cooker

You have very correctly reminded us of two important facts: 1) there are a lot of people coming here looking for ideas on how to pursue car-free living, and 2) there are many barriers to car-free living, especially if you have children or live in a spread out ex-urban environment. Individuals who may want to live car-free, including those with families, often can't do it, in part because the built infrastructure creates an impediment. And of course we have to recognize that reality. Nobody considers those people weak or a failure if they have to make compromises based on the sort of built infrastructure they are surrounded by.

But remember, as you point out, those people come here seeking help in becoming car free, so how do we help them? Do we just pat them on the back and say "suck it up"? Or do we look at ways they and we can work together to remove those barriers, so that ultimately they achieve their goals?

That built infrastructure didn't arise by chance, and it didn't even arise due to the simple choices of many people, although that played a role. It was also socially engineered by powerful forces - real estate developers, construction companies, oil and car companies, who steered us in the directions that would maximize their profit, namely sprawling, car and freeway dependent suburbs. As part of that undertaking, they subverted politicians, manipulated public discourse, and captured tax revenues, to shape the landscape and make it difficult for anybody to function in the modern world without a car.

So if we want to help people who want to live car free, why limit ourselves to telling them what kind of pannier they should use, or how to shame a security guard into letting them carry it into a store? How about we also help them understand and address the political forces that have blocked them from living the way they want to, and engage with them in trying to reverse the damage?

RPK79

Society isn't the way I envision it should be therefore it is damaged and could only get that way through evil corporations forcing their will on the people. People clearly don't want to drive and live in suburbia; they have been brainwashed into thinking that is what they want. I'm making it my mission to change the world into what I want it to be like and I am using the Living Car Free subforum to do it!

cooker

People who want to live and drive in suburbia are free to do it and they have to be prepared to pay the price.

Roody

I enjoy talking about this stuff. You enjoy complaining about me talking about it. Sounds like we are both winners. Keep up the good work!

Roody

I think we should all keep in mind that we are talking about stuff that we are interested in (except ILTB), and this is enjoyable to us, or we wouldn't do it. That's the kind of nerds we are, on whichever side of the argument. It would be no fun at all if we all agreed with one another.

lakhotason

Oh he's got real evidence now. You just explicitly admitted that you are provoking the backlash.

Roody

Sarcasm is hard to pull off on the Internet, but you managed to pull it off. Congratulations!

Now, do you really believe that corporate interests are not spending a lot of money to keep this backlash going? The auto industry spends more on advertising than any other industry.

The oil companies are also among the top spenders for advertising. Zero dollars of the billions they spend on ads goes to directly selling their product. The only purpose of oil company ads is to convince people (especially politicians) that fossils are fine and nothing should get in the way of them extracting and selling it at unlimited profits.

The advertising message is clearly that, "yes, oil companies make a little money, but we are serving the public and making the American way of life possible." There's no way you can't see that this is "brainwashing". And I don't think they would spend billions of dollars on these ads if they didn't know they are effective.

RPK79

The auto industry spends money on advertising to sell their cars? The oil industry spends money to counter lobbying groups trying to put them out of business? Why won't these industries just roll over and die!?

Roody

so you're now agreeing that these ads contribute to the backlash?

Oil companies can afford Super Bowl commercials but polar bears and spotted owls cannot. That's why those of us who like bears and owls have to yell pretty loudly to be heard.

Mobile 155

We may have but the majority recipient of the migration from the north east larger cities, like Detroit that has been hammered, and even New York one the denser packed cities is, Texas and Now North Dakota. Neother state is resplendent with the densities so many here seem to favor. I freely admit I dislike the Mega City almost as much as some used to dislike the evil empire. But that being said I see the decay in the rust belt and defection from New York City as a positive thing. what has never been addressed and more than likely never will is the reason people fled the cities in the first place. What did so many families want a place of their own outside of Town? In my area we can thank men Like Huntington for building some of those suburbs and financing the Red Cars to move people to and from them. Atlanta is also proof that moving to the "city" is not the same as many think when they say city. They are spread out giving people room and giving rise to the new Suburbs, the exurban areas, Metro areas. All growing at a faster rate than central cores like Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh. On the west coast the Jobs aren't in Downtown LA they are down by the Harbor, out in the valley. In the many bedroom communities like Burbank and Pasadena.

But since we are talking it has to be remembered that sometimes society can be right and sometimes the ultra minority is wrong. And sometimes A tree huger is a term that comes from the populace. While almost everyone wants clean air and clean water most make it secondary to good jobs or steady employment. Especially if caving in to small special interest group simply means losing those jobs and services to someone else and adds to their comfort and economy. Argumentum ad populum may at times be very effective and that becomes clear when you see that even the car free in this forum aren't car free. From Anthropology we have learned that there has always been a division between dedicated city dwellers and non city dwellers. As the Cities became more expensive to live in and more crime ridden they lost some of their charm and people who could did escape. Some even in cities with protected building with security and car services. Some to outlying areas where they escaped the high rents for less space. That more than likely will not change in the lifetime of anyone posting here. Face the cycling forum is an interest of a minority of society. Living car free is a minority of cyclists. As they say, there is a problem with spitting in the wind.

cooker

Well, in ILTB's case I probably am trolling him a bit, but that wasn't what I was saying in the post you quoted. I was just commenting that our interchange was a good illustrative example of the theme of the thread. When some people (in this case me) advocate, some other people (him) lash back.

cooker

Those people didn't move specifically to find denser cities, or alternatively to get back to the land. Their area was economically depressed and they moved somewhere they hope was less so. But once they arrived in Houston, they had to cope with how it is now.

Or the change is happening under our noses.

lakhotason

I know it isn't what you meant to say but nevertheless it is what you said. I'm pretty sure you understand where my sympathies rest but even I couldn't take advantage of what I know to be a inadvertant use of "provoke". In short my reply was to allow you an opportunity to explain before someone else spotted it.

Even we apostates to The People's Glorious Bicycle Revolution retain a small residue of fair-play in our dark heretical souls.

Mobile 155

Except even if we follow Roody's mantra of forget what the studies publish and only believe what we see then after a spike in 1973 cycling has not gained in the US at all percentage wise and has decreased in Both China and India by more people than ever rode bikes in the US in the first place. Yes it does seem to be changing right under our noses and before our very eyes.

lakhotason

That 1973 year is interesting. I think if you consider the year you'll understand why cycling spiked then remained flat.

SHBR

This whole thread is a shipwreck.

Roody

Just to clarify, small towns, suburbs and even exurbs are counted as "urban areas" in most census reports and other studies. So people moving to the suburbs of Las Vegas or Phoenix are counted as moving to urban areas.

Your personal preferences aside, there is no doubt that since the start of the Industrial Age, there has been mass movement to towns, cities and suburbs. This migration is probably about complete in developed countries, but is rapidly apace in other parts of the world. I suppose that, like most social changes, there are both good and bad effects to this, which can be argued and disputed. But the plain and simple fact is that urbanization is progressing, whether you know it or not.

Mobile 155

I do understand I was there. I commuted to work on an old Schwinn Varsity 5 days a week and then joined friends for weekend rides with the family. Cycling was seen as clean, healthy and heaven forbid "fun". But the real point I am trying to make is it isn't a back lash if people don't even notice you or the things you are promoting as an alternative. Fact is more people believe in UFOs than living car free. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3900669.html More people believe in Big Foot than cycle to work, https://www.livescience.com/18869-big...canadians.html It seems when people talk about there being a back lash against cyclists it is more wishful thinking than reality. It is my opinion only but it seems cyclists in the US are treated like children that you only pay attention to because they complain and once you toss them a piece of candy they will go away. That may be why my attitude is much like it was back in the 70s. I don't need their candy I will ride my bike on the streets or to the store or to the beach because the streets are mine as much as they are anyone's. If they toss out candy like a bike lane or bike path fine I will use it but only if it meets my needs. But if they never toss out the candy I am still riding.

Roody

Then work to get it afloat, or just abandon ship. Your call.

Roody

Have you ever tried asking for a piece of candy, or even demanding it?

Mobile 155

If you are including suburbs and Exurban areas then I agree. That leaves Rural and everything else is Urban. To me the Suburbs are a necessary relief valve to the central core of most Mega Cities. Some however have placed a divide between the "City" and the Metro area or the Suburbs. There has even been accusations that wealthy suburbanites subvert urban progress in some elections.

Roody

I'm just saying how the census bureau and most researchers define "urban". And it makes sense. Most people have moved to suburbs because they're quieter and less crowded, but clearly they partake of the central city for employment, recreational, and cultural opportunities. Suburbanites enjoy their relationship with "the city".

Mobile 155

Sure they do. And at least in my area the old central city dwellers are now commuting to the burbs for work. It is almost always less expensive to build a building for manufacturing or warehousing on land where you don't have demolition costs. But if you remember one of our very first conversations was that is any plan for cycling or mass transit was ever really looking for public voter support it would have to include the suburbs. In this forum I was told that would never work. As if the suburbs were the enemy. If that is the case how could anyone expect support from the people who prefer to live outside of the city proper? The answer is you can't. So in effect there is no united movement for car free living if it includes we have to move to make it work. And yes that is one of the cornerstones of the concept preached here. It comes up in more threads than not on how to be car free.

SHBR

I think you fell off the ship somewhere around 1973 when you fell for the global warming scam.

Tell yourself whatever makes you feel better.

There is no hope for the willfully ignorant.

Roody

I happen to think that suburbs are ideal for cycling, other than the poorly designed roads. Cities for walking, suburbs for cycling, country for cars, and transit to fill in the gaps.

I do think that if suburbs want to survive as sustainable communities, they should model themselves after small towns, to some extent. They should have a central business district (even if it's a mall), with homes and businesses not too far away. Ideally, people would be able to live, shop, and work mostly within their own suburb--but have good rapid transit to the big city for special occasions.