cooker

Nobody is limited to that, simply through not owning a car, not even Leisesturm's ex sister-in-law, and certainly not Stevie Wonder.

cooker

I think you mean unless you can afford to own one.

FXjohn

Stevie Wonder does a lot of commuting by bike.,


derp

Dahon.Steve

Wow, Just Wow!


You travel in one day what I travel in one week taking the bus and train to work. No wonder envy us! LOL!


Your thread is fair and not like others who come here to mock the carfree forum members. However, wherever this a controversial topic like how those living on minimum wage can benefit from being carfree, it's removed from the forum which is a shame since there are many who can benefit.




We have to start a thread on the steps one can take to begin their carfree life. I mean that, there are too many people who come to this forum looking for answers and we need a step by step guide that stays on the front page.

cooker

So how limited is he?

Dahon.Steve

I think it maybe the opposite. It's those who have motorized transport that are moving all over the place. However, if I lived 34 miles from my job, there's no way I'd be living there. If people move to become carfree, that's a good enough reason to move.

FXjohn

why are you making fun of Stevie Wonder just because he can't drive or ride a bike?

mr,grumpy 

I'm not sure where you got the "facts" from but they run counter to every thing that I have ever seen in my 50 years on this planet, 30 of them bing in public service. Have you ever been to the inner city? Poor rural areas? Please cite any reference to any study done by any one that bears out any of these claims.

mr,grumpy 

Oh no! I'm not mocking at all! Not intentionally any way. Those really were nothing more than a series of observations that I have made over time. To be fair, the "data" included posts in the Commuting and Utility forums as well, but to me, those things are part-and-parcel with living car free. I think that being car-free, or at least car-lite is a great way to go about your existence. It's my own, odd personal view that no matter how one chooses to get around there should be a certain amount of autonomy to it. Cars or bikes, or even walking are fine (in my mind) whereas standing around waiting of a train or bus is not. Here's a fun fact, if the local computer train is running ON TIME, it takes LONGER to get to the City (outskirts: there is no train directly to the city center) than driving in normal-bad rush hour traffic and costs MORE than the cost of fuel and parking to drive into town. And, once you get into the city by train, you still have to get a bus or subway to where you need to be. There is NO public transit that links the smaller cities that ring the main city. You have to go all the way in and then all the way back out.




I think that is a great idea. Personally, I took a leap because some one told me that I couldn't do it. That's my personality though, and not like a lot of other people. I think that there are a lot of folks who would benefit greatly from a gentler "how to" guide that is typically available here.

cooker

blind people were cited earlier as an example of those being forced into LCF. You commented that LCF limits them to the distance they can cycle. If am pointing out that blind people don't have to be limited to that.

wilfried

I live in a big city, so yes, I've been to the inner city, and the poor parts of it. I grew up in the suburbs. I have little experience with rural areas. I've read a number of articles over time arguing that urban sprawl, and the lack of transportation, or the high cost of car dependent transportation, affect upward mobility and contribute to poverty. Here are a few I could find quickly:

Where Urban Sprawl Makes It Tougher for the Poor to Rise Up the Social and Economic Ranks - CityLab

Urban sprawl and lack of public provision leads to ‘transport poverty’

Does urban sprawl hold down upward mobility?

How suburban sprawl hurts the poor - Vox

Roody

He knows that.

cooker

It's not really an issue of autonomy. When you drive you are not completely autonomous as you are not going wherever you want at your own speed. You are relying on society to provide roads that go somewhere close to where you need them to go and traffic lights and police and a whole raft of other services that aid you, but also partly determine your route and speed. If I choose to drive down Bathurst instead of Ossington, and have to wait at a series of traffic lights, are my choices more autonomous than if I chose the Yonge subway over the Mt. Pleasant express bus and had to wait a few minutes at the station? Really the differences are in convenience and cost to ourselves and others, not autonomy.

wilfried

The distinction you make is arbitrary, by fiat, of your own making. While it is true that most people on this forum are privileged enough to be able to choose to live car free rather than to have it forced on them, living car free is living car free, whether by choice or by circumstance. I've on occasion read people who post here who are not car free by choice, or are forced by circumstance to make a difficult choice. Is this board really so paternal that they have to defer to those who have a choice in the matter? Can they not speak to their own circumstances from their own perspective? Why do you get to erase people simply by drawing a line and saying, oh, they're not us?

You dismissed the problem of lack of transportation in a car dependent community as that of some benighted third world country, or of the "squalid slums" that can be safely ignored. So again, you erase people, simply by saying, they're not us. Lacking a car, which is "living car free," and lacking transportation options, is a real problem for many people, with real social costs, right here in many areas of this country. Yes, this issue is invisible to most of us on this board, but that doesn't mean it's not real, or not relevant. This is an aspect of "living car free," and of car dependence in this country (and we're on this board because we're trying to escape car dependence, right?), which is very much relevant to this board.

Roody

I read cooker's post very differently. Plus from reading many posts he's written over the years, I am certain that you're mischaracterizing him. There probably are a couple members who do fit your description but cooker isn't like that. He definitely doesn't need me to fight his battles, but I hate to see someone misunderstood like this.

I do, BTW, agree with the main point of your post. I just think it's misdirected.

wilfried

I don't want to be unfair, and I don't know cooker's posting history (I tend to read posts as posts, and don't keep track of who's posting). I'm not sure how else to read these posts. I'm willing to discuss if needed or wanted.

mr,grumpy 

That makes no sense at all. Under that definition the only time that you could be truly autonomous is walking through a publicly owned open field. Every other possible form of transportation makes you dependent on doe one else's infrastructure. Even hiking in the wilderness you have to stay on the trail.

I'm sure that there are lots and lots of people who don't mind waiting around for another adult to show up, take control of thier lives, and bring them on a predetermined rout (using those same roads and traffic lights and exposed to the same hazards) to bring them some place close to where they want to be at wich point they STILL have to reply an autonomous transportation mode, like the bike or the boot, to get to where they ACTUALLY want to go.

Also, why did you single out "driving" and ignore cycling and walking?

cooker

Sorry if my post came across as elitist or exclusionary, as I was actually trying to make the opposite point. Without making a value judgement, there is clearly a distinction, albeit a fuzzy one, between people who are car-free/car/light by choice, and those who are living that way unwillingly. I think it is clear that the forum was created primarily with the first group in mind – the description refers to “giving up your car for good” (presumably a deliberate act) and “preferring” alternate modes of transportation. However the point I was apparently failing to make is that there is no reason why the forum can’t serve both groups, and everybody in between. The only part of my post I would perhaps change is the last sentence – everybody here can learn from everybody else.

Again I wasn't attempting to dismiss anything. I don't think it is correct to say that people who lose their ability to drive due to blindness or other reasons are all mandatorily car-free. Sure, they don't drive and most (but not all) don't own cars, but if their disability and other circumstances also mean that they have barriers to walking, cycling and taking public transit, and instead have to be driven everywhere, they have not become more car-free, they have become more car-dependent.

cooker

I guess as a regular transit user I was a bit dismayed to be told I am lacking autonomy. Transit systems increase autonomy by increasing the options available to people. If a blind fellow has to be driven to school every day by his sister, and then the city installs a bus route between his house and the school and he is able to use it, he has become more autonomous.

Machka 

Personally, I like taking the bus ... and it does provide me with a certain degree of independence.

-- I can choose which bus I take, at what time. If I need to get to university or work early, I catch an earlier bus. If I'm running a bit late, that's OK, there's a bus for that.

-- I can choose where I want to catch the bus and where I want to get off the bus. At times, I get off the bus several stops early so that I can walk more. Other times I prefer to be dropped at my place of employment.

-- I can use the bus to get to work, university, appointments, and home. Most of the places I need to go during the week can be accessed by bus. Those that can't, can be accessed by walking.

-- When I'm on the bus I am free to sleep, browse the internet, respond to threads on Bikeforums, read a book, study, look at the scenery out the window ...
And for me, that's the best part of taking the bus. I don't have to drive! I don't have to focus on traffic situations! I can just relax and do stuff I prefer doing.

mr,grumpy 

Totally true if you look at it from a bottom up point of view! MORE choices and freedoms are clearly better than less. It's funny. I have a close relative that is legally blind. He goes everywhere! He's been more places in this nation that I ever will and won't ride in any car, ever (bad accident scared him). It's all feet and buses and airplanes for him. He does just fine.

Roody

You can pretend you're autonomous if it gets you through the night, but we're all part of different communities, classes, countries, and other social groups of various sizes and complexities. None of us can build our own roads, or make our own cars. Or make our own buses, bicycles, or even make our own shoes for that matter.

The main point of freedom, IMO, is not the impossible dream of autonomy, but achievable goals--such as public participation in transportation decisions and providing real travel choices for people.

wilfried

So, we were talking at cross purposes. I'm glad we're not so far off from each other. I will say that choice vs. no choice is not either/or, but a continuum. For some, living car free is 100% a choice; they happily choose not to use a car, even if they easily could. For others, it's not a choice at all. They simply cannot own a car, due to finances or something else, and must find a way to cope one way or another. I think most people, including people on this forum, are somewhere in the middle. I see lots of discussions here of people weighing the costs vs. benefits of living car free, or car lite. They'd love to save on the cost of a car, and could better use the money somewhere else, but aren't sure they can cope with the consequences.

And to engage this discussion more broadly, public transit always represents more choice. When you leave the house, you can choose between getting in your car, or taking the bus. The problem is, in most of the country, the transit option is a piss poor one. It's slow, goes very few places, runs infrequently, and only for limited hours in the day. They only people who "choose" this option are the ones who have no other option.

In a transit poor place, public transit is seen as limiting, as no one would choose it if they had another choice. In a transit rich place, it opens all kinds of possibilities, and is very much about freedom of choice. In some sense, I don't "choose" to live car free. I am by no means poor, but I live in one of the most expensive and congested cities in the country, and absolutely cannot afford to live here if I had the added expense of a car. But I'm lucky enough to live close to the center of the most transit rich city in the country, and public transit to me is absolutely liberating. I can go anywhere I'm likely to want to quickly and easily and cheaply on foot, by bike, or by transit. It frees me from even having to consider the option of owning a car. As long as I've lived here, long before I started thinking about "living car free" as a thing, I've taken great joy in the fact that I don't have to own a car. And I have lots of options when I walk out my front door. Do I walk? Do I take my own bike (one of two)? Do I grab a bike share bike? Do I get on the subway or bus? Yes, I can even choose a taxi, Uber, or Zipcar (not that I ever do). Which option I choose depends on my needs on any given day.

"Living car free" is both a personal discussion, and a social, political, and cultural one. One the one hand, it's about personal decisions in one's own circumstances. On the other, it's about making the option of using something other than one's own personal automobile a viable and attractive option for more people. It's about building transit, and making it more sensible. It's about building higher density, mixed use communities where people can live and get to where they need to go without getting in a car. It's about making bicycling easier, and safer.

JoeyBike

Living Car Free in the USofA does not come naturally unless you happen to be Amish. First, you have to WANT it, then you have to SET IT UP properly, then you have to DO WITHOUT THINGS you might love to do (for me it was canoe/kayaking), then you have to be willing to get WET, feel COLD, or SWEAT. It HELPS to live close to work, school, grocery, mall, bus line, whatever, but this depends on the individual's capabilities and sensibilities.

In the end, obviously, a car-free person has to be willing to make do with LESS than an auto owner. Less RANGE, less COMFORT, less CONVENIENCE, less STUFF. But the trade-off, for me and I am certain for others as well, is a different kind of "freedom". Freedom from auto owning EXPENSE (price, insurance, fuel, maintenance, parking, theft, and theft prevention) and most importantly for bicycle owners...freedom from sitting in traffic. Like...EVER.

We are all a slave to our life choices. You wanna live out in The Burbs in Houston and work Downtown? Bad set up for being Car Free. Same with Los Angeles. But somehow millions of people in NYC manage to be Car Free with zero bicycles as well. You wanna live on a farm and grow alfalfa? Probably going to need a motorized vehicle. It is all about personal choices. It's not our fault (The Car Free Community) people choose to live in locations and under circumstances that make car free living virtually impossible.

As for kids...ever heard of a SCHOOL BUS? I rode one until I got my first nicer bike as a freshman in high school. Then no more bus.

Roughly 10% of USA households do not own a motor vehicle. Some small fraction of those people are happy about it. Many are here in the LCF Forum. If someone wants to be car-free but isn't willing to sacrifice (like NOT having any children) or think ahead or do without...why come in here and judge people who make it work and are mostly happy about it?
.
.
.

Roody

I've been trying to make this same point on another thread. Thanks for explaining it more clearly than I did.