Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

Living Car Free...The reality.

Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

Living Car Free...The reality.

Old 09-18-18, 04:48 PM
  #76  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,352
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8070 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
The damage that people would do if they could access more of nature without cars, is trivial compared to the damage they actually do
every day and have done for generations with their cars and with the infrastructure their cars require. For every remote, pristine valley that people might want to flock to, to escape from crowds and cars, there is another one, or several, that have been despoiled and developed and permanently removed from nature, because cars made it available for development or necessary as a transportation corridor.
I agree, and when I go to otherwise-wonderful natural preserves and see all the cars parked and all the people walking as if they're at an amusement park, it bothers me; but when I think about what it would be like if there was a train line or direct bus connection, I think it might get even worse. Compare US national parks with touristy parts of, say, Switzerland, where there are trains and cable lifts, etc. Gatlinburg and Pidgeon Forge are touristy, and it's certainly understandable to have some touristy areas like that, but given the way humans behave when they all flock to just about any destination, I wonder if making such places transit accessible isn't even worse than having them easily accessible by driving. I don't know if it's possible to entrust the transit-using public with responsible stewardship of natural areas if they get car-free access to them.
tandempower is offline  
Old 09-18-18, 04:49 PM
  #77  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,784

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3518 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
yahoo!

The guy explains why stuff won't work for him, and people who didn't bother to read carefully say, 'Do it anyway."

The guy has a solution which works for him, and peple say, 'Don't do what works, do what won't work."

The whole thing is just about senseless from the first post.

car-free doesn't suit every person, every lifestyle, every situation .... and some people seem to find that really hard to accept.

I feel like i have entered into some sort of Fanatic Zone ... oh, wait. Sorry, I didn't read the sign on the door.

later.
Again, he chose to post in the LCF forum and challenged people to explain how he could do his trip car-free, and people politely responded and explained that he would have to do a different trip or at least do things a little differently. And of course he is free to ignore these comments. Where are you seeing all this fanaticism and senselessness? Are you sure you just aren't distorting things through some kind of lens of preconception that people here must be some kind of hard-core zealots, and reading that into perfectly sensible comments?

Except for 3alarmer, of course
cooker is offline  
Old 09-18-18, 04:50 PM
  #78  
Maelochs
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,459

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5449 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 76 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
The damage that people would do if they could access more of nature without cars, is trivial compared to the damage they actually do
every day and have done for generations with their cars and with the infrastructure their cars require.
Yeah , ... and for every place there is a guy on a computer, there is a mountain in West Virginia without a top and a bunch of valleys with rivers full of coal ash.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 09-18-18, 05:00 PM
  #79  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,784

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3518 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Yeah , ... and for every place there is a guy on a computer, there is a mountain in West Virginia without a top and a bunch of valleys with rivers full of coal ash.
I edited my post to say "our" cars since I don't claim to be somehow outside the system. However "we" can do a lot to reduce our impact, and reducing driving would be a huge step. If people routinely went to National parks by train instead of car, a lot more nature would be preserved along the route, and a lot less of the park itself would be paved.
cooker is offline  
Old 09-18-18, 05:12 PM
  #80  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,784

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3518 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
I agree, and when I go to otherwise-wonderful natural preserves and see all the cars parked and all the people walking as if they're at an amusement park, it bothers me; but when I think about what it would be like if there was a train line or direct bus connection, I think it might get even worse. Compare US national parks with touristy parts of, say, Switzerland, where there are trains and cable lifts, etc. Gatlinburg and Pidgeon Forge are touristy, and it's certainly understandable to have some touristy areas like that, but given the way humans behave when they all flock to just about any destination, I wonder if making such places transit accessible isn't even worse than having them easily accessible by driving. I don't know if it's possible to entrust the transit-using public with responsible stewardship of natural areas if they get car-free access to them.
if you barred car access and only allowed train access, and designed pedestrian friendly gondolas and monorails etc, instead of roads to get people to widely scattered sites inside the park, the park could handle a lot more visitors than it can if they come by car, and drive around inside the park. Some interior roads could be reinvented as hiking trails where appropriate, with the right of way narrowed from 50 feet to 6 feet or 3 feet, or whatever, and trees replacing asphalt.

If visitors to a park started to exceed capacity, it would be up to the park stewards to figure out how to limit access while maintaining fairness. by perhaps rationing permits or whatever. That way more people could enjoy the park without the park necessarily sustaining more stress or feeling more crowded. People take up a lot less space than cars.

Last edited by cooker; 09-18-18 at 05:18 PM.
cooker is offline  
Old 09-18-18, 05:27 PM
  #81  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,352
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8070 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
if you barred car access and only allowed train access, and designed pedestrian friendly gondolas and monorails etc, instead of roads to get people to widely scattered sites inside the park, the park could handle a lot more visitors than it can if they come by car, and drive around inside the park. Some interior roads could be reinvented as hiking trails where appropriate, with the right of way narrowed from 50 feet to 6 feet or 3 feet, or whatever, and trees replacing asphalt.

If visitors to a park started to exceed capacity, it would be up to the park stewards to figure out how to limit access while maintaining fairness. by perhaps rationing permits or whatever. That way more people could enjoy the park without the park necessarily sustaining more stress or feeling more crowded. People take up a lot less space than cars.
I'd be open to replacing car access with car-free access, but I don't think car-access will get banned any time soon, unfortunately.

It's ironic, considering that even amusement parks require guests to park outside the park and take transit to get in and access attractions.

Last edited by tandempower; 09-18-18 at 05:35 PM.
tandempower is offline  
Old 09-18-18, 07:50 PM
  #82  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,784

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3518 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
I'd be open to replacing car access with car-free access, but I don't think car-access will get banned any time soon, unfortunately.

It's ironic, considering that even amusement parks require guests to park outside the park and take transit to get in and access attractions.
I assume larger national parks do have lots of people come by tour bus in groups or even solo by Greyhound etc. in some cases, but there are probably a lot of smaller state parks etc. where private car is the only choice, and it's a bit of a class issue where people who can't afford cars miss out on a shared resource. So I hope in future there is more equitable access, and I'm sure the park managers will find various ways to ensure they aren't damaged by overuse.

Last edited by cooker; 09-18-18 at 07:56 PM.
cooker is offline  
Old 09-18-18, 11:14 PM
  #83  
3alarmer
******
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 17,271

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14577 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
Again, he chose to post in the LCF forum and challenged people to explain how he could do his trip car-free, and people politely responded and explained that he would have to do a different trip or at least do things a little differently. And of course he is free to ignore these comments. Where are you seeing all this fanaticism and senselessness? Are you sure you just aren't distorting things through some kind of lens of preconception that people here must be some kind of hard-core zealots, and reading that into perfectly sensible comments?

Except for 3alarmer, of course
Originally Posted by Barry Goldwater (by gosh)
Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
...
3alarmer is offline  
Old 09-18-18, 11:33 PM
  #84  
Teamprovicycle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Providence
Posts: 726

Bikes: Specialized tarmac sl2 giant tcx zero

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 317 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Car free means no car at all no cheating , you get there by bike , the vacation becomes the journey , riding 100 plus miles a day .
Teamprovicycle is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 05:33 AM
  #85  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,352
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8070 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
I assume larger national parks do have lots of people come by tour bus in groups or even solo by Greyhound etc. in some cases, but there are probably a lot of smaller state parks etc. where private car is the only choice, and it's a bit of a class issue where people who can't afford cars miss out on a shared resource. So I hope in future there is more equitable access, and I'm sure the park managers will find various ways to ensure they aren't damaged by overuse.
There is a deeper problem, which is what happens when hordes of people show up with frisbees and balls and turn a park into a playground. Then there are the vendors and park managers who use them to turn the park into a business that generates more revenue. There is fundamental bias against having parks be nature sanctuaries where people can hike/bike, camp, and live in a more primitive, small-footprint, way because most people just don't want to be humbled by nature, i.e. because humility in the face of nature feels like humiliation to them.
tandempower is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 05:59 AM
  #86  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 51,437

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 131 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2876 Post(s)
Liked 77 Times in 55 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
There is a deeper problem, which is what happens when hordes of people show up with frisbees and balls and turn a park into a playground.
The horror! All those hordes of people having fun in a park! Imagine!
Machka is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 06:11 AM
  #87  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,352
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8070 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Machka View Post
The horror! All those hordes of people having fun in a park! Imagine!
I like having fun, too; but people should respect that plants and animals living in the park set the tone of the park and humans should quiet down and observe. There can be recreational areas, but people shouldn't turn natural areas into recreational areas. Those are for observing nature and hiking/biking/camping in a way that is harmonious with it. It really comes down to not being too noisy, not trampling on plants, and not littering (take only pictures and leave only footprints).
tandempower is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 06:21 AM
  #88  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 51,437

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 131 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2876 Post(s)
Liked 77 Times in 55 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
I like having fun, too; but people should respect that plants and animals living in the park set the tone of the park and humans should quiet down and observe. There can be recreational areas, but people shouldn't turn natural areas into recreational areas. Those are for observing nature and hiking/biking/camping in a way that is harmonious with it. It really comes down to not being too noisy, not trampling on plants, and not littering (take only pictures and leave only footprints).
You've never run along a beach and screamed into the howling wind and crash of the waves?

Sometimes nature is the ideal place to be noisy.
Machka is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 08:38 AM
  #89  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,784

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3518 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
There is a deeper problem, which is what happens when hordes of people show up with frisbees and balls and turn a park into a playground. Then there are the vendors and park managers who use them to turn the park into a business that generates more revenue. There is fundamental bias against having parks be nature sanctuaries where people can hike/bike, camp, and live in a more primitive, small-footprint, way because most people just don't want to be humbled by nature, i.e. because humility in the face of nature feels like humiliation to them.
Parks are versatile and diverse. They can have areas that are cleared and modified for specific activities like cricket or lawnbowling, others that are cleared for generic purposes and other parts that are left in their natural state. Again, the space we clear for recreational purposes is drastically overshadowed by the massive space we clear for transportation corridors. Let's cut back on the latter before we try to ostracize the frisbee players or mountain bikers who want space to play in parks.
cooker is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 08:42 AM
  #90  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,784

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3518 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
but people shouldn't turn natural areas into recreational areas. Those are for observing nature and hiking/biking/camping in a way that is harmonious with it.
All recreational areas used to be natural areas. Even a 3 foot wide biking or hiking trail is a recreational area that is no longer fully "natural'. If it goes on for miles, it disturbs more nature than a baseball field. Why do your recreational choices take priority over baseball?
cooker is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 12:41 PM
  #91  
Maelochs
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,459

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5449 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 76 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
Where are you seeing all this fanaticism and senselessness? Are you sure you just aren't distorting things through some kind of lens of preconception that people here must be some kind of hard-core zealots, and reading that into perfectly sensible comments?
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
I like having fun, too; but people should respect that plants and animals living in the park set the tone of the park and humans should quiet down and observe. There can be recreational areas, but people shouldn't turn natural areas into recreational areas. Those are for observing nature and hiking/biking/camping in a way that is harmonious with it. It really comes down to not being too noisy, not trampling on plants, and not littering (take only pictures and leave only footprints).
Have any hard questions?
Maelochs is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 01:09 PM
  #92  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,784

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 75 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3518 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs View Post
Have any hard questions?
So your "people" or "peple" [sic] is one person? Here I thought you were referencing hordes of fanatics overrunning the forum, like locusts swarming over a rice field, destroying everything, or emulating the reavers in Firefly.

Last edited by cooker; 09-20-18 at 08:31 AM.
cooker is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 02:04 PM
  #93  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,352
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8070 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Machka View Post
You've never run along a beach and screamed into the howling wind and crash of the waves?

Sometimes nature is the ideal place to be noisy.
That's not what I'm talking about and hopefully you understand that. If so, you're just being cheeky and if not, I probably can't explain it to you.
tandempower is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 02:08 PM
  #94  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,352
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8070 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
Parks are versatile and diverse. They can have areas that are cleared and modified for specific activities like cricket or lawnbowling, others that are cleared for generic purposes and other parts that are left in their natural state. Again, the space we clear for recreational purposes is drastically overshadowed by the massive space we clear for transportation corridors. Let's cut back on the latter before we try to ostracize the frisbee players or mountain bikers who want space to play in parks.
Actually, let's stop the zero-sum logic that it's ok to deforest some areas if we protect and preserve forests in others. The CO2 balance is kept by keeping ecosystems rooted in soils. Human activities should be part of that, not a replacement of it. Once we have learned to humble ourselves and fully respect the critical functions of ecological life, then we can start thinking about allowing some clearing. Right now, we need to get over ourselves so that we can get down to the business of letting nature do the work it does for us and the rest of life on this planet.
tandempower is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 02:11 PM
  #95  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,352
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8070 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
All recreational areas used to be natural areas. Even a 3 foot wide biking or hiking trail is a recreational area that is no longer fully "natural'. If it goes on for miles, it disturbs more nature than a baseball field. Why do your recreational choices take priority over baseball?
Humans started out as part of nature, but they started competing with nature for space at some point instead of fitting their activities into it. Many species modify and clear away natural growth, but they don't have the ability to analyze the long term effects of their actions and modify them accordingly. Humans do.
tandempower is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 02:24 PM
  #96  
Maelochs
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11,459

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 136 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5449 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 76 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
So your "people" or "peple" [sic] is one person? Here I thought you were referencing hoards of fanatics overrunning the forum, like locusts swarming over a rice field, destroying everything, or emulating the reavers in Firefly.
You are another one ... though I must say, the strength of your African river could power many cities if it could be used for hydroelectric.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 03:14 PM
  #97  
3alarmer
******
 
3alarmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Big Tomato
Posts: 17,271

Bikes: old ones

Mentioned: 227 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14577 Post(s)
Liked 76 Times in 65 Posts
...you people !!
3alarmer is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 03:27 PM
  #98  
McBTC
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,752

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1495 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by 3alarmer View Post
...you people !!
who are... pretty much anyone who survives complaints to the moderator by essentially, two posters.
McBTC is online now  
Old 09-19-18, 03:40 PM
  #99  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 3,964
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 979 Post(s)
Liked 27 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Actually, let's stop the zero-sum logic that it's ok to deforest some areas if we protect and preserve forests in others. The CO2 balance is kept by keeping ecosystems rooted in soils. Human activities should be part of that, not a replacement of it. Once we have learned to humble ourselves and fully respect the critical functions of ecological life, then we can start thinking about allowing some clearing. Right now, we need to get over ourselves so that we can get down to the business of letting nature do the work it does for us and the rest of life on this planet.
No, let's not. More specifically, let's not take any advice from you. "We" don't need to follow anything you suggest, and it is highly unlikely that anything good would come of doing so.

Finally, no -- "we" do not need "to get over ourselves". If there is one person on this sub-forum who needs to get over him- or herself, and to "humble" him- or herself -- that is, demonstrate just a little less arrogance -- it is you.
badger1 is offline  
Old 09-19-18, 04:16 PM
  #100  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 27,682

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 50 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
So your "people" or "peple" [sic] is one person? Here I thought you were referencing hoards of fanatics overrunning the forum, like locusts swarming over a rice field, destroying everything, or emulating the reavers in Firefly.
One person could be sufficient to wreak such havoc if so motivated.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.