Digital_Cowboy

Actually there is motivation to change. The "dwindling" gas/oil supply and the raising prices at the pump. I've talked with people here in St. Pete who were astounded when I told them I rode 20+miles per day. Their response has been "I don't even drive that far in my car."

Given how the price of a gallon of gas is climbing I don't really blame them. I mean when it costs a hundred dollars (or more) to fill up the gas tank it doesn't make sense to make "unnecessary" trips via their car.

What we need to do is to work on convincing people to leave their cars at home and either walk or ride for the short trips around their neighborhoods. And save the car for the longer trips or for when they need to carry something too heavy to be safely transported on a bicycle or carried while walking.

Also cities need to be encouraged to implement public transportation that effectively meets the needs of it's citizens. If that means subsidizing it until the idea of using it catches on with the general population.

I'm not saying that we need to live in a world such as was presented in the movie "The Last Chase." But things DO need to change. Cities need to be designed or redesigned so that people do not NEED to rely on the automobile to get around. Public transportation, walking, and riding a bicycle should be priority NOT driving a car. As a means of getting around said city.

Speed limits within city limits also need to be reduced so that people who are walking and riding bicycles can do so safely. And in that regard I think (as I do a number of others here do) that Europe has the right idea in making the operator of a car at fault in a car v bicycle/pedestrian crash. Unless there is absolute proof that the cyclist or pedestrian was at fault.

TheTreauth

Where can I get a chicken hat like yours so we can ride our bicycles down the street in matching gear holding hands, now that we've established this kinship?

benda18

I understand.

We were stuck in a house we couldn't sell (we tried), and would've had to bring close to 25% of the original purchase price to closing to bridge the gap between market value and what we still owed on it. Couldn't afford that.

But we could afford to take a chance and rent it out. And by take a chance, I mean we are financially able to take on an additional monthly payment once or twice per year in between tenants (if necessary) and for expected wear-and-tear. It took a lot of work to find the right people willing to pay the right price, but we're now living closer to work and are actually netting some savings because our rent is cheaper than our mortgage and we're using a lot less gas in our cars.

plus if the market ever picks back up we'll still own our house.

benda18

NYC, Chicago and probably most of America's per-war cities grew into dense urban centers at a time when private vehicle ownership wasn't an option, when city streets were used by people walking, cycling, carriages, or transit, and in a time when the average person could travel maybe 30 miles any given day if they tried.

I don't think a lot of people understand how convenient the car makes our lives today. Without even the smallest amount of planning i could decide at breakfast tomorrow that i wanted to go to the Great Lakes, the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico or the Mississippi River and more than likely get there before dinner time. How easy would that have been 100 years ago? 200 years ago?

Car ownership is easy in this country because we've chosen to accommodate it into our cities and lifestyles. Personally I believe people will continue to drive cars until it becomes too difficult to do so. And the only way that's going happen is if people can no longer afford to own and operate cars. There are certain planning practices that cities can use that will help make cycling and other modes of transportation more attractive, but it's always going to be easier to drive. people generally choose the path of least resistance.

PatrickGSR94

The size of this nation and all the wide open spaces, I think, is what makes the population so car-dependent. Most nations in this world are much smaller, compact, and more densely populated, in addition to having higher fuel prices than the US. That's what makes the population of other countries so much less car-dependent.

apollored

We have Advanced Stop Lines which are the portions of roads at junctions/traffic lights where cyclists are able to stop ahead of the traffic and gain the chance to move off promptly when the lights go green or traffic passes.

No excuse of course to jump the lights but they do allow us to be seen by drivers without them cursing us too much

tjspiel

I guess that depends on what you mean by easier. It's actually faster to ride my bike to work most of the year because I'm not impacted as much by traffic congestion. I can also park my bike at the building as opposed to a ramp a few blocks away, - and the parking is free.

So from a physical effort standpoint it's more work to ride, but in other ways it's less of a hassle.

There's a lot a city can do to make driving less attractive. I remember going to Boston 15 years ago and being told not to rent a car. Parking was extremely expensive and driving just wasn't a pleasant experience there. Walking and taking the subway on the other hand worked pretty well.

PatrickGSR94

15 years ago that "Big Dig" project was going on, where they sunk a big elevated highway cutting through downtown to down below pedestrian levels. It was completed in 2008 when I was there, so it may be easier to use a car in Boston now. I wouldn't know, though, as I was there on business (mostly) and used public transportation to go everywhere.

E.S.

This is a conversation I've had like 10 times since I started riding to work:

"You rode you bike to work!?!?"
Yep!
"Really? How far?"
13 miles.
"OMG you're crazy. How long did it take you?"
It's really not that bad, only a little over an hour.
"You're crazy!"

mechanicalron

Yea, if i had a nickle