Machka 

We spend a lot of time in northern Tasmania just simply because it is rural and lacks traffic and the cycling is great up there.

That's Rowan ...






Rowan with a vehicle closing in behind him ... one of the few that went past us that day.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sure, whatever you say!
Noted.

Walter S

Whatever your reason for hihackng the outcome is the same. If you want to focus on changing the world and the social issues that leads to and how unfair the infrastructure distribution is etc (in other words the regular) then start another thread.

CliffordK

Thinking about traveling in rural Russia, at some point all the land became publicly owned. I presume before that there was some kind of landowner/peasant relationship.

What it means is that for the most part, rural houses are all organized in small towns and villages. Thus one can often walk to the local church, and visit the neighbors. Hopefully some kind of a store too.

It would also make a Jitney service more practical as one could schedule trips from town to town.

Of course, I could imagine the winters not being particularly bicycle friendly.

tandempower

There are stories about the olden days when kids had to walk many miles to a bus stop. Nowadays the bus probably drives closer to their house and 'saves' them the walk, when a longer walk would actually be better for them in multiple ways.

Unfortunately, it all depends on who decides to develop the area and with what lifestyle in mind. It would be great if there was just a general awareness that automotive-culture is a slippery slope that needs to be prevented from snowballing into low-density suburban bedroom/satellite communities, but mainstream culture is probably most successful for its ability to just smile and move forward with problematic cultural choices by simply denying/averting awareness of the problem.

There is a structural economic culture that generates the illusion that a lot more is going on than there actually is, so people think it's exciting to inhabit the buzz of a bustling area, but it's really just a bunch of humans running around having meetings and shopping. If the awareness ever develops that our greatest challenge as an industrial culture is to minimize our industrial impact by developing alternatives to things like motorized transportation, there could be networks of pedestrian/bike 'silk roads' that develop, similar to your Harvest Trail, where small, compact mixed-use communities would develop as stops on hiking/biking journeys that people would plan over long distances to avoid the use of industrial power. That would be incredibly rational and great if it happened, but the realists in this sub-forum will all chime in that there's slightly less than a snowball's chance in heat for the present popular culture to progress in this direction. On the one hand, we're poised to achieve solutions to all these environmental and economic problems we've discovered, but on the other we are so attached to certain ways of living that we can't bring our minds to give up in the interest of moving ahead with truly sustainable lifestyles.

If you watch youtube videos about tiny house communities, so many people built these little tiny houses they want to tow someplace and live, but they face so many regulatory restrictions to living in an RV year round. If it was as simple as organizing a supply route through a chain of such places so that people could live car-free, I would support it - but if the same chain of places were going to turn into little driving communities and plant the seeds of automotive-suburban growth throughout the area, I would say it's a terrible idea and decry it. So much of whether revitalization is good or bad depends on whether it takes the leap to achieve community LCF, because even a car-lite community is prone to growing into a sprawling suburban area if word gets out that the area is a nice place to live, drive, AND live car-lite.


It really just depends on what's available for people moving there. If there is shopping and jobs, people would move there more than likely. The question is who is going to invest in producing those amenities, though, when there is a risk of either not enough people coming or too many people leaving the investor stuck with the bill.


I just think in terms of planting seeds and why they grow. If an area is nice and there are opportunities, it will grow. If low traffic draws people who like to drive because it's easier to drive there, then it will grow in an automotive-suburban way. You are imagining that people can just go live in these remote places by car and there will never be growth/snowballing, but I don't think you understand how growth happens.

You seem to only think in terms of the present as if it's an isolated moment that doesn't lead to the future. I see everything that happens as a seed that will grow. If you plant seeds of automotive-dependency, that will grow. If you plant seeds of LCF, that might grow - but then it also might not because every investment in LCF is simultaneously an investment in growth of an economy where most people factor driving into their work and personal budgets.

tandempower

In your reductive mind, that's what I'm doing - but you're failing to look at the context within which the post emerged. Now don't start a back and forth about this and get us in trouble for bickering within the thread.

Machka 

No, I'm not imagining ... I've actually been to the places I describe. I've gotten to know the people there. I've watched the trends. And I've been doing that for 50 years, not just one moment in time. I've also read about and been told about the history of these places.

Unfortunately, in many of these places, nothing draws people there. Not even land for $1. But certainly not that it might be easier to drive there ... because it isn't.

Meanwhile, back to the practicalities, because that's what this thread is about ...

Let's assume the following scenario ...

Mobile 155

Do you really believe after reading those last two posts that he even knows what the thread is about? If so that makes one person.

Rowan

The naivity is overwhelming.

Machka 

Yes!

Very much ... yes.



But in an attempt to address the OP's question, I'll link to this thread:

Sports, hobbies, car-free/light lifestyle
Sports and Hobbies ... and the Car-Free/Light Lifestyle

Roody

I think the best answer is too obvious, maybe? The first choice for recreation in the country--same as in the city-- is your bike.

Get friends and family involved not only in traditional bike rides, but in races and other cycling activities.
Getting people together to repair or build bikes is an afternoon's entertainment.
Get friends and family involved not only in traditional bike rides, but in races and other cycling activities.
Get out and explore your area on bike, maybe one day every week you could go to a different part of your local area.
If the nearest restaurant is 20 miles away, ride there, eat a nice meal then ride home. That's several hours of fun that can be repeated 100 times before it becomes boring.
Ride to a park and rent some boats with your friends. Boat races, maybe? Or just lazing along on a lake or river.
Figure out how to lash your poles to your bike, then go fishing someplace nearby.
Get a mountain bike and explore some of the back country.
If you get tired of bikes, then turn to walking, hiking, snowshoeing, skiing, and so forth.

Maybe it's just me, but all these things sound like more fun than driving someplace in a stupid car!

Machka 

Some more ideas here:

Travelling Holidays Vacations Car Light Car Free
Travelling, Holidays, Vacations -- Car Light or Car Free

Show us your Rail Trails, Hiking Trails, Cycling Paths, etc.
https://www.bikeforums.net/living-ca...paths-etc.html

Do you participate in cycling events?
Do you participate in cycling events?

tandempower

Why do some places grow and others don't (yet)? What makes you think some places are permanently immune from growth?

The only way someone is going to be drawn to move someplace by free land is if they have the means to live there, i.e. either income or savings they want to burn up living without income. If someone can farm and live independently of money, they might want to do that, but generally we are concerned about the need for money in the future, so we don't want to live without income in the present, even if we can.

Meanwhile, back to the practicalities, because that's what this thread is about ...



This lifestyle is obviously predicated on automotive culture (driving-dependency). When he says that his life would have to "change drastically," the implication is that the way his life is now is somehow culturally neutral and going CF would deviate from that neutrality. That appearance of cultural neutrality is itself a product of the automotive culture of driving dependency that has evolved.

Car Free lifestyle habits in places where many people LCF are not neutral coincidences. They have evolved by people and government (also people) planning residences, businesses, and travel routes in ways that allow people to get around without driving. That is no less a form of planning than people setting up destinations within driving distances of rural residences and thus creating a sprawling client base.

If you want to LCF in an area that has been steered/developed in a driving-dependent way, it would be similar to trying to drive more in an area where LCF is popular. You'd have to spend a lot more on parking, spend a lot more time in traffic, etc. The poster mentions these people LCFing in urban areas are living "sheltered lives," but their lives are no more sheltered than those living in rural areas, who are sheltered from the realities of global population levels.

Quote:

I guess what I'm asking is what do the people that are living a car free lifestyle do for recreation and do any actually live in a rural area? Am I missing something?

I go on a lot of hikes for recreation/exercise. The easiest thing in the world is to walk out of your house and keep walking until you decide to turn around and walk back. I would like to plan more longer-distance hiking trips, but doing so requires a lot of logistical considerations that go away when you take day trips/hikes instead. I also go for bike trips that bring me back home to sleep, which saves me the trouble of packing a tent and sleeping gear, and worrying about where I'm going to camp. There are many places to bike to within the approx. 100 mile range I can bike in a day, but I am frugal for various reasons and so I avoid traveling to places where I would have to pay to stay the night. Someone with a lucrative portfolio could probably afford to bike 100 miles, stay a night or two in a campground/motel/hostel, and then bike back. The great thing about CF travel/recreation is that the bike ride or hike is its own activity/exercise, so it's like you're always getting bonus exercise and sight-seeing when you are biking/hiking instead of sitting in/on a motorized vehicle.

jon c. 

It's not just you, but clearly it isn't most people.

Walter S

Day trips are fun by all means but overnight does not necessarily need to cost anything.

I enjoy packing my ride including a hammock and cooking supplies and planning in detail what I'll eat for a couple days in the woods. There are several destinations around Atlanta where I can camp for free. For example Dawson Forest is about 60 miles and the camping is free there. Sometimes I make a point to buy NOTHING for a couple days. I load my food by raiding the pantry and then go camping for a couple days and never visit a store the whole time. The Etowah River is pretty clean and I get my drinking water from there.

One of the things I really like about bicycles is how inexpensive travelling can be. I intentionally "trained" myself to enjoy bicycles starting a couple decades ago when I started planning a retirement lifestyle. The things that bring me the most joy don't cost a thing. And the extra planning required is all part of the adventure/challenge. The retirement planners seem to all by and large focus on having enough money, and not on reducing expenses. The less you spend the less you need.

Finding ways to keep my money is something of a game. There are no billboards on the highway advertising free camping. I'm not against stealth camping when I'm on tour but on my own home turf I've spent the time to comb the area and find cool/free places hiding here and there. And stealth camping usually only works when you're showing up late and leaving early - on my camping weekends I'm not of that mindset.

Mobile 155

I can relate to back packing and cycle camping. Though my planning is a bit more involved than you indicate. When I was planning on retirement I included camping, traveling, hiking and the odd long vacation. So my income would be more than I need to simply live so I could save for and budget for whatever kind of trip I wanted. One day I want to visit Jerusalem but that will not be by bicycle. ( just saying.)

A friend got me into cycle touring and sometimes I will admit plastic touring is the easiest. LA to Phoenix is doable and it is easier to carry just the parts and spares you need rather than full camping gear if you can stay at a motel for a night and take your bike inside. Another place that allows rather inexpensive camping is RV parks. Many of them have very small cabins or camp sites as well. I have tried this when touring New Mexico but only once because it can be pretty windy by bicycle in New Mexico. Still it has been a long time since I have taken such a trip. But trips are still budgeted based on a average daily expense just like when I was working.

Heading towards the Grand Canyon there are quite a few free government camp sites outside of Williams but it can be cold at night and there are minimum facilities. There are plenty of tent camping sites in Zion National park and most of them are free I believe. But you better be in shape if you plan on touring the park by bike. They have free shuttles however.

I no longer take the long tours because I will admit it is easier to haul the bike to these places now that I am older but I can afford it so it still works for me.

Machka 

Then in 2012 ...

Rowan and I caught a flight to Hong Kong, and commenced a "Round the World" tour. We cycled, used trains, planes, and ferries, but did not drive a motor vehicle until about 4.5 months into the tour when we were in North America.

So you don't have to limit yourself to day tours or overnight tours, although they can be fun too ... you can actually go for more lengthy travels as well.

Fargo Wolf

Wow!!! That pic looks like it could be in the Fraser Valley!!!

Walter S

Is that because North America (where?) was especially more challenging to avoid driving compared to everywhere you’d been? Or more coincidental?

I-Like-To-Bike

I could be wrong, but I suspect that for most (maybe all) people who tour "Round the World", including Rowan and Machka, the purpose of such long distance travel is to see and do things not available at home, and that the "challenge of avoiding driving" while touring is far down the list of priorities, if it exists at all as a concern.

Walter S

If I weren't trying to avoid driving I'd expect to find occasion to drive during 4.5 months of traveling around the world. Around certain airports I know about for example.

Machka 

Yes ... Tasmania reminds us very much of lower mainland BC and Vancouver Island.

Machka 

During the first 4.5 months, we were in Hong Kong (easy to get around by public transportation), Taiwan (where we used the train to get out to our "hub" city, and then we cycled in different directions from there), and Japan - Hokkaido (where we just cycled from the airport).

Then we flew across to the UK ... 3 weeks in Scotland on bicycles with a train or two thrown in. A ferry across to The Netherlands ... 3 weeks cycling the Rhine Route, then a combination of trains and cycling for the remaining time as we roamed through Luxemburg, Switzerland and around France, then back into the UK.

It was just easier to use the bicycles and trains than to try to arrange rental cars. In fact, I've never used a rental car when I've been in Europe ... always just bicycles and trains.


But once we got to North America, we wanted to get from the Vancouver area (where quite a number of my family members are), across to Alberta to visit more family and friends, down to Louisiana (where my brother and his family is) in time for American Thanksgiving, a quick dash into Florida to visit a friend, and back to the Vancouver area in time for Christmas, while dropping in at various US Tourist Attractions (Bryce Canyon, Arches, Grand Canyon, San Diego, etc.). While we would have liked to cycle all that ... we just didn't have the time.

tandempower

When in Rome, as they say . . . you can fight in the Colosseum or watch the gladiators from the sidelines.

Machka 

Um ... ok.

No idea what you're talking about.