Understanding Backlash Against Car-Free Advocacy
#201
Prefers Cicero
This is called Agenda 21.
China is the test bed for this, as much as I like big cities, I strongly disagree with forcing people off the land and into crowded cities.
We have too much government intervention in our lives already.
That being said, I have been car-free for over 7 years, and quite happy being so.
China is the test bed for this, as much as I like big cities, I strongly disagree with forcing people off the land and into crowded cities.
We have too much government intervention in our lives already.
That being said, I have been car-free for over 7 years, and quite happy being so.
There will always be rural life and small towns. What needs to die, and will die naturally if we don't use artificial life support to keep it going, is suburbia, the most wasteful way to live.
Likes For cooker:
#202
Sophomoric Member
Of course I'm talking in this sense about cycling as a hobby or a sport. That's the point. How much success do you think you'd have getting a person from zero cycling to living car free in one fell swoop?
As for problems and issues, you have no reason to say that I behave as if they are not real. To the contrary, my behavior addresses the real problems.
I hope being a grasshopper is a good thing but I kinda think it's not.
As for problems and issues, you have no reason to say that I behave as if they are not real. To the contrary, my behavior addresses the real problems.
I hope being a grasshopper is a good thing but I kinda think it's not.
And I do believe that most people will make difficult or inconvenient changes in their lifestyles in order to help the environment. Ozone depletion is one example. People voluntarily gave up aerosol sprays, and governments followed through with a treaty banning many ozone depletes (Montreal Protocol). Most people have also accepted the inconvenience of recycling and CFLs.
People believe that the environment is "theirs" and they will try to protect it if they think there's a crisis. Right now we have a lot of self interest groups (oil, gas, auto, land use, etc.) spending vast sums of money to convince the public and the politicians that a truth is a lie. And we are supposed to come back with the argument that "it's fun to ride a bike"! I really don't think that's an adequate response at this time. Let's appeal to people's intelligence and their desire to come together to solve a crisis. In other words, lets not quit having fun, but let's listen to the ants.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
Likes For Roody:
#203
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
Who's forcing anybody (or you) to move to the city? People can live where they want. Inevitably more people are going to move to cities because it's the most cost-effective way for people to live, and as we see in New York already, more and more of them won't see the point of owning a car.
There will always be rural life and small towns. What needs to die, and will die naturally if we don't use artificial life support to keep it going, is suburbia, the most wasteful way to live.
There will always be rural life and small towns. What needs to die, and will die naturally if we don't use artificial life support to keep it going, is suburbia, the most wasteful way to live.
#204
Sophomoric Member
Actually, the city of Detroit itself was quite sprawled, like a suburb. Most Detroiters lived in single family homes (with garages, of course). Even most apartments were just two family units, duplexes or, as they were called in Detroit, flats. Today the most popular and expensive areas of Detroit are the densely populated areas like downtown and Midtown.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#205
C*pt*i* Obvious
Who's forcing anybody (or you) to move to the city? People can live where they want. Inevitably more people are going to move to cities because it's the most cost-effective way for people to live, and as we see in New York already, more and more of them won't see the point of owning a car.
There will always be rural life and small towns. What needs to die, and will die naturally if we don't use artificial life support to keep it going, is suburbia, the most wasteful way to live.
There will always be rural life and small towns. What needs to die, and will die naturally if we don't use artificial life support to keep it going, is suburbia, the most wasteful way to live.
This is an everyday occurrence in China.
https://shanghaiist.com/search?cx=001...location&sa=GO
#206
Sophomoric Member
Its called forced relocation, although in North America sometimes eminent domain is used instead.
This is an everyday occurrence in China.
https://shanghaiist.com/search?cx=001...location&sa=GO
This is an everyday occurrence in China.
https://shanghaiist.com/search?cx=001...location&sa=GO
i don't think there will be a need or desire to force people to live in cities. Most people want to live in cities for their own personal reasons.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
Likes For Roody:
#207
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058
Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times
in
35 Posts
Actually, the city of Detroit itself was quite sprawled, like a suburb. Most Detroiters lived in single family homes (with garages, of course). Even most apartments were just two family units, duplexes or, as they were called in Detroit, flats. Today the most popular and expensive areas of Detroit are the densely populated areas like downtown and Midtown.
#208
Sophomoric Member
I haven't seen a lot written about this, but I think one reason for the dereliction of Detroit was the sprawled out nature of the city. Manhattan, San francisco, and Boston could all be fit into the Detroit city limits, with room to spare, although the population of Detroit was smaller than those three cities. Today the metro Detroit area is at least 75 miles across, with a population of about 4 million people.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#209
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seville, Spain
Posts: 4,403
Bikes: Brompton M6R, mountain bikes, Circe Omnis+ tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
I didn't say cycling for any reason other than fun was finger-wagging. I am saying that calling a person "bizarre" for going car free for "selfish" reasons is, quite frankly, bizarre and is the epitome of finger-wagging. I'm walking the walk and you're still wagging your finger at me only because I ain't walking to your cadence.
What does seem very strange to me is that anyone who argues that we need to reduce the number of cars on the roads because of the role they play in hastening catastrophic climate change or because of the huge numbers of people they kill is accused of being a proselytizer, a fundamentalist, a finger-wagger or a smug hypocrite. We need to stop this name-calling and get back to discussing the issues.
#210
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
Seriously I don't understand your question. What hidden agenda? What issues? What taboo? You're making this far too complicated.
I ride my bike because it is fun. If it were not fun I would not ride my bike. People ride bikes first and foremost because it is fun to ride bikes. If you wish people to ride bikes you remind them of the fun of riding a bike. You do not wag your finger at them and tell them they are wrong. Remember the whole point is to get people to ride bikes. If that's an agenda then so be it.
I ride my bike because it is fun. If it were not fun I would not ride my bike. People ride bikes first and foremost because it is fun to ride bikes. If you wish people to ride bikes you remind them of the fun of riding a bike. You do not wag your finger at them and tell them they are wrong. Remember the whole point is to get people to ride bikes. If that's an agenda then so be it.
Yeah, I know ... it's kind of silly. Nothing wrong with cycling for those reasons, but rest assured, there are a few of us who are, or have been, car-free/car-light ... and one of the main reasons is simply because we enjoy riding our bicycles. Even cycling (or walking) to and from work.
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Last edited by Machka; 02-05-14 at 01:55 AM.
#211
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seville, Spain
Posts: 4,403
Bikes: Brompton M6R, mountain bikes, Circe Omnis+ tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
https://www.alternet.org/story/153703..._huggers'#
#212
C*pt*i* Obvious
I didn't read every link on that page. I randomly selected four. None were about forced relocation from a suburb to a city. One was about a school being forced to relocate, possibly for political reasons. One was about clearing an urban area to make way for high rise apartments. One was about forcing people out of an area that was going to be flooded by a new dam.
i don't think there will be a need or desire to force people to live in cities. Most people want to live in cities for their own personal reasons.
i don't think there will be a need or desire to force people to live in cities. Most people want to live in cities for their own personal reasons.
Most people need to work for income. Most people find employment in the city.
Cars are popular because it gives people the option to live outside of the city.
I choose and prefer to live in the city, however I do not want to be forced to do so.
Cities give governments more social control over populations, in the form of increased regulation and taxes.
Given the increasing big brother nanny state control grid that we are under, how much longer will we have a choice?
#213
Sophomoric Member
Don't you know ... "fun" isn't a valid reason for riding a bicycle in this particular forum. You've got to have a political purpose for riding a bicycle. You've got to be on a mission. You might even have to suffer for your cause.
Yeah, I know ... it's kind of silly. Nothing wrong with cycling for those reasons, but rest assured, there are a few of us who are, or have been, car-free/car-light ... and one of the main reasons is simply because we enjoy riding our bicycles. Even cycling (or walking) to and from work.
Yeah, I know ... it's kind of silly. Nothing wrong with cycling for those reasons, but rest assured, there are a few of us who are, or have been, car-free/car-light ... and one of the main reasons is simply because we enjoy riding our bicycles. Even cycling (or walking) to and from work.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#214
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
#215
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
Perhaps a nice "discussion" about the 2nd Amendment, abortion, or nature vs nurture is in order to decide who really is interested in living car free, eh?
Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 02-05-14 at 03:07 PM.
#216
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seville, Spain
Posts: 4,403
Bikes: Brompton M6R, mountain bikes, Circe Omnis+ tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
Which issues are those? People give up driving for many reasons. Are our conversations to be limited to only those that appeal to you?
Last edited by Ekdog; 02-05-14 at 03:08 PM.
#218
Prefers Cicero
#219
Prefers Cicero
In most social gatherings I have been in car free and environmental advocates hardly are ever thought of let alone backlashed against. I don't believe cyclists even hit the Forbes 500 radar. But tree hugger was a term from the street and as grass roots as it gets. I first heard it from the working men of the lumber industry in Washington state.
Monday i rode 35 miles to meet some friends for lunch. As we sat at a patio table talking and planning our next outing two older men pulled up any got out of what looked to be a F series heavy duty truck. Much bigger than a 350. One walked up and asked how far we had come that day. When we told him he said, "don't you like cars?" We smiled and said, we like cars, we don't like paying for gas. With they finally smiled and went in to have lunch themselves. I don't believe we would have gotten a smile if we complained about their truck do you?
Last edited by cooker; 02-05-14 at 05:31 PM.
#220
Prefers Cicero
I suppose this depends on how you define force?
Most people need to work for income. Most people find employment in the city.
Cars are popular because it gives people the option to live outside of the city.
I choose and prefer to live in the city, however I do not want to be forced to do so.
Cities give governments more social control over populations, in the form of increased regulation and taxes.
Given the increasing big brother nanny state control grid that we are under, how much longer will we have a choice?
Most people need to work for income. Most people find employment in the city.
Cars are popular because it gives people the option to live outside of the city.
I choose and prefer to live in the city, however I do not want to be forced to do so.
Cities give governments more social control over populations, in the form of increased regulation and taxes.
Given the increasing big brother nanny state control grid that we are under, how much longer will we have a choice?
You would be free free to live outside the city and work in the city, if you chose to, but it would affect me if my taxes helped pay for your freeways or if your exhaust fumes blanketed my neighbourhood, so I think I am well within my rights lobbying for policies that deter sprawl and encourage denser living.
Likes For cooker:
#221
C*pt*i* Obvious
Ahh yes, denser living, looks swell to me.
I'm sure it does wonders for your mental health.
I'm guessing, given enough pressure these people will revolt just like "rural peasants" did in the past..
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/a...ed-study-finds
I'm sure it does wonders for your mental health.
I'm guessing, given enough pressure these people will revolt just like "rural peasants" did in the past..
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/a...ed-study-finds
#222
Prefers Cicero
Having a concern for the environment (or not having a concern for the environment) does not make a person any more or less a living car free person. Just because you and a few other posters continue to beat your drums for your favorite agendas on this list, does not make those issues living car free issues. Your political and social agenda (or anyone else's) is no more a car free living topic than if some other posters decide to constantly berate the readers of this list with their own political and social agendas.
Perhaps a nice "discussion" about the 2nd Amendment, abortion, or nature vs nurture is in order to decide who really is interested in living car free, eh?
Perhaps a nice "discussion" about the 2nd Amendment, abortion, or nature vs nurture is in order to decide who really is interested in living car free, eh?
#223
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,973
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
There's our favorite forum nanny telling us what is and isn't appropriate for us to discuss, and again using false analogies. People may choose to be car free for environmental or political reasons, or for social or fitness or economical reasons, or purely for enjoyment, and if people on the car free forum want to discuss those reasons why shouldn't they? They're a lot more relevant to the forum than abortion or the constitution. Maybe you should reprimand the people like Machka or lakhotason who say they are car free for pleasure. After all the motivation for being car free is apparently verboten for discussion under your forum rules.
If I were the forum nanny, it would be the end of non cycling related political discussions and smug nagging of other posters over their interest in car free living without the PC/"tree hugging" credentials held by the naggers.
Talk about your own motivation to be car free all you want, but that should not be expanded to a license to repeatedly nag every one else on LCF to get "motivated" politically to your level of PC superiority.
#224
Prefers Cicero
Ahh yes, denser living, looks swell to me.
I'm sure it does wonders for your mental health.
I'm guessing, given enough pressure these people will revolt just like "rural peasants" did in the past..
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/a...ed-study-finds
I'm sure it does wonders for your mental health.
I'm guessing, given enough pressure these people will revolt just like "rural peasants" did in the past..
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/a...ed-study-finds
#225
Prefers Cicero
The whole point of the thread is that if people DO talk about their (environmental or political) motivation, it provokes a backlash from someone like you who immediately misrepresents them as smug, preachy, nags, or whatever, with no real evidence except your own preconceptions.