myrridin

Given that statement (not an attack) was directed at Roody and not you and further is a reaction to the repeated uncivil and rude attacks Roody practices I stand by the statement. Particularly considering that I remain remarkably civil given the actual verbal attacks I have repeatedly received on this forum...

Roody

I'm starting to regret that I started this thread. I didn't think it would be controversial, since I was just asking people to agree on a couple definitions, not isgn a pledge of any kind. After all, I am far from Grover Norquist, and this forum is far from deciding the fate of the world.

To try to get this back on track, I'm going to propose working definitions of the three terms in three separate posts. Please reply with any modifications to the individual definitions that you think are useful and constructive.

Please do not respond here with your opinions about other matters. This thread--started by me--exists is only to establish definitions that make conversations easier and more productive. If you wish to discuss controversial issues (and who doesn't?) please start a new thread. This thread was intended for housekeeping purposes only!

Roody

Proposed working definition of car:

A motor vehicle that is owned, leased or otherwise held by an individual for her/his personal use.



I appreciate constructive suggestions to modify this definition.

Roody

Proposed working definition of carfree:

1. (of an individual) A person who does not own a car and rarely operates a motor vehicle. (as defined).

2. Descriptive of an event, activity or situation where cars are not used. Examples: carfree vacation, carfree day, carfree festival.



I appreciate constructive suggestions to modify this definition.

Roody

Proposed working definition of carlight or carlite:

(For me, this is the trickiest. I propose two definitions, both of which I see used frequently on the forum. You can vote for one, or suggest some way of combining them if you wish.)

1. A car is owned in the family or household, but the carlight individual rarely drives or rides in the vehicle.

2. A carlight person owns a car, but rarely drives it, and tries to use other transportation methods most of the time.



I appreciate constructive suggestions to modify this definition.

Caretaker

Definitions:

Car: Status symbol/mechanised transport vehicle.
Car Free: Unachievable state of ecological purity.
Car Light: An acceptable level of purity.

I hearby propose the name of this Forum be changed to "Living Car Light".

Some are lighter than others but no one is 'car free'.

AltheCyclist

I think you're going to see growth in "carfree" folks in the future (in the US). A few reasons: 1) The younger generation are increasingly moving into cities (as opposed to moving from urban areas to suburbs), where car ownership makes less sense 2) Companies like Zipcar are making it easier and cheaper to not own a car but have the same advantages of owning one
3) The younger ones are addicted to ipads and the like - commuting by car is just downtime for the gadgets, but jumping on a bus for instance, you can surf web, etc. and make use of the time.

Robert Foster

I second the proposal.

Robert Foster

The problem is as soon as you open the door to such subjective terms as "rarely" you start to get exceptions like, renting, going to the airport, car sitting and driving your parents to the doctor. Noble intentions they might be but car free would be questionable. I don’t see how ideally you can separate someone from being car light to car free if you don’t take into account the act of driving a car, riding in a car, renting a car or driving someone else’s car. Unless it is contended that intent rather than action defines the concept. It sounds like some think car free is a club they want to increase members for rather than a lifestyle that someone can really achieve. Just because something is hard to do shouldn’t mean people change the goal. IMHO.
But it was a question that needed to be asked and the result shows how muddy the definition has become.

cycleobsidian

Sounds fine with me. The word "rarely" is acceptable and allows for more leeway in this incredibly carcentric world.

After all, this is a forum for entertainment and encouragement. Even the legal system doesn't always deal with absolutes.

Besides, Mr. Foster, if the LCF definition was too absolute you might not feel inclined to post as often. What then would you do with your time?

Robert Foster

I do agree it is entertaining.
Proposed working definition of car:

"A motor vehicle that is owned, leased or otherwise held by an individual for her/his personal use." If this is what is agreed on then how many here are still car free? And how does it differ from the concept of not using a car for personal transportation? Are you car free or car light?

I would pose more questions but I have to go for a ride to meet some friends and it takes a while to get there by bike.

Newspaperguy

Hypothetically, let's consider someone who does not own a car and does absolutely no personal driving. He or she might, on occasion, accept a ride from a visiting family member, but this would happen three or four times in a year. This person would probably be considered car-free, at least by most here.

Now let's add in one factor. This person has a Class 1 driver's license and works as a truck driver for an oil company, delivering gasoline to service stations in the region. With this added factor, is the person car-free, car-light or something else?

Before writing this off as an extreme example, I have met someone like that. The person I've met was someone who built up a lifestyle for himself where the personal use of a car was unnecessary, but he worked in a job where he spent his time driving.

AltheCyclist

This is all mental-masturba$ion ... if you don't own a car, then you are "Car-free". But, that doesn't mean you don't rely on motor-vehicles for your daily life activities.

We're in a Bike-Forum, so "car-free" or "car-light" should just mean you spend more time on your bike than you do in a car.

Hopefully, leave it at that...

cycleobsidian

So this would be a better definition, in your view:

1. An individual, who does not own, lease, or have a car that is otherwise held by another individual for his/her personal use, and rarely operates a motor vehicle.

Cumbersome, but more to the point I suppose.

Newspaperguy

That makes sense to me. And it's not really cumbersome. When drafting definitions, accuracy trumps a catchy phrase.

Roody

By the definition I proposed, I would move rom carfree to carlight. A family member just moved into my home who owns a car. I ride in the car a couple times a week to be with other family members. So I guess I'm now carlight, after years of being carfree.

I can still old my head up with this change of status. It doesn't bother me a bit. Just as I have enormous respect for you and others who are carlight, I can have self-respect when I'm carlight.

Newspaperguy

Even though there are a few definitions tossed around, car-free is relatively easy to define. Car-light becomes much more difficult simply because there are degrees of car-light. Roody's version of car-light is a lot lighter than some others. My efforts at becoming car-light are not at all the same as the experiences of others around here.

Roody

This is not a problem if you look at the definition of car, which is (abridged) a motor vehicle used for personal transportation. You could drive 12 hours a day for your employer or even your own business, but this is not personal use, so you are not driving a "car" as defined here. (I guess you could say that you're driving a commercial automobile,)

By this cefinition:

A delivery driver can be carfree.
A taxi driver can be carfree.
A plumber or doctor who makes housecalls can be carfree.
A farmer who uses a pickup to geet supplies and to take crops to the farmers market can be carfree.
And so on....

Roody

Except that professional cyclists (and many recreational cyclists) might spend more hours riding than driving, but they might be totally dependent on their car for personal transportation. They might drive their bikes to both training rides and evetns, and never ride to the store or commute to work by bike. They are by no means carfree!

Roody

I'm sorry. I actually had you (and a couple others) in mind when I included this second part in the proposed carlight definition:

2. A carlight person owns a car, but rarely drives it, and tries to use other transportation methods most of the time.

Newspaperguy

Thanks, Roody. That definition is exactly how I try to live. And it's pretty good lifestyle.

cooker

I think you have an idealized memory of the "good old days" when people had higher standards. It's a variant of what I call the "old man rant" - you know the one: it starts off with "These kids nowadays......!" You've mixed in a bit of the "slippery slope" argument as well. It's all about the decline of mankind.

There is actually no such thing as car-free or drug-free or sugar-free. Those are Platonic concepts like the perfect circle, etc. that exist only in the abstract. In real life it's all about getting a reasonable working definition.

People call themselves drug-free if they avoid ingesting certain drugs - opioids, benzodiazepines, crystal meth, cannabinoids or whatever, but often they smoke cigarettes like crazy and drink coffee and cola out of buckets. However they have adopted a working definition of drug free that tolerates those drugs.

Sugar-free is defined by authorities like the FDA as a sugar content below x% where x is a small number, but greater than zero.

And we define car free as we define it. Some have a stricter definition, some have a looser definition, and through a process of discussion we may reach a consensus, or we may continue to disagree. The forum header is simply one possible definition, not accepted by all.

gerv 

Great post! The perfect circle indeed...

Robert Foster

I am pretty sure you will notice I didn't ask for the definition. When I first visited here I had just started getting re-interested in being car light and noticed there were people that had given up cars all together. One of my first conversations was with just such a person and I almost got my hat handed to me for simply saying I admired people who were car free in a world where cars seemed so indispensable. They told me that people can do pretty much whatever they wanted and that no one had to use a car if they made up their mind not to. At that time several people indicated they were indeed car free and they didn’t own, lease, rent of borrow a car. I think Roody can remember the conversation.

Is it possible that a car light person, like myself, could drive a car less than someone who borrows, or rents a car in a two week period? And if the two of us were going to the same place and I arrived by bike and they by rented car the latter can in good conscience consider themselves car free? Soundsd very Lewis Carrol doesn’t it?
It seems as if both of us should be willing to admit we are not car free.

bragi

I think your definitions are pretty sensible. I would suggest a minor modification to the 'car-free' definition, though: a person whose household/nuclear family does not own or lease a motor vehicle, and who walks, bikes, or uses public transportation for virtually all of his/her travel.