View Single Post
Old 08-27-11, 10:32 AM
  #37  
Robert Foster
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Southern california
Posts: 3,498

Bikes: Lapierre CF Sensium 400. Jamis Ventura Sport. Trek 800. Giant Cypress.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by bragi
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.
I am not trying to justify anything I know I am not now nor likely to be in the future car free even if my only vehicle is in my wife’s name. I have no problem with car light because it is easy to define. I have no problem with someone calling themselves car free even if cars influence their everyday life. Like I may have mentioned I have stayed with families in Africa that are "car free" in that they have no access to cars and have never driven one because they couldn’t even rent one.


What I question is the definition posted on the forum and the way it is applied. I maybe wonder why someone that has shared a forum with people that have claimed to never use a car and thus are car free would consider the definition posted as a introduction to the forum and want to claim the same status rather than something else like car light or not car dependant. Someone decided to use words like only in the forum introduction and “only” use a bike or public transit must mean something different to some here.


When I first came to this forum there were posters that claimed they were car free and even some that moved from one place to another using their bicycle and a trailer. I thought that was interesting and so I started shopping using one of my bicycles and buying a trailer. I now go to the doctor’s office and even church by bike weather permitting. Still didn’t call myself car free. Then a poster that had posted for a while as car free mentioned that their SO had a car and it was used from time to time when the bike wasn’t practical. I simply don’t see why someone would claim to be car free when they use a car that is borrowed, rented, leased, co-owned or given to them.


Is car free a definition or a club? Is saying someone is car free so important that the word “only” has to be redefined? And it has nothing to do with cutting people slack. I don’t judge a person anyone on how they get from point A to point B. I just see it as disingenuous when someone might ask how someone gets to the doctor’s office or go to visit a sick relative in the hospital and they get the answer, sometimes you have to rent a car. That doesn’t “sound” car free to me, it sounds car light. I also realize it will decrease the number of people claiming car free status if they can’t drive a car.

I am also waiting to see what definition is agreed upon by consensus and if someone suggests the introduction of the forum is too restrictive. If it is simply a concept why not admit it?

Last edited by Robert Foster; 08-27-11 at 10:40 AM.
Robert Foster is offline