zeppinger

I don't think I did, maybe you should re-read my post? Your original post was a one liner that said you don't own a car because you can not afford one, not because you choose to be without a car. To me thats not really car free. If this statement offends you then having fun being offended an awful lot.

If however there was some other offense that your are referring to then please let me know. I don't see anything about my posts that made any negative assumptions about you.

qmsdc15

Being car-free means not having a car. Don't worry, you are still better than me, but we are both "free" of "car" ownership. Which word am I defining oddly? Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

It's sweet that what matters to you is "whether I'd still not own a car even if I could afford it". I haven't really answered that question. I gave one reason I don't own a car. As you imply, other reasons don't really matter after that one. Do you really think I would be posting here if that was my only reason?

Roody

You've had a rough time on this thread, haven't you? I could be wrong, but I think you were being ironic in a couple of posts, and maybe people missed that. I think you were objecting to the distinction made between being "carfree" and "carless". If so, I don't much like that distinction either.

Some of the poorest people I know in America own cars. Some of the richest do not. So I find it hard to distinguish between those who are voluntarily carfree and others who are involuntarily carless. In fact, I don't even know where I myself would stand on that continuum. I know that my income is high enough to afford a car, since colleagues who make my same wage do own them. But I also know that if I were to purchase a car, I would have to give up other things that I like to spend my money on. In other words, I would feel poorer if I owned a car.

So what are your other reasons for being carfree, if you'd care to say?

zeppinger

Some good points Roody but I still stand by that distinction as being important to me. Car-free, in my mind, seems to imply that I not only do not own a car but that I am also free of the psychological desire to own one regardless of how much money I do or do not have in the bank.

I understand your point, that for most people its not black and white and there is a balance to be struck, like in your case. However, I think a lot of people are trapped by the "must own a car" mentality. I also understand that that mentality is specific to my own country (USA) and that thats where I draw my conclusions from.

gmsdc15 said:

"Do you really think I would be posting here if that was my only reason?"

As for gmsdc15, I have no idea why anyone chooses to post on this website so don't assume that I know something about you just because you post here. When you say that the only reason you are car-free is because you cant afford one then I assume that is the only reason. I did not intend to tick you off specifically I was just trying flesh out a specific distinction that Roody has now manages to muddle quite well.

However I am still going to stick with my argument. There are a million different ways to say that you don't own a car and they all have different linguistic significance. Why is this the car-free forum and not the forum for "people who can not afford a car" or "car-less" or the "oil-free forum" or the "the transportationaly challenged forum" or the "environmentally friendly transportation forum" or "car-light" or ect... To me, car-free sounds like a choice not an imposition. Since I assumed that that was the only reason for gmsdc15 being with out a car I objected. I also think that this line on reasoning goes along with a lot of the other post on this forum that have little to do with cycling such as ways to simply reduce your driving by means of mass transit or moving closer to work.

Roody

You're drawing a pretty small circle around the concept "carfree." I imagine that you're leaving out many (maybe most) of the people who post on this forum.

The title of the forum is Living Carfree. I always thought this meant simply "living without a car". I also thought this term extended to people who own a car, but who are carfree (without a car) in at least some portions of their lives--a condition we often call "carlight".

As for reasons for not owning a car, most people would include one or more of the following: Health and exercise, environmental ideology, simpler living, greater enjoyment, and/or financial reasons. Many people (like me) are carfree for more than one reason; some people are carfree for only one reason. For many, that one reason is financial. IOW, the choice is the same for everybody, but the reasons for the choice do vary.

In reality, almost everybody in North America and Europe can afford a car, in the sense that they can come up with the money for one. But many poor people choose not to have a car, and choose instead to spend their scant money on something else. This is exactly the same choice that a millionaire might make--simply to save money by not owning a car.

I-Like-To-Bike

But think of the joy of being a member of an exclusive club looking down on those who don't hold such a lofty moral position at the right hand of God.

Roody

Sometimes I think you get as much joy from being a member of the opposing exclusive club.

I'd like to see us all try to draw the carfree circle larger rather than smaller. We all have different motivations for being carfree/carlight, but all the reasons seem to cluster into four or five philosophies--none of which have to be exclusionary. IOW, these carfree philosophies are synergistic, which means they can have tremendous power.

Personally, I have enough difficulty understanding my own motives and intentions, let alone judging those of other people.

Enthusiast

Zeppinger, you are getting slammed in this thread. I swear I've read many threads which included a discussion of the distinction between being "less" and "free" something. The majority of posters seemed to agree that there was a difference in intent between the two. I'm not saying that this "Living Car Free" forum isn't helpful or appropriate to all sorts of people who use other forms of transportation besides cars-because it is-but most of the posters seem to have diverse reasons which extend beyond economic necessity and give the forum a different tone than one where "everyone that can't afford a car wants one." I think this tone is reflected in the forum title. "Free" certainly has different connotations than "Less" to me.

While Zeppingers personal definition of "car free" certainly includes a moral component, it doesn't seem like he's advocating requiring a moral component for admission to the Living Car Free forum-even if it is a prevalent theme around here.

As for myself, I'd say almost every reason listed by Roody applies. I took an ill-fitting job out of college because I was afraid and ended up having a very unhappy few years. I'm currently intentionally and gainfully unemployed (Job Free? ), using this time to travel and do a thorough search for rewarding and meaningful work. I couldn't be this ambitious if I had the expense of a car to worry about. So for me being Car Free means the freedom to pursue my dreams.

I-Like-To-Bike

Oh, I don't know. There are at least a few on BF who don't mind poking sanctimonious/self righteous BF fakers and posers off their high horse of moral superiority.

Only problem is that some of the club members don't always agree with me.

zeppinger

Well thanks for at least trying to come along with me. However, never did I include a "moral component" in my argument. Never did I say that anyone who did not fit my ideas of what constitutes car-free should not post here. I also mentioned that most people here actually do not fit this definition. If ILTB wants to read my post as me riding the high horse of morality thats fine because that seems to be the only argument he has left these days.

Of course there are a number of reasons for being car free. However, If I were to win 1 billion dollars today I would still not own a car, I dont like them. Does that make me a "moralist?" I dont think so. It just makes me a guy that doesnt like cars. I never even said that the distinction I was making had anything to do with the people who post on this thread. The OP's question was "What does car-free mean to you?"

I believe we had a thread not too long ago about wether or not true "car-free living" was even possible in the modern world and a consensus was never reached. There was a divide along the usual BF party lines.

qmsdc15

When I say that, then you can assume it's true. Making that assumption based on my post seems to reveal a car-centric bias. Think outside the box, Zeppo.

qmsdc15

I'm pretty strongly anti-car. I've lost too many friends. I'm been run into and run over by cars, but I still think riding is better for my health than driving. I also think it would be wasteful for me to use a car when a bike will serve my needs.

I'm a freight biker, I do work that would otherwise be done by cars, occasionally even truck calls (loads considered too big for a car). In that way I have decreased the driving of others as well as my own.

Roody

Interesting, not many people say that the dangerousness of cars is a reason for being carfree. But I can understand it. I developed a fear and loathing of cars when my stepson and best friend were injured in a car accident (they were in the car). That might have made me hate cars more, but I was already carfree when it happened so I can't say it's a reason for me not having a car.

crazybikerchick

Saving money and saving headache. Simplifying. Not worrying about maintenance or parking or parking tickets. Its more friendly to be walking or cycling living in an urban area - not the pollution aspect of the environment, but the congestion/use of public space one.

hairyman

Ever notice how "carfree" only differs by one letter from "carefree"?

mijome07

I am car-free by choice. If I had the money to buy a new/used car and the expenses that come along with it, I'd pass. I do not look down on people who drive. I was there myself owning 2 cars in the past.

Cosmoline

To me it means owning/leasing no car and very limited auto use such as commercial moving or taxi when the weather makes the routes truly impassable. I will also take a taxi to the airport or sometimes to meetings.

I personally hate cars and what they did to me and to the nation as a whole. We've paved over paradise for their benefit.

Roody

That's a good reason. I was thinking "especially in Alaska" but then I realized that pre-auto Michigan was as wild as Alaska still is. The damage to our environment--and I'm not even talking about pollution or GHGs--is hard to imagine because we've become so accustomed to it. Half or more of our inhabited areas are paved over strictly for the convenience of cars. There's definitely something wrong with that picture. Cars = visual pollution, olfactory pollution and sound polution.

Nycycle

To be car free would mean Wife Free, they are connected,,,,,

Curious LeTour

Nycycle, that subject strikes much debate in this forum. I would have to say, depending on the perspectives of the women that live in certain areas of the country, your statement has some truth to it. That statement would be false in progressive parts of the U.S., and relatively true in some of the traditional towns that I've lived in.

As for answering the main question of this thread, I aspire to be carfree because all of the reasons that Roody has mentioned on his posts to this thread. Great points Roody! My number one reason falls under ecology.

rockmom

I'm wife free. But my husband isn't. He's stuck with me. Hanging out with women a lot of the time, they complain that it is their husbands who hang on to the car. I'm guessing it is just that relationships are always a negotiation. And since people generally do not seek out mates based on transportation choices, cars (how many, what kind, when to use) end up being one of the more frequently negotiated items.

spezi3

I'm not totally car-free, but I'm definitely car-light. I definitely prefer to be on my bike feeling the fresh air and wind in my face than in my car. To me being car-light means using my car only when I have to due to bad weather, taking a sick child to the doctor, or hauling something that's too big to fit on a bike. My reasons for going car-light are:

* I live in a very bike-friendly city. It's easier to get around town on a bike than a car. It's also easier to park a bike and cheaper. Just about every business in town has a bike rack.
* Reducing my carbon footprint.
* Cycling is great cross-training for running and skiing, both of which I do. When I cycle to work in the mornings, it's a great way to wake up and get my blood moving. Cycling home from work helps me to wind down.
* It sets a good example for my son, showing him that cycling is a great way to go places and that we should only use a car when it's absolutely necessary.

gerv 

We don't get many European posts, so I'm curious as to how you define car-light.

I'm guessing, but I think in North America the average driver would be well over 15000 km. For my family we tend to do about 10000km in our car, probably less this year. For my personal transportation I generally only drive if it -30F outside and I've just missed the bus.

Being car free to me would mean having everyone in the family without a car. We would still probably need cabs and buses -- and we would probably have to rent cars at various times in the year -- but we wouldn't own a car.

BianchiDave

I say yes all those reasons you listed but I also do it for another;
Having one less car payment and my wife and I living within our means awards us the ability for her to be a stay-it-at home mother for our 2 children, while at the same time we can afford to live down in the city where prices are quite higher.

chucky

To me it means that I do not own a car and do not drive one unless when riding as a passenger the driver/owner asks me to drive. Bascially that I personally do not increase the number of automobiles on the road at any time (because I do not ride as a passenger unless the car would be going with or without me).

I do this for health, social, political, financial, personal, and environmental reasons.