bragi

I was only joking with the troll comment, Robert. Please don't take anything I say too seriously. As for the topic at hand: Let's use a religious metaphor. I'm a car-free Unitarian. (OK, maybe a car-free Catholic who took the Vatican II ball and ran a little too far with it.) You're a car-free Fundamentalist, maybe even a Calvinist. It's a difference of perspective, possibly a profound one, but mostly it's a matter of semantics.

Most people define car-free as not owning a car. Non-ownership of a car means that, by default, you're very, very rarely going to ever use one, because, well, there isn't one in your driveway. It implies a state in which cars are not readily available. It doesn't mean that you will never, ever, get into a car or will never, ever drive one. In the culture that we live in, cars are often avoidable, but not every time.

I have the sense that the ownership definition is the one preferred by most people who post in this forum. Your own definition is just that: your own. It's worthy of consideration, but if there is no broad agreement with it, your definition should not remain on the table forever just because you're more persistent than others. This is my understanding of how consensus is supposed to work.

I don't always agree with Roody, but in this case I think his definitions should be accepted.

Roody

I agree sith Bragi that 100% agreement is not always needed for a working definition. In this case, I think 00% is good enough, and we will hope that everybody can at least live with the definitions, even if they don't love them. We can wati to see if any new objections come up, but I really don't see much point in continuing to rehash prior objections for the 17th time.


Here's a proposed "dictionary" for the LCF forum::

Robert Foster

I understand the concept of consensus as it applies to this particular topic. And I realize I am in the minority here on the subject. What I have trouble with is the concept that someone can call themselves car free even while driving down the road to Disneyland in Florida from Atlanta. I simply don’t understand why they would want to. I know in this case I am a purest. To me with the way car free people often condemn the use of car it sounds almost like an alcoholic. Perhaps all of it is pure rhetoric and we are talking ideology rather than reality. And of course people have the right to form a forum for a concept. But you will have to admit with the forum introduction posted before you come to car free at some point it was like having to get 100 percent on a classroom test to get a perfect grade. From the conversations that have been going on it is more like horse shoes. And you are right; my opinion is only one of many. I didn’t get the answer about renter and an owner driving to the same vacation spot and one claiming car free unless we are talking attitude and not actuality. But I will withdraw because I have nothing to add at this point.

Roody

Thank you Robert. Your tenacity is exceeded only by your grace.

I think your objections to rental cars would make for an interesting new thread, if you ever feel like starting one.

Robert Foster

Thank you for suggesting but no, I have voiced my opinion and that is all I wanted to do. If the majority decided on your definition I can abide by it within the confines of this forum, LCF. I would suggest someone petition the moderators to change the LCF introduction. You will only need to change only use mass transit to mostly use to avoid some of the debates in the future. But even if that doesn’t happen I have voiced what I wanted to voice and can leave it at that.

trafficcasauras

carlight is when you still have a job. carfree is when you lose your job.

Roody

That's a false and insulting stereotype about carfree people. Believe it or not, there are many people who freely choose not to own a car. Most of the CF people on this forum could afford a car or two if they wanted them.

Drunks, drug addicts, unemployed bums--so sad that even people on this forum believe that's what carfree people are.

CarFreeFam4

+1,000,000

My sentiments exactly.

Robert Foster

Do not take this as a chastisement but only as an observation over the last few months. Getting caught in stereotypical thought is both easy to do and easy to let pass at times. I have heard and with some agreement in these forums: 1. Suburbanites are all right wing conservative republicans and are at war with urbanites. 2: And how easily do people say that someone with a nice CF road bike can’t be concerned with being car free or car light. 3: People wearing a helmet and cycling specific clothing are simply posers.
I try not to make a judgment on how dedicated someone might be based on what they ride, wear or where they live but that isn’t true of everyone. We far too often fall in the trap of making enemies of people that have the same goal as we do but don’t do things the same way.
To be honest till one of our northern cycling cousins mentioned it I didn’t realize suburbanites were supposed to be the enemy of urbanites. I thought they simply wanted more space to live.

cooker

I don't think anybody claimed these things as black and white absolutes, as you seem to be saying. Suburbanites and urbanites are both diverse groups with diverse interests, but suburbanites on average are more likely to vote conservative - there must be some explanation for this - what do you think it is? Most people using a bike as their primary transportation do not ride a CF road bikes and eschew bike locks. "Class warfare" is a metaphor for how people in differing geographic and economic circumstances my have differing priorities and may try to influence the political process in their favour, possibly to the detriment of people in other economic or geographic circumstances, not an actual physical war.

BTW "class warfare" seems to have become a favourite catch phrase of the right wing media. Maybe they were reading BF.

Roody

I know you're caught up in this suburban thing and you're trying to make it the topic on every thread. Why don't you start your own thread instead of hijacking almost every other thread on this forum.

Robert Foster

Is it not a favorite stereotype of some? And I toss the fertilizer flag on cooker's denial because I remember well the accusation made by someone in the same area about Ford getting elected Mayor and accusing "rich conservitive suburbanites" of being the cause. And very few seemed to object to that concept. Or are you telling me you don't remember the exchange? It is always people that do things differently that get tagged with a stereotpe. All I am saying is very few in this forum are stereotype free.

trafficcasauras

that was a joke. where i live in the suburbs, it is a joke. sorry, i'll put a haha after it next time. i thought it just made enough sense that it didn't need one.
i didn't think teh car-free forums were as testy or serious as the Advocacy and Vehicular Cycling forums.

Roody

it's not a stereotype to say that most suburbanites are conservative. That's a nown fact, well supported by polls and election outcomes. However, it is a stereotype to believe, before you even talk to him or her, that a particular suburbanite individual is a conservative. That's because even though most suburbanites are conservative, many are not.

Roody

Since I don't live in your suburb, I don't know what you all consider funny. (Evidently it doesn't take much to get a chuckle there.)

lol

Brojangles

Alrighty then. Back on topic...

Car free: Having totally given up the use of said cars. Not a single penny spent on either operation or maintenance.

Car lite: Continued use of cars whether it be occasional, or not. Includes rentals.

Car: Currently in possession of an automobile.

My do centavos. ;-)

Machka 

+1