khuon

I grew up in Chicago and thought winters were bad there... until I lived for a little while in Grand Forks, ND. The winters there were brutal. We had ambient temps that stayed below -20F for weeks on end with windchills that would drive the temperatures down to around -50F. At those temps, exposed skin incurs frostbite in less than 20 seconds. That said, I still rode my bike from my apt. to campus (3 miles each way) on a daily basis.


That's a good point and it's not the only point that can be made. But one could argue that plenty of parents can also get by without a car given the right conditions. I think people need to start decoupling their thinking a little.

• A personal automobile does not have to be highly pollutant. Sure it is right now but that's a technological problem.
  
• A personal vehicle is not always necessary. That's a social engineering problem.
  
• A personal automobile does not have to be highly dangerous to its occupants and cyclists/pedestrians. That is a training and education problem.
  
• A personal vehicle is not evil. That's a personal problem.

I would really like to see all of these people who claim they are so open-minded be a little bit more open-minded about the fact that not everyone lives in the same conditions and that there are more than one or even a few ways to boil a cat. Simply stating that all cars are evil and everyone who drives them is evil and they should all be banished from the universe is a very closed-minded attitude. The concept of the car is not a bad one. The implementation leaves a bit to be desired. Work to solve the problem and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

noisebeam

This is very true. There are cities and rural area in the US where one, especially with a family, would or does struggle greatly without a car or single car substitute (i.e. taxi)
I can not do everything I need by bike and bus alone in the Phoenix, AZ metro area. It is the city layout sometimes made worse by the heat. I have no problem with 1hr of cycling round trip errands, appts, committees, etc. but there are many that are >40mi roundtrip that can not be accomidated by bike alone. Some cities like Phoenix grew and developed based on an completely auto-centric design.

The counter arguement is to:
1. Move where one can live without a car- The shortfall of this is that if everyone who lived where one must rely on a car to those places where one does't, that those 'better' places would not be able to accomidate the extra population without major changes in infrastrcture, housing, jobs, which may be difficult to do while maintaining the environment that supprots car free lifestyle.
2. Change the city you are in so it can be lived in car free- This can only be done slowly and with great dedication, baby steps, getting more support for public transport, denser urban areas, etc. It is made all the more difficult by those who really care giving up and taking option 1.
3. Make personal sacrifices- Don't get the same level of health care for yourself and children by avoiding specialists, etc. who are 20mi+ from home, don't make friends with people on the other side of town, don't go to a concert after work because it is 40mi away and no bus would get you there on time, don't be an active patricipant in a organization who is working to make the city better because you can't get to the monthly centrally located meetings (unless you can borrow a ride), and on and on. Some of these are trade-offs that can be reasonably made, but some may be too difficult to live without, or take away something that is more important to you than living car free.

Al

chris_pnoy

Its not the cars fault! It is the driver!

That is like blaming a pencil for spelling errors! Tsk tsk tsk.

Spider

Another sci-fi movie, the most recent screen adaptation of H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine," released in 2002, contained a scene of a future New York City in which the streets were filled with bicycles, even though the city itself, and the surrounding technology, was very advanced. No cars were to be seen. I don't know if this idea was from the book or if it was unique to this film version. I found that prediction rather interesting.

khuon

I mentioned this in a thread a few years ago. The fact that everyone was using bikes to get around was pretty cool but then they had to turn around and blow up the moon.

Spider

Heh. Yep, although they didn't make it clear as to what exactly caused the destruction of the moon. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the bikes though.

khuon

I think they hinted that they were blowing up parts to create livable caves or something. It was for some colony effort. But you never know. Maybe it had it had to do with Shimano's 14-speed drivetrain.

Max

The price of oil is more than $50 per barrel. Russia is number 2 producer of oil in the world, Ukraine is number 1 transporter of oil (pipelines).

In the next year Russia will pay out completely the very big debt of the USSR. If it were not for the high oil price, it wouldn't be possible. No one had beliewed that it is possible at all, but it is the fact by now.

Some experts predict that the price of oil may realistically hit $60 already now and about $100 - $120 by the end of the next year.

So for me the cars are certainly the source of the environmental damage. On the other hand my country makes good business on oil. Our cities are booming with all that cash surplus and prospects of even more income.

So much is being invested in the automobile infrastructure, that any decrease in oil consumption is unlikely.

My point is - if the price of oil continues to grow, I am ready to tolerate car culture, especially in the USA, China, EU, etc. The USA is the best bet. Houses are built far apart and people are accustomed to cars on a genetical level already. I saw in the USA very heavy people who can not exist biologically without a car any more. China can switch to bike again, if oil hits $100. The USA can not. With EU it is more complicated. These guys seems to notice and started to build bike trails and lanes everywhere. Not many use them so far, but they are there. And there are visibly less heavy people in EU. So these customers also can switch at least partly when the oil becomes super-expensive.

khuon

Done. It closed at $60.54/barrel today.

Max

It is very good news for millions in Venezuella, Nigeria, Russia, Kazachstan, Ukraine, Iran and some other countries. Our product goes well on the international market at last.

Platy

Max, that is a shocking way to put it, but I sense it may be true.

lilHinault

"Very heavy people who cannot exist biologically without a car" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Max

Be our customers! 60 bucks per barrel. Welcome!

grapetonix

The reason for me not liking cars very well is the horrendous energy efficiency. No matter how effective an engine you make, one is still dealing with the fact that you are, in most cases, dragging around a 1000kg+ hog of metal to transport about 150kg of persons around. A 5:1 factor. Thus my mind is a little more friendly towards small, efficient cars filled with people and cargo to the "brim" - so to speak.

What does your ordinary bike weigh? 20kg? And what do you weigh? 80kg? Oh well, a 1:4 factor. So as long as energy isn't very cheap and environmentally friendly, it might be a good idea to use motor vehicles in a quite limited fashion.

Guest

We were at 60 bucks a barrel last week. Which is why I am thankful that I ride my bike for getting from point A to point B.

Koffee