SchwinnSuburban

For those who are interested in some historical perspective, you might want to look into the book: "Roads Were Not Built For Cars". Essentially the author's premise is that originally the major advocates for road improvements (better maintenance, paving, etc.) were bicyclists not automobiles. For a more detailed sketch the author's website for the book is:

Roads Were Not Built For Cars

It sort of brings a different spin on things with regards to road use. I got the book last Winter, started it but haven't finished it (not because it isn't good, I've had very little free time to read). One key point that sticks out in my mind with regards to road development in the States, originally, when automobiles started to make the scene, there was a push to establish separate roads for cars and paths for bicycles, the bicycling groups of the day felt that this would relegate them to 2nd class citizenry so they fought for just having roads to be shared by both cars and bicycles. Unfortunately they didn't realize how ubiquitous cars would become...

Mobile 155

Great book. I was on the waiting list before it was published and I thought Carlton Reid pointed out several things about road building and cycling that were interesting. The freedom to explore the country side and how they even had a hand is early suburban growth. But even more interesting was how many leaders in the Cycling movement became leaders in the early auto community.

tandempower

This doesn't surprise me. If driving culture had evolved as a supplement to cycling instead of a replacement, we would all be on the same "mobility" team. I think it's mainly because of the cultural switch where economics began to drive culture instead of the other way around that cycling was overridden by driving. People figured out they could sell their souls to the economy by making lifestyle choices that stimulated more economic activity and they figured this would be a good thing instead of realizing it would undermine their freedom to self-determine their own lifestyles in many ways. I'm sure marketing psychology and the growth of broadcast media had a lot to do with it, but at some level people are just inherently susceptible to selling out what's truly good in favor of what generates more money.

Machka 

It's all about the speed!!

Being able to go further faster.

Dave Cutter

Of course, I've voted for nearly half a century. But I never once have convinced myself that I was anything greater than a person.

These threads always end up as the same place.... Fantasizing histories of an golden bicycle era much grander and greater than ever existed.., with grandeur hopes of it's return.

But never a plan. Never an effort. Never one finger lifted..... Much higher than needed to type. Nothing. And NOTHING... Is the plan you've made for you non-movement.

cooker

We each contribute in our own various small ways - personal choices, group activities, voting, and so on, including debating here, which of course involves typing and dreaming - you say it like that's a bad thing.

Roody

By calling environmentalism a religion, you have effectively cut off any possibility of goal-oriented conversation with environmentalists. In effect, you're saying, "Environmentalism is your religion, so there's no point in even discussing it with you." That's nice for you, because you think you have won the argument, but in reality you have just prevented rational discussion.

Roody

I'm still not clear on what exactly is bothering you.

If you're wondering if people in the city and people in the country can both be environmentalists, the answer is "of course." Some of the greatest thinkers in environmentalism have come from rural and even wilderness backgrounds. Most urban environmentalists value time spent in the country, for a vacation or for years at a time. Nobody really thinks one is "better" than the other--only that they might prefer one to the other. Where do you think you're reading anything to the contrary on this forum?

If you don't like reading about carfree city folks, don't open those threads. Personally, I like reading about folks in both the country and the city, so I don't really see this dichotomy that bothers you so much. We don't all have to be identical in every way. It's enough that we're all carfree/carlight for whatever reasons. We have a lot in common, even if there's much that separates us. That's life in the big city. Or in the small town. If you don't like a lively discussion with some agreements and some disagreements, then you won't much like internet forums about any topic.

Walter S

We're all "just" one person. But our lifestyles expressed as a collective whole still have the power to change the world. I myself am just "me". My contribution is just my own. None of us can offer more. But we shouldn't feel less-than significant. Together we possess the power of change. The significance of that change is based on our numbers.

I don't need to be an activist to change the world. I'm doing my part to only live life as I think it should be done. If I influence others to do any similarly by demonstrating how doable and rewarding it might be then that's all the better. But all I need worry with is myself to be making a worthwhile contribution to our shared physical and cultural environment and natural resources.

Have you not witnessed the huge improvement to bicycle infrastructure and respect for cyclists that's occurred in the last 40 years? Maybe that's not true in your area? It's true in my own area and many other places and from what I can tell represents a general trend. Many wonderful bicycle trails have been built including the C&O, our (local) Silver Commet Trail, Atlanta Beltline, Stone Mountain Trail, and on and on. Those places didn't just spring up. People worked for years to acquire land rights and materials and tons of skilled and unskilled labor.

You call that "NOTHING"?

Walter S

Well put Roody. There's no reason at all that we can't all be part of the same "movement" just because the details of our local environments vary.

Our "common ground" is the joy to be found in the simple pleasures and clean living to be found in LCF.

Dave Cutter

You should be congratulated on the tremendous success of your efforts!!!!!!! Of course.,.. There are many others.,. Particularly in my area who actually worked tirelessly for decade's to improve local park-MUP infrastructure. You should write a book to inform them of how to accomplish the same goals.... Without the efforts. Certainly.... IF YOU ARE CORRECT.... They were foolish for working so hard for so much of their lives to accomplish the same as you.

Dave Cutter

Being honest.., is typically how productive conversations are started.

Dave Cutter

Yes. Yes I do.

Walter S

I'm glad to see that you understand that people actually DO work for change as well as accomplish it rather than claim that NOTHING happens (although you seem to think it was my personal accomplishment - I'm only one of many)

Dave Cutter

Yes many of us do work and make efforts for positive change.... Almost always in vain. And almost never to pat ourselves on the back. The actual work... Is never complete.

You fail to see the big picture. You apparently believe these trendy MUPs will stand a test of time. Recent trends.... Would point the other direction. Your personal efforts don't seem to even include staying currant of recent changes.... Or even your own forum posts.

Walter S

Who knows what you're talking about. I don't see positive change around cycling slowing down. If anything it is speeding up as many young people take up cycling for practical transportation.

Mobile 155

I guess I expected more from the concept than what I perceive. I see Dave's point maybe because I find more social and political content in what ever form of environmentalism is practiced here. Looking up the car free movement in a computer search engine shows a lot about why the movement is the way it is. The invention of concepts or phrases we have seen show the differences that separate between people just living their lives as best as they can with tools available to them and a movement that exists to be anti the most successful transportation system since feet.

It it seems as if there is a discontent with how easy the average person can travel to the point that some have to be against it. I just don't think you will gather the support to put the genie back in the bottle. I have been to nations that have lots of car free people and it is not the paradise so many here describe. I have even seen posts in this forum explaining how unimportant my having a smaller carbon foot print is because at least the others are doing the best they can. Strange movement.

Walter S

Cars are a very "easy" way to travel. But they're not "successful" at things I care about including enjoying my limited time on this planet, staying healthy, and taking care of the environment.

I'm mainly just against it for me. You can drive all you want. I may share some frustration sometimes about how much of a focus on cars there is. But I don't expect to change much there. Just venting. And I have easier choices that make LCF more practical than for many people.

I'm not "against cars". That would be a crazy radical position.

Mobile 155

No you may be one faction of the LCF forum but there are so many that there can never be a united front or even a common goal. unless I missed it you don't contend that nirvana can only be had if we stay within 40 miles of where we live. You in effect are just an interested person rather than a true believer in the movement that many deny they are a part of. But it exists and some here promote the catechism of the movement itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car-free_movement

Do I believe it is healthier to walk or ride a bike short distances every day? Do I believe mass transit, taxi, Urber or light rail is any healthier than driving yourself? Nope and I don't believe it is my place to question how someone came to the conclusion of using whatever form of transportation they want.

I don't for a second believe people are interested in becoming or have become environmentalists so they look into the LCF forum or even the LCF movement. I think the most disturbing idea expressed by some here is that people blindly and against their will gave up their freedom to cars, trucks, motorcycles or other motorized forms of transport. If people wanted to walk they would walk. If they wanted to ride a bike they could ride a bike. Not having the time to do so just to get to work has nothing to do with the other 16 hours a day. Yet people given the choice would rather not walk or ride a bike every day any more than they have to. In my world that decision is their's to make. I cannot see any reason to join a movement that wants to change that.

wolfchild

I am no longer car-free, I gave up my freedom and bought a vehicle 1 month ago and now I am a slave to a motor vehicle.....In all seriousness, I feel like I have a lot more freedom being car-light then when I was car-free, life is a lot easier, it's nice to have an option to drive on some days, LCF is very impractical as a long term lifestyle in this modern society, especially here in North America. Things may be different in Europe. I am sure that in Europe many people are car-free for practical reasons, it's a different lifestyle over there... Here is North America there are only two reasons why anybody would be car-free: Reason#1 is economic hardship and Reason#2 is ideology, car-free movement is almost like some type of a religious movement and the smug attitude on certain LCF'ers is just really offensive.

denis123

Please don't speak for others. I live in North America and I have absolutely no reason to own a car.

Mobile 155

There you have hit a point. As members of society we make a choice on transportation that works best for each of us and our families. The idea that everyone else may have chosen a different way to get from point A to point B should not cause us much concern because we can still be as car free or car light as we like.

Enviromentalism is is a side issue and considering how many LCF people live it isn't a main concern. The only common ground I have seen so far is between those that like bicycles.

Roody

I don't feel you're being honest. I think you're casting people as religious zealots simply because they happen to disagree with you. This is just a debate weapon for you, a way to cast doubt on your opponent by clouding the discussion with irrelevant and absurd comparisons to religion.

There's a perfectly good discussion going on all around you. People are making good points on all sides of the issue. Try to tune into it.

Roody

I think you're making all this up. I don't see any evidence of this horrible anti-car exclusivist movement that you are railing against. Since you steadfastly refuse to use the quotation function on the forum, I guess we're supposed to just take your word for it that these anti-car fanatics exist here.

Personally. I'm not anti-car or anti-car owners. I think cars are a good choice today because they're basically the only choice. But they also have many drawbacks, which are mainly self-evident.

I also think we are short-sighted and ignorant if we don't try to see a way beyond cars to the next stage of transportation. We have to allow and develop alternative transportation, so that people have a REAL choice to remain mobile without owning a car. I'm definitely not anti-car, but I am pro-bike, pro-sidewalk, pro-bus, and pro-train. If I had to guess, I would guess taht you don't really think that much differently from me on this matter.

cooker

You have yet to tell us what your objectives or aspirations are. What did you expect from the concept?
Everything is political.

Yes, if you start with the assumption that car driving is overall a good thing, I guess it's hard to find common ground with people who don't see it that way. It's the most lethal, the most expensive, the most polluting, the most wasteful, and the most selfish system, but aside from that I suppose it is pretty good.

LOL. If you see nothing wrong with our car-based system, I guess you can easily jump to the wrong conclusion that people who oppose it are just jealous or have some other base motive, but that is not the case. They are opposed to it (or at least to its excesses) because they see something wrong with it that escapes you.

False analogy. A first world country that scales back its car use is not suddenly going to become a third world country that can't afford basic necessities, let alone cars.