and stay out of the heat.

kickstart

"Believe" being the key word, rather than those who just are because it works.

wolfchild

LCF doesn't have to be a system of some radical beliefs.

Machka 

+1

It can just be something that's convenient at the time.

Walter S

I find it hard to consider it convenient. Worthwhile and rewarding are words that work though.

Machka 

It was for me when I was carfree.

I know how to do a few things with a car, but really did not want the hassle of having to buy, insure, and maintain a vehicle ... especially that maintenance part. For me, it was more convenient to just hop on a bicycle or bus to get to work without worrying about that strange noise or whether my car had fuel or whatever.

From where I lived, it took only slightly more time to go places by bicycle or bus than by car, so having a car wasn't a huge benefit.

Where I lived, I had to pay for parking. $25/month, IIRC, which isn't much, but hey, $300 in my pocket rather than going toward parking seemed like a good idea.

And I was training for randonneuring events, so commuting by bicycle was a convenient way to get a bit more saddle time in.

cooker

1. A true believer is anti car and thinks the world would be better off without them. A lot fewer of them would be a good idea.
2. A true believer believe cars caused the growth of the suburbs. Partially true. Suburbs have always existed in and around cities and grew out in spikey projections with the advent of rail However they jumped a couple of orders of magnitude with the arrival of cars.
3. A true believer thinks the suburbs are a bad thing. Like any other 'thing' they have negative unintended consequences which could be greatly ameliorated by ensuring suburbanites pay more for the costs they impose on others, thus encouraging some people to make the rational decision to live with higher density to save costs. That's a normal trade-off that everybody grapples with when they buy a home - not some kind of socially engineered conspiracy as you seem to think.
4. A true believer thinks the only solution is a massive move to dense urban living.People can live where they want as long as they can afford it. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, the trouble with promoting urban sprawl is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
5. A true believer thinks people who left the dense urban core are dodging the tax support they need to function.I'll pay the cost of my lifestyle, you look after yours.
6. A true believer believes car ownership is a social issue. To the extent that it harms other people, of course it is. If car owners captured their exhaust, paid for their pavement and avoided running you and me off the road there would be no issue.
7. A true believer not only believes we should all live close together we should have to use public transport that makes us commute close together at the same time.See 4. People can live however they want.
8. A true believer thinks all of the social problems of large urban areas are solvable even if they are getting worse.They're not getting worse and of course "all problems" cannot be solved.
9. A true believer thinks there is no solution that includes personal powered transportation.Does that include jetpacks? Argument from extremes.
10. A true believer thinks that if people just tried commuting by foot, bike or mass transit they would never want cars. (The examples of China, Japan and India are ignored or rationalized.)It's pretty obvious a lot of people want cars. However as Amsterdam etc. demonstrate, a fairly large portion of them will happily give them up, given the right circumstances.
11. A true believer will accept less pay or fewer work hours to be a true believer.There are a few people here who deliberately work less than full time permanent jobs for life style reason, like Machka and Rowan who work for a while and then travel, but it has nothing to do with being true believers on your list.

As a bonus above and beyond true believer.
12. A Grand High Wizard true believer would condem meat and only eat organic grown local produce.Probably good advice.

Enjoy your holiday.