luderart

I found this very interesting article on a man who did an experiment of living totally car free (i.e. not even entering a car) for a year. Did you know about this? It's very interesting and opens up a lot of subjects for discussion. I suggest that we all read it and discuss the themes it touches upon in this thread.

https://money.blogs.time.com/2010/01/...rss-topstories

It got me thinking about the way the car culture has come to be determinative of the way we function and conduct our lives, even in the manner and rhythm of our social interactions and in the nature of the spaces we create for social interaction. It has become so impossible to live without the influence of the car that a man living without a car for a year is treated as a kind of odd news. I think it would be impossible for anyone to recreate the experience of life in a car-free culture except by perhaps going to live in an island or in a primitive society where there are no cars. But then again, in an island or in a primitive society one would also be free of all other technology. So it would be impossible to assess the influence that the car (or its absence) by itself has (or would have) on human culture. So we may never get to know the total influence of the car on human culture and society. And here I am thinking about the car's possible NEGATIVE effects on the human individual and on society, for the positive effects seem to be rather too obvious.

I was thinking about buying a car. But now, I feel happy that I don't have a car. It's just one less thing to worry about.

Llamero

This article made me feel like an odd novelty to be looked at behind a glass panel, an ongoing social experiment persevering against the social norm.

For me, I don't like owning a car...plain and simple. I live in a town with no mass transit, and live minimally to reduce the need to go out and run errands.

Ultimately, my wife and I work, on average, 10 hours a day and therefore really enjoy our free time (does that make us lazy? ), and living minimally and car free definitely increases the proportion of free time, by reducing the social expectations placed upon us (hard to get there without a car), and by allowing us to retire sooner by freeing up a lot of money for 403b's and IRAs.

I feel Amish saying this (although there are plenty of studies to back-up this argument) our modern conveniences have done nothing but to increase the expectations placed upon us, resulting in increased stress, and decreased our free time resulting in general poor health. America needs to stop buying the latest technology gimmick, and learn th joys of just sitting back and taking a deep breath.

gerv 

One thing that always disappoints me about this type of article is that they single out a young, vocal spokesperson who makes the act of living without a car seem terribly avant garde. But the truth is that there are lots of people around who don't own a car. Particular people in the 20s, who for the most part, have no real good reason to be stuck with a car payment. And also lots of older folks who just don't bother.

This type of article should focus on some of the people I know who have survived many years walking around their neighbourhoods as though it was the most natural thing in the world to do. (In fact, it is a pretty natural thing to do... isn't it?)

I run into this type of person quite often and I have known many lifelong carfree types.

Artkansas 

Cell phones are the perfect example. Now you can be yoked to your job 24 hours a day.

Artkansas 

When actually, car-free is the oldest lifestyle known to humanity.

Snowman219

Walking? That's absurd! Clearly now a days we must have an experiment of walking anywhere! Scary!

akohekohe

Well, I rode the bus today because I had to go to a professional meeting at a fancy club blah, blah, blah but I really like doing it because it gives me an opportunity to socialize with other car-free people. They are so much more interesting as people than most people I know that use cars all the time. I actually didn't think the guy they interviewed was that interesting ... Time should have interviewed real carefree people like my friends on the bus and not the guy in the article.

Real sad though ... on the way back we passed an accident site just after an 80 year old woman was killed while crossing the road in a cross walk. Old people get killed all the time on this road and I remember one killed last year in this exact same cross walk. Three traffic fatalities in the state so far this year ... two of them pedestrians.

Roody

The article was interesting because the guy who was interviewed (Adam Greenfield) was a real "purist" in that he wouldn't get into a car at all. Even though I've been carfree (by the definition of not owning a car) for many years, I would find it difficult to be as extreme as Adam was. I ride with friends occasionally, and I take cabs occasionally.

Is there anybody on this forum who is a purist who won't even ride in a car? Why did you make that choice, and what makes it both challenging and worthwhile?

palesaint

I found this the most important key of the article:

"3. Elect more dignified public leaders: Encourage all political leaders to walk, bicycle, and take public transit. Get leaders to tell the public the truth about peak oil and that we must start transitioning to a simple, smaller-scaled way of life.

Read more: https://money.blogs.time.com/2010/01/12/what-i-learned-by-not-getting-into-a-car-for-a-year/?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0cXBKy6KV
"

Most people are lemurs. If they see someone they (maybe) respect or at least perceive to be the norm to follow, they will follow.

What do y'all think the chances are that the above quotes point will ever occur? Sad, but it's highly unlikely. This is what we need to be striving for. Not some gubbin.

Llamero

That's a good point, as I'm definitely not a purist. My wife and I went home to visit the parents for the holidays (150 miles away) and rented a car. I also took a plane to go to a committee meeting in Seattle this past October (3,000 miles away).

But, as much fun as it is to think that car-free cyclists are "purists", the bicycle itself is a recent invention with the push-bike coming out in 1820, the first pedalable bike coming out in 1869, the first chain drive coming out in 1885 and the 1890's saw the first pneumatic tires, roller brakes, and cable actuated brakes. As a result, the 1890's saw just as many cyclists as horse carriages as a primary means of transportation.

The first practical automobile became available around the same time as the first practical bike, 1888, but the bikes were still preferred. It wasn't until the mass production of cars by Oldsmobile in 1902 and Ford in 1914 that really saw the transition from bicycles and horses to cars.

The point being, in the perspective of history, bicycles are just as recent of an invention as the automobile. Car-free enthusiasts aren't going back to older times (especially considering the technology found on modern bikes) but rather just a different means of transportation that just so happens to be a lot cheaper to own and healthier to use.

In my perspective, to be a purists is silly, much the same as those who refused to give up the horse and carriage as or shunned electricity. For a given task, there is a technology best suited to performing that task.

In choosing to be car free, I was acknowledging that the bicycle is much better suited to many of the tasks required of us, and therefore should be used preferentially over a car or other modes of transportation. However, trying to haul 100 lbs of lumber, or move from one house to another when there's a perfectly good truck suited to the job is just a silly exercise in futility.

Another obvious point is that no matter how purist the car-free enthusiast, if you buy groceries at a grocery store, your food was provided by motorized transportation, if you call the police or fire department, you are relying on motorized transportation, if you use anything made of metal, there's an extremely good chance copius amounts of fossil fuels were used to mine, refine, transport, and machine said metal.

Not to mitigate the significant benefits to oneself, society, and the environment for going car-free, but it would be nearly impossible to live a purely car free life style unless you just walked off into the wilderness and never relied on society.

There, tirade finished (for now....)

gerv 

I believe the 19th century was full of these "purists". I believe Thoreau was one. (Oops... he isn't currently on BF though.)

gerv 

Actually, just checked... Thoreau is on BF!!!
https://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?139420-thoreau

He doesn't post much though.

akohekohe

Well, when you get to the "purist" choice it is sort of gets like the vegan debate about whether or not honey is OK to eat. I could go his "purist" route pretty easily because I live where there is decent public transportation so even on those times the bike won't work very well the Bus is a reasonable alternative, but, I'm still riding in an ICE vehicle even though some of the buses are now hybrid. Sure, it would run anyway, but at the margin it is still burning more fossil fuel with me on board. He says he also didn't ride a motor cycle but what about an electric assist bicycle? Does the answer change if the electricity comes from solar cells? and on and on and on ... seems like this thing was just a publicity stunt if you ask me.

BadBoy10

The commenters on this article ripped this guy a new one---and many of the comments albeit mean spirited are hilarious and clearly indicate the opinions of many drivers---
It irritates me every time I go to a bicyclist/car free blog they have a link to make donations or buy their products.
I am much more impressed by a family or a single father or mother living in a city like Miami, Florida being car free by choice and documenting their travels as they commute to and from work.

https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/01/01/MN1V1BAICJ.DTL&o=3https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2010/01/01/MN1V1BAICJ.DTL&o=3

Roody

I guess every "purist" is free to define their terms however they want. Actually, I'm well aware of the arguments against purism, as they pervade our culture. I would be more interested in reading arguments in favor of purism, as this is rarer and harder to understand.

Roody

Leave it to gerv to go the extra mile to research the accuracy of his own statements!

Actually, Thoreau was less of a purist than many people think. His main beef was with the railroads, which have become highly favored by his environmentalist descendants. But Thoreau would have apprecited anybody who puts it all on the line and carries his assumptions out to their logical conclusions.

benajah

That is so true. Modern convienences don't really make us more comfortable, not really, just increase the demands on us. Isn't it funny that people who like to go camping are generally just as comfortable out there as inside their houses?

Roody

But there are also people who are only comfortable when they have the thermostat on 76 degrees in the winter and 68 degrees in the summer. I never could figure that one out.

Dahon.Steve

I thought the commentator's statement below was actually better than the article. It made me think for a moment how people today are going bankrupt because of the crushing debt load of having to own two cars! People today are paying for a second mortgage if they are leasing two vehicles. It's insane.

The last time I rented a car, I felt scared parking it on the street even though it had an alarm. I estimated, it would take me 10 years of hard savings just to come up with the cash to pay for that vehicle in case it was stolen. I don't know how people do it.

From the coments section:

>>>My wife and I live on the north side of Chicago, and raised our two sons here. We have not owned a car for nearly 25 years. We bike everywhere, ride the L, walk. We rented a car twice last year, including once for a trip to Charlotte. We own income property, and thanks in large measure to not having car expenses we saved up enough to pay off our mortgage when we were 34. We were also able to save up enough later to get our two sons through college without any school loans, though each of them gained scholarships that covered about half their expenses. I get to be admired for biking around the city in winter weather, pedaling through snow and temperatures at time that fall well below zero degrees F. I really don't think of biking in 20 degree weather as any great sacrifice or act of nobility. You buy good gear and get used to the cold. As a family we endure some difficulty and inconvenience, but I like to think of us as an alternative, a message of what is possible.

I reflect on the crushing amount of debt that so many American families carry, and the unprecedented wave of home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies in the last three or four years. In part that is the consequence of our view as a nation that comfort and convenience are a constitutional right. Also, as gas prices inevitably climb, we are likely to face in the next ten years a suburban culture that is no longer affordable for most Americans. We've built our civilization around the automobile, and marvel at members who do without one. But the issue centers around the choices we make as individuals, and the choices many of us are likely to be forced to make in the near future.

gerv 

That's only partly true. Some technologies do provide great comfort. Example: I've recently started using an asthma inhaler. I can tell you it's a miracle.

Others are inherently evil. Example: the cell phone is a device that tethers us to our jobs and families... 'round the clock. There's no escape... no silence... little chance for even one peaceful moment.

There's a third class, too: devices that were great conveniences but now that everyone else is using one, they are a nuisance. Example: the automobile. Cars would be great devices if I were the only one driving. There's be no congestion, red lights, lane jumpers... just me. Historically speaking, cars probably were great... back in the 20th century before everyone got two.

I suppose a lot of very good technologies might evolve this way. Great today, but not so great tomorrow.

ro-monster

I completely disagree about the disruptiveness of cell phones. Mine is one of the most helpful things I've ever had; I use it constantly to look up information online when I'm away from a computer, to read the news while riding a train, to research backpacking trips, to find my way around with the integrated GPS, to help me meet with friends, and so on. (The one thing I rarely do with it is talk. Heh.) And if I don't feel like being available, I just turn it off. There are lots of technologies I'll happily forgo, television for example, but not my cell!

Roody

I have a cell phone too, and I like it a lot. Unlike gerv, I don't think they are "inherently evil."

But if I used my phone the way you do, I would throw it out the window. After all, one reason that I'm carfree is that it enables me to live more in the moment, to concentrate on my journey instead of always looking for distractions. I don't want to be texting, playing games and surfing the web on a phone when I should be paying better attention to the real world. As for GPS, I would really miss getting lost if a machine was constantly telling me where I "should" be.

ro-monster

Peculiarly enough, that's one of the reasons I don't have a car too. And it was one of the reasons I used a motorcycle to get around for years before I got a bicycle. I like being in the moment, being in close contact with the elements. But for most of last year, I was spending upwards of 3 hours a day commuting on public transit due to an injury that left me unable to ride. You see how that might become boring really fast. Also, the way I use the net, there really isn't an artificial line between it and the "real" world. Most of the time I'm talking to people I that know in meatspace, or getting the same kinds of information I might otherwise get from a book. I put "real" in quotes on purpose too, because in many ways, what we ordinarily consider to be real is no more substantial than the internet is; it's just an artifact of our biases and perceptions.

I should add a thank you for bringing that point up. It's interesting, and I hadn't given it much thought before. Why is it that most of us make a distinction between online interaction and other forms of interaction? My sense is that young people tend to not see that kind of demarcation also (I'm 54, by the way). And maybe seeing the online world as more "real" is one thing that will help us, as a society, move toward decreased dependence on cars. For instance, if it became commonly accepted to vidoeconference with your co-workers when you were physically miles apart, there'd be less need to commute.

DX-MAN

It's funny, but an old Andy Capp cartoon made a commentary on this; Andy's 'mate' was commenting on the tail end of an argument between Andy and his wife about another household appliance, which Andy vetoed. Andy told his mate that his wife was already working two jobs to pay for all her other 'labor-saving devices'.

There's a whole LOT of them around -- several living in my house! I have a bro-n-law that turns up the thermostat if he feels the slightest bit cold (I pay the bill), yet his oldest son stays warm with a kerosene space heater. His oldest daughter has, for most of her life, complained about any imperfection in her environment; she's bi+ched and shivered in 71F, and sweated and whined in 73F.

As a result, I've taken to checking the thermostat about 6x/day. Surprisingly, I've only had to reset it 1-2x/week this year so far....

wahoonc

There was a study done on this a while back and they started sometime around 1800 and went along through the years an studied the affect of many so called labor saving devices through the years, most just moved the time around and didn't really make a life difference. You replaced beating rugs with an electric vacuum, but then we went to wall to wall carpets and the issues involved with them. Automatic washing machines and the size of the wardrobe increased by 600%, etc, etc. It was done by someone from Columbia University, but I can't find the link to it. It was an interesting look at history.

Aaron