Originally Posted by GeoKrpan

I have long felt that LCF, DIY, tiny houses, off the grid, Buy Nothing Day, houselessness, van living, etc., are responses to the shrinking wealth of average Americans.

Originally Posted by Machka

Quite possibly, and it's a little bit hard to relate to when you don't live in the USA.


What's also hard to relate to is the idea (quoted from Roody's post) "If you can even make realistic choices about using a car a lot less, you live in a place that's fairly unusual for its support of carfree alternatives."

Most places I've lived, it is quite normal to have a variety of methods of transportation at my disposal.

In some parts of the world, people just live car free or car light as a matter of course.

It's interesting watching Escape to the Country episodes, for example, and one of the features a lot of people look for is the ability to walk to the pub and shops. From watching that show and others, and from my own experiences in the UK, that just seems quite a normal thing to do in a country town in the UK.

Originally Posted by joao_pimentel

But for the majority of high-dense urban areas, private automobile is literally an expensive irrational urban cancer.

Originally Posted by kickstart

I think its somewhat pertinent to consider that its in an intentionally remote location where ease of access was undesirable.........
Not a good example.(Space Center)

Originally Posted by lasauge

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of telling anyone how they ought to manage their money, with the assumptions and judgement that implies, but I do think it's fair to say that it's a tragedy that thrift has disappeared from the list of popular American virtues.

Specific to the car issue, we should remember that many people live places where it's tough to get by without cars because of decades of public policy favoring car-centric development. The solution isn't to berate those who are trapped, it's to get involved in efforts to reform our cities and repair them to be human-scale and more equitable for everyone.

Originally Posted by Roody

I think it's a shame that so many people feel they must have a car in order to survive in our current society. If carfree infrastructure were widespread, I'm convinced that many more people would choose LCF as a way to save money and spend it on something more enjoyable than overpriced personal transportation, which is all that a car is.

Something else that's very unfortunate is that there is no encouragement here on the internet for those who are trying to rely less on cars--whether to save money or for some other reasons. This forum is almost totally dominated now by trolls who actually despise carfree living. They send out these hateful vibes to those who would try to become more carfree, in wave after wave of hateful, disrespectful posts.

R.I.P. LCF!

Originally Posted by Mobile 155

If people cannot afford a $500.00 repair bill I can only imagine how long it has been since they have seen a dentist? Imagine getting a bill for 13k and that is after insurance pays their part.

Originally Posted by chewybrian

Try riding your bike to Disney, then. Really, you are taking your life in your hands to ride in Orlando, with the exception of a couple bike trails.

Originally Posted by chewybrian

This is a fallacy of logic known as false dilemna. You have purposely over and under-stated facts to suit the conclusion to which you would like to direct the reader. Further, you have chosen extremes of possible choices, ignoring moderate choices in the middle. Is your neighborhood the only island of relative safety in the entire lower 48?

You said $1000 represents fuel costs, and then sum up as if this is your only cost. You have to pay for insurance, depreciation, registration, and maintenance. If you do it yourself, the parts still cost money, and your time still has value, as you already stated. $1000 a year for fuel at 25 mpg and $2.50 a gallon would have you driving about 8,000 miles a year(gas prices fluctuate, and your mileage may vary; you may be over/under 8000; it's just a guess). At 52 cents a mile, it would run you about $4000. If you are frugal and smart, you might hammer it down to $3000 or even $2000 at the extreme, I guess. This may not be important money to you, but it is to many.

Remember, too, that much of the cost of driving is already sunk before you hit the road, as we subsidize low fuel prices, and pay for much of the road maintenance with money from general funds(don't forget police, courts, firemen, environmental impacts...). The real cost of driving is closer to a dollar a mile. Now, if you had to pay that cost by the mile, would you think twice about locating 30 miles from work?

Read carefully, and you can see that I am not car bashing. A car is a great tool for many situations, and a wonderful convenience if you can afford it. I criticize the system which makes them appear artificially cheap, and forces people to pay whether they drive or not. If we simply priced driving at the actual cost, people would naturally choose substitutes to save money to some extent. We would build neighborhoods differently, and accommodate the increased demand for other forms of transportation with more public transportation choices, and more bike trails and sidewalks. This would be the result of free choices in a free economy.

I also reserve criticism for those who never make a budget. You might find, as I did, that a car takes an unacceptably large share of 'discretionary' income. After paying for necessities of housing, food, health care and such, my car was taking more than half of what was left. It should be no surprise that, at that point, I was one of those unable to write a check for a $500 repair. So, I made a difficult, but rewarding decision to go without a car. The result was a new-found ability to save and invest, buy a modest home (with no mortgage and no stabbings and shootings), and think about retirement as more than a daydream.

At some point, when a car represents a smaller chunk of my spending, I may get another. Or health or other circumstances may make me buy one. But, for me, going without has been well worth the effort. The inputs to the equation are different for everyone, and certainly a car makes sense for a lot of people. But, they should at least make a fair assessment with eyes open, and not torture the facts to suit their desires.

Seriously, is it extreme to say that people should be allowed to drive, or do most any other activity, as long as the pay the full cost of their choice? Why should driving or any other activity enjoy favored, prepaid status over other choices? Of course, most people wish to ignore the costs of the things they want, which is why half of them don't have $500 in the bank--Yikes!

Originally Posted by Roody

Not totally. The problem is, we have built up communities where it's almost impossible for people to survive without a car. In many places, alternatives such as walking, biking, and public transit are so poor that most people cannot use them. And everything is so far apart that it's difficult to negotiate the distances on foot or even a bike. In many areas of sprawl, it's even difficult to plan decent bus routes because of the vastness of areas to be served.

Another problem is that people are not tuned into alternatives to cars. Car companies, oil companies, insurance companies, etc. all invest billions of dollars to instill the car choice as the first or only "choice" for most people. Advocates for alternatives such as biking, walking, and transit have only tiny fractions of the advertising dollars to promote their alternative choices.

In other words, car ownership is not a "choice" for most people. It's a requirement if they want to live a decent life with a job, education, travel, and cultural opportunities. They don't make a financial "choice" to own a car. They are required to own a car because of the poorly planned and built environment that they live in. Only in the few areas where decent non-car infrastructure and awareness exist, can car ownership actually be called a "choice."

The other expenses that our merry band of posters have been comparing car ownership to--such as phones, drugs, restaurant meals, etc.--more truly represent "choices". But car ownership is more of a necessity--and an expensive one--for many people. We must rebuild our cities and suburbs before we can truly think of car ownership as an optional luxury.

Originally Posted by RPK79

You may not mean it to come across the way it does, but reread these statements again:



Why? Is there something wrong with cars?



If that's not an anti-car statement I don't know what it is.

Edit: even your 'signature' is an anti-car statement. No one calls a car a 'cage' if they are pro or neutral on cars.

Originally Posted by Ridefreemc

Roody is stating a fact about an inanimate item, but I do not see him criticising people. Maybe that is what the anti-car statements in this post are really about. Somebody is taking it personal.

Originally Posted by rossiny

do u think this would ever be possible given how many jobs cars make and what a tremendous engine cars ,roads, and oil provide in our current economic system?

Originally Posted by Ridefreemc

Tatoos, cigs, and cell phones are paid for though. Priorities man!

Originally Posted by Roody

Do you really believe that most lower income people are tattooed smokers? Really?

Originally Posted by RPK79

I never said he was criticizing people. I don't know what you're talking about...

I don't take it personal. I just don't like that some have taken this forum to be their political soapbox even though the mods have specifically said this is not to be a political sub forum.

Originally Posted by Ridefreemc

Having an opinion about the value of owning and using a car is a political discussion?

Originally Posted by Ridefreemc

Earlier in the post there was reference to lower income and others with higher incomes. I know this has gone on for 4 pages so it may have drifted to lower income exclusively, but that was not my point. I see entire families with smart phones, and that is 2-4 kids + mom and dad on I-phones, some sporting tattoos, and thankfully not as many smoking nowadays - and these are in middle to high income areas. Same thought at the bus terminal where yes lower income riders are the most prevalent (don't take my word for it, we have studied the ridership) and you will see the vast majority smoking, sporting tattoos, while talking on or carrying a cell phone. Add that up and you are looking at multiple/many thousands of dollars/year.

Fact is, we (high, low, medium incomes) spend on many things that are not really all that necessary, so that makes it hard to afford that $500 car fix.

Originally Posted by Roody

Enlighten me. I see absolutely no connection between building bike lanes and losing jobs in the automotive sector. Installing improved infrastructure should create jobs, not destroy them. I'm talking about increasing choices for everybody--not taking something away from anybody. I just think our communities will be better places to live if the options for non-car transportation are also supported.

Originally Posted by Roody

Your unspoken assumption is that cars are "necessary" but cell phones and cigarettes are not. But that's only true because we as a society have made choices that make the car more necessary. Nobody ever asked me--IOW I never had a choice--if cities should be built in a way that makes them practically uninhabitable without car ownership.

I have a middle income. After being carfree for many years, I can no longer "afford" a car. Not because of lack of income, but because I long ago developed the practice of spending my income on other things--things that maybe I couldn't afford if I were paying average amounts for a car.

Bus riders with phones are spending their incomes on something they want more than a car also. There's nothing wrong with that. They have the ability to make that choice, and personally I think it's a pretty good choice.

But if they lived somewhere that had inadequate bus service, they would probably be forced to spend some of their income on a car instead. They wouldn't have a phone, but they would be forced to buy a car instead.

I'm just saying that life is better for everybody when people can make REALISTIC choices about their personal transportation. Like, "should I drive to work or take the bus today?" That's a real choice. Not, "should I drive to work or should I quit my job because there's no other way to get there?" That is NOT a real choice. Neither is "I had to quit my job because my car broke down after I spent all my money paying for it, and there's no bus that goes to where I work."

Originally Posted by RPK79

It has nothing to do with living car free. Besides, the topic isn't straying into the 'value of owning a car' it's discussing the societal costs of car ownership of the masses. This may be a topic that many LCF people hold near and dear, but it is decidedly, divisively, political and therefore belongs in the P&R forum.