Originally Posted by
Robert Foster
Tell you what. If you don't like definitions I won't pay attention to them. I can easily ignore the definition on the Forum header can you?
Robert, just accept the car-ownership definition of car free; it's the most sensible, easily defined, and widely accepted one out there.
Also, please cut people some slack. Unless you're willing to live like the Unabomber, it's simply not possible to totally escape internal combustion engines in this culture. Anyone who gives up owning a car is automatically going to use feet, bikes and public transportation for virtually all of their travel. However, if they "cheat," it shouldn't be something that you pounce on. I'm now car lite, and use my car maybe 12-18 days a year. When I was car-free, I drove a car three times in five years, once to drive a friend to the hospital, and twice to ferry around family that were in town to visit. I suppose I could have been more dogmatic, and let my friend take his chances with his appendix, or forced my 70-year old parents to figure out the bus system, but I chose to be a bit more pragmatic in those cases. I didn't drive a car for 1,862 days out of 1,865, mostly because I didn't actually own one. That's not even close to totally car-free by your definition, but that's about as good as anyone can hope for, IMO.
I suspect that you're trying to justify your own lifestyle, which, as far as I can tell, is very suburban, only somewhat car-lite, and focused primarily on purely recreational cycling. There's nothing wrong with any of that, of course, but judging others based on your own narrow perspective is a bit unfair.