Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Living Car Free (http://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/)
-   -   Wait, why can't we live car free? (http://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/961664-wait-why-cant-we-live-car-free.html)

TinkerinWstuff 07-29-14 09:06 AM

The thread started, "I sold the car, I didn't need a car" and ended, "I bought a car and I'm going to use it for business"

???

MikeRides 07-29-14 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TinkerinWstuff (Post 16985192)
The thread started, "I sold the car, I didn't need a car" and ended, "I bought a car and I'm going to use it for business"

???

Its a consideration I've been trying to decide on for the past month and a half and with the advice given here and off line I decided to take the responsible approach and have an inexpensive but reliable car on hand, at least until my fiancee returns. I tried going car free, and probably could have made it work-after all I did for the past 4 months but realized that this type of living only works best in the city with more alternative transportation. Thanks again to the participants of this thread for the unofficial advice

I-Like-To-Bike 07-29-14 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRides (Post 16985309)
Its a consideration I've been trying to decide on for the past month and a half and with the advice given here and off line I decided to take the responsible approach and have an inexpensive but reliable car on hand, at least until my fiancee returns. I tried going car free, and probably could have made it work-after all I did for the past 4 months but realized that this type of living only works best in the city with more alternative transportation. Thanks again to the participants of this thread for the unofficial advice

Thanks for the concise wrap-up on your decision and decision making considerations. Makes sense.

Your rational decision probably won't satisfy a few LCF ideologues more interested in tilting at political/cultural windmills and/or standing up to "The Man," regardless if specious posturing will likely be considered by any decision maker to be at the expense of the child's welfare.

Roody 07-29-14 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16986248)
Thanks for the concise wrap-up on your decision and decision making considerations. Makes sense.

Your rational decision probably won't satisfy a few LCF ideologues more interested in tilting at political/cultural windmills and/or standing up to "The Man," regardless if specious posturing will likely be considered by any decision maker to be at the expense of the child's welfare.

I would never second guess somebody's personal decision. IMO, it's impossible to know all of the pressures involved in making a decision in real life--let alone on the Internet, where you've never even met the person.

However, for the record, he said he got the car for business reasons, not for the child's welfare. It sounds like the child was safe either way, with or without car ownership. Hopefully, the situation with child protective services resolved itself, as it should have. Not just one child, but the entire community, is at risk if the emergency medical system is as he described it. A plan to drive somebody to a hospital ED is ridiculous, so a personal car should not be considered necessary in this situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRides (Post 16983258)
....
I'd just like to point out that I have broke down and decided to buy a car, it'll be used mostly for business purposes but also available to cart the kid around when the bikes aren't an option.....


Smallwheels 07-29-14 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowan (Post 16978011)
Yeah, and the family they ignore because of your assertions may very well be the family that needs intervention the most.

A complaint -- whether malicious or not -- was made, and the investigation has to be made and judged on its merits. I can see both sides here. Mike needs to collect his information and build a sound defence or at least presentation after consulting with with his legal representative.

This isn't about the Child Welfare organization looking into the matter. It is about them saying he needs a car. They have no legal right to say that. NONE! That would mean that a prerequisite for having children would be car ownership. If that agency wants to buy a car for him and to insure it and to pay for the fuel and expenses then maybe they could make such a statement, but they can't.

We're only as free as far as we can escape government interference. Sad but true.

TinkerinWstuff 07-29-14 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smallwheels (Post 16987437)
This isn't about the Child Welfare organization looking into the matter. It is about them saying he needs a car. They have no legal right to say that. NONE! That would mean that a prerequisite for having children would be car ownership. If that agency wants to buy a car for him and to insure it and to pay for the fuel and expenses then maybe they could make such a statement, but they can't.

We're only as free as far as we can escape government interference. Sad but true.

Right on.

when we left the hospital with our little terrorist, I think the owners manual consisted of a pamphlet on "don't shake a baby" and that was about it. No question of vehicle ownership, car seats, or anything else for that matter.

Rowan 07-30-14 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smallwheels (Post 16987437)
This isn't about the Child Welfare organization looking into the matter. It is about them saying he needs a car. They have no legal right to say that. NONE! That would mean that a prerequisite for having children would be car ownership. If that agency wants to buy a car for him and to insure it and to pay for the fuel and expenses then maybe they could make such a statement, but they can't.

We're only as free as far as we can escape government interference. Sad but true.

Child welfare agencies have a lot of power. Are you an attorney who deals in family and child welfare law?

Walter S 07-30-14 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smallwheels (Post 16987437)
This isn't about the Child Welfare organization looking into the matter. It is about them saying he needs a car. They have no legal right to say that. NONE! That would mean that a prerequisite for having children would be car ownership. If that agency wants to buy a car for him and to insure it and to pay for the fuel and expenses then maybe they could make such a statement, but they can't.

We're only as free as far as we can escape government interference. Sad but true.

Hell yeah. To Rowan's point I would say they have no "moral right" instead of they have no "legal right". And if they do have that legal right, somebody should yank it away and tell them they're misusing their power.

I-Like-To-Bike 07-30-14 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter S (Post 16988805)
Hell yeah. To Rowan's point I would say they have no "moral right" instead of they have no "legal right". And if they do have that legal right, somebody should yank it away and tell them they're misusing their power.

Hell yeah indeed. If those stinkin' child welfare agencies want to make sure that a child in a non relative's temporary custody gets vaccinations, goes to school, has a decent home environment, and/or has a guardian willing and capable of making financial and time sacrifices for the child's welfare as well as having a credible plan for transporting the child for medical services and emergencies, sic the ideological junkyard dogs on 'em barking about "moral rights" and "principled stand on important issues."

Roody 07-31-14 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16989199)
Hell yeah indeed. If those stinkin' child welfare agencies want to make sure that a child in a non relative's temporary custody gets vaccinations, goes to school, has a decent home environment, and/or has a guardian willing and capable of making financial and time sacrifices for the child's welfare as well as having a credible plan for transporting the child for medical services and emergencies, sic the ideological junkyard dogs on 'em barking about "moral rights" and "principled stand on important issues."

I guess I missed something. I see nothing on this thread about vaccinations, or any of the other issues you mention. The OP didn't claim that protective services had no right to investigate--in fact he granted that they do have that right, IIRC. I think a reasonable person would dispute the caseworker's conclusion that lack of car constitutes a danger to the child. Most reasonable people would agree that driving a seriously sick or injured child to the ED in a private car is not "a credible plan for transporting the child for medical services and emergencies."

I-Like-To-Bike 07-31-14 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16991217)
I guess I missed something. I see nothing on this thread about vaccinations, or any of the other issues you mention.

Yes you did miss something: the responses on this thread to the OP, which ranged from specious advice and platitudes about "moral rights" and "principled stands" through cries of cars are child abuse and some suggested advice to the OP that were nothing short of wacky.

What you "missed" is the thought process of these posters that a guardian's "belief" is paramount and cannot be challenged or investigated by agencies charged with children's welfare, no matter what the "belief" is, or what the effect is on the welfare of the involved children.

dynodonn 07-31-14 08:03 AM

It's unfortunate to read about US individuals with children who are attempting to eliminate automobile ownership, only having the individual to capitulate to certain agencies and businesses rules in requiring auto ownership, and the difficulties that can be imposed by said agencies and businesses if the individual does not comply.

squegeeboo 07-31-14 11:40 AM

To late to really matter, but I checked with a friend in CPS in a rural western NY county, he said he wouldn't care, as long as the kid isn't biking on her own on busy roads, but it's all case worker dependent.

MikeRides 07-31-14 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16991217)
I guess I missed something. I see nothing on this thread about vaccinations, or any of the other issues you mention. The OP didn't claim that protective services had no right to investigate--in fact he granted that they do have that right, IIRC. I think a reasonable person would dispute the caseworker's conclusion that lack of car constitutes a danger to the child. Most reasonable people would agree that driving a seriously sick or injured child to the ED in a private car is not "a credible plan for transporting the child for medical services and emergencies."

I spent a couple weeks going over this, and came to the conclusion that it would take me roughly 3-4 hours to get to the hospital by bike while towing a trailer, an hour and a half by ambulance (the local VFD chief I spoke with recently said there was a volunteer ambulance corp 2 towns over that covers 3 neighboring counties), or I could get there in less than an hour by car if necessary. While driving I could also see the kid, apply pressure to a wound (if any) and be able to quickly pull over to perform CPR quick enough. And if she had a high fever that didn't go down and needed to go to the ER, she'd be more comfortable laying on a car seat for an hour(ish) than in a bike trailer for 4.

Granted I have only been taking care of her by myself for almost a year, I've been in this child's life since she was born, I'm sure if there was a concern for her well-being, her mother wouldn't have made me her legal guardian. I was there for her first step, I patched her up after she fell off her bike while she was learning to ride a 2 wheeler(which I was teaching her to do), I've sat up with her all night when she was sick and couldn't sleep. But now just because I choose to live rural and switch to a bicycle for primary transportation I'm unfit as a parent? Sure I still have some things to learn, who doesn't? Name one perfect parent out there.

I have 8 references from non-relatives (only needed 3), one being the kid's physician, that all attest to my decisions are in the best interest of the child. My lawyer doesn't see a reason why we won't win the lawsuit filed against the caseworker and her supervisor.

I-Like-To-Bike 07-31-14 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squegeeboo (Post 16992639)
To late to really matter, but I checked with a friend in CPS in a rural western NY county, he said he wouldn't care, as long as the kid isn't biking on her own on busy roads, but it's all case worker dependent.

How would your CPS friend view an emergency plan that is based on taking a sick child to a hospital by bike trailer for a 4 hour trip, especially since emergencies don't always occur in bright sunshine hours or during ideal weather conditions? I believe it gets rather cold in upstate NY, get a bit of snow too. Gets dark at night too. Doubt if there are too many car free bike trails available for such a journey.

squegeeboo 07-31-14 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16992811)
How would your CPS friend view an emergency plan that is based on taking a sick child to a hospital by bike trailer for a 4 hour trip, especially since emergencies don't always occur in bright sunshine hours or during ideal weather conditions? I believe it gets rather cold in upstate NY, get a bit of snow too. Gets dark at night too. Doubt if there are too many car free bike trails available for such a journey.

I'd have to ask, but I'm guessing no worse than any other family that is car free (or car-light, when 1 parent is off where-ever at work with the car).

I-Like-To-Bike 07-31-14 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRides (Post 16992743)
My lawyer doesn't see a reason why we won't win the lawsuit filed against the caseworker and her supervisor.

Is there a lawsuit pending?

I-Like-To-Bike 07-31-14 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squegeeboo (Post 16992833)
I'd have to ask, but I'm guessing no worse than any other family that is car free (or car-light, when 1 parent is off where-ever at work with the car).

Just to satisfy inquiring minds why don't you ask your friend, don't forget to mention that a complaint was received by the agency and that the military dependent child is not related to the guardian.

I-Like-To-Bike 07-31-14 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squegeeboo (Post 16992833)
I'd have to ask, but I'm guessing no worse than any other family that is car free (or car-light, when 1 parent is off where-ever at work with the car).

I'm guessing too, but if there is a requirement for there to be an emergency plan, as there may be in this situation, I assume that the guardian would have to provide a better, more realistic plan than being dependent on the use of a bike trailer for a 4 hour ride under the best of conditions. Something like neighbors or friends who can provide transportation support; not foolproof, but certainly more realistic and timely than the proposed bike trailer scheme.

squegeeboo 07-31-14 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16992850)
Just to satisfy inquiring minds why don't you ask your friend, don't forget to mention that a complaint was received by the agency and that the military dependent child is not related to the guardian.

ASKED! Stay tuned for more. Or, don't turn that bat channel? Anyways, you get the gist. Hooray for internet theoreticals!

I-Like-To-Bike 07-31-14 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squegeeboo (Post 16992899)
ASKED! Stay tuned for more. Or, don't turn that bat channel? Anyways, you get the gist. Hooray for internet theoreticals!

Thanks, should be interesting. Certainly more informative/useful than some of the LCF grandstanding/advice offered by some of the responders to the OP.

squegeeboo 07-31-14 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 16992942)
Thanks, should be interesting. Certainly more informative/useful than some of the LCF grandstanding/advice offered by some of the responders to the OP.

ANSWERED

We have a whole bunch of Mennonite and Amish people in rural ny that only use horse and buggy for transportation--day and night. If there was a medical obligation for them to get medical treatment, it doesn't mean that they would need to get into a car to do it. As long as the parents are making good efforts towards addressing the child's safety, permanency, and well being, it's not abuse or maltreatment, even if they did take them via bike. Is it the most optimal way of doing it? No. But the government doesn't mandate the highest standards, it just mandates minimum standards.

TinkerinWstuff 07-31-14 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squegeeboo (Post 16993086)
ANSWERED

We have a whole bunch of Mennonite and Amish people in rural ny that only use horse and buggy for transportation--day and night. If there was a medical obligation for them to get medical treatment, it doesn't mean that they would need to get into a car to do it. As long as the parents are making good efforts towards addressing the child's safety, permanency, and well being, it's not abuse or maltreatment, even if they did take them via bike. Is it the most optimal way of doing it? No. But the government doesn't mandate the highest standards, it just mandates minimum standards.

best response yet

wphamilton 07-31-14 03:01 PM

So they're closing the investigation as promised? Is the lawsuit interfering with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRides (Post 16983258)
...
I'd just like to point out that I have broke down and decided to buy a car
http://i1093.photobucket.com/albums/...ps091942ac.jpg


I-Like-To-Bike 07-31-14 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squegeeboo (Post 16993086)
ANSWERED

We have a whole bunch of Mennonite and Amish people in rural ny that only use horse and buggy for transportation--day and night. If there was a medical obligation for them to get medical treatment, it doesn't mean that they would need to get into a car to do it. As long as the parents are making good efforts towards addressing the child's safety, permanency, and well being, it's not abuse or maltreatment, even if they did take them via bike. Is it the most optimal way of doing it? No. But the government doesn't mandate the highest standards, it just mandates minimum standards.

Sounds quite reasonable to me. Just what those minimum standards are for care of a child of a deployed military parent may be spelled out in military as well as civil regulations, or may be subject to interpretation of the responsible agency or agencies in this case. One card that the OP can not play is that his transportation choices are limited by a recognized religious belief.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:29 PM.