Originally Posted by tandempower

I made the same point twice, but as usual you avoid the points that don't work in your favor. All I said is that you are not bothered at all when/if a job requires driving as a requirement for employment, but you and others like you would complain if a job advertised car-ownership and/or debt as grounds for dismissal. You would then complain that people should be free to drive to work if that's their choice.

It may not be realistic enough to you to worry about people losing jobs and opportunities because they own and drive cars instead of using biking/transit, but it isn't that far-fetched that we could see a trend of debt as grounds for dismissal, in which case only people who own their vehicles outright without debt would be allowed to apply and/or remain employed. How many people would be able to afford to drive if they had to pay for their vehicle in full without a loan or term-payment contract?


Imo, a motorcycle is a type of motor-vehicle, but technically so is an e-bike or e-scooter. I don't like motorcycles because they are loud, but I appreciate that many motorcyclists want to be noticed so they don't get killed by lane-changing drivers that didn't see them.

As for the job moving, I can imagine an employer saying they only want to hire people who live within five miles of the workplace and if you drive you're fired. Someone might ask for special consideration if they really like long distance commuting or have a transit system that can get them to work at that distance. People who want to drive to work would just complain about the requirement, though, and what's more there would be concerted political efforts to stop employers and/or local governments from making and enforcing rules that punish people for choosing driving over other modes. As I recall, there may have been some news stories some years ago about this kind of thing actually occurring, where some employers tried giving incentives to employees who biked to work, but then the employees ended up complaining about not qualifying for the incentives because they drove.

Anyway, the point is that it feels very unfair and discriminatory when you don't want to drive or own a car but some employer makes having and driving a car a condition for getting/keeping the job. M155's post bothered me because he quietly enjoys dropping facts like that, knowing that such discrimination would actively impact the life opportunities of car-free people and push us to drive or forego opportunities if we don't.

I just point out that what goes around comes around, and if he accepts such discrimination against LCFers for not driving, he can expect for himself or someone he cares about to experience similar discrimination at some point. It may not be because of driving or even directly related to transportation, but when it happens he will understand how it feels and how it feels when others are indifferent toward you or people you care about being blocked from opportunities because of life choices.