cooker

Don't know - but a lot sooner than TGVs will take her there.

I-Like-To-Bike

True, TGVs will most likely never be commonly available for those tasks, except perhaps in the alternate reality of somebody's screenplay fueled imagination.

Driverless cars being readily available to perform those same transportation tasks may not be that much sooner than never in the lifetime of anyone reading this thread.

Maelochs

Well, yeah, after teh asteroid hits and the zombie apocalypse breaks out, it will be tough getting replacement batteries.

I-Like-To-Bike

Already answered on this thread and responded to with no thread related input by yourself.

You seem to be new around here. Cooker is LCF's unofficial Keeper of the Crystal Bouncing Ball of Prediction around here: See https://www.bikeforums.net/living-ca...edictions.html

tandempower

Right, but many people will argue that it's a totally free choice and deny the structural influences that discourage the LCF choice. Then, of course, there are many others who overemphasize the structural influence and claim they absolutely couldn't LCF, even though they could with a bit of sacrifice.

Maelochs

Please toll cooker this ... he says no one on these boards thinks "car-free" is "better."

I think. Mr. @jon c. that "structural push" means the physical structure, the layout, of both of the economy and the landscape make LCF harder.

Cities eliminate mixed-use housing, businesses group centrally away from residential centers, cities sprawl but businesses concentrate, so it is possible to live in a city and need an hour or more to bike across it .... and with suburbs set up as bedroom communities for the cities often the only work within a bike ride of a community will be low-paid service work---no tech, no manufacturing ...

The "Structural Push" I see extends into economics in that cars are seen as essential to the economy. Even politicians who want more mass transit would balk at closing an auto plant, losing the tax revenue and the jobs .... And all the ancillary industries, from paving and grading to parts supply, to repair, to fuel distribution ... and roads, for instance, are designed with limited lifespans so there is a whole industry which would be almost broke if cars and trucks weren't tearing up the roads.

Look at Detroit ... a Lot of issues there but i bet a lot of issues there came from the fact that after a huge boom, the auto industry has been through all kinds of crap, and robots have replaced a lot of workers, parts have been outsourced, factories have been shipped over seas .... a whole lot of people moved to Detroit after WWI, and more after WWII, and more after Korea ... and after Vietnam, jobs began disappearing.

The Auto industry supported families on a single wage. When unions lost some strength and jobs began leaving, there was less demand for goods and services---and more people looking for extra work. Jobs left, unemployment rose, tax revenue fell, education withered, wages dropped as more people sought fewer jobs ... every auto worker was supporting a wife and kids as a rule, and also restaurants, clothing retailers, supermarkets, movie theaters ..... but when there is no discretionary income, all be the essentials are foregone, the quality of life drops, and the strength of the community too, because people have no way to go out and engage ... everyone is angry and worried, the kids grow up to be discontented and see no opportunities ....

A politician can think seven generations ahead and should ... but if s/he wants to keep his or her job s/he needs to focus on the next election, and people don't want to hear about electric trains they know they will never see. They want the city buses to run, forget the bullet trains in fairy land.

And of course .... along with the unions wanting jobs today, there are auto execs who want dividends tomorrow, and investors who want positive quarterly reports, and all the banks holding the debt for those businesses want their payments ....

And all of them will gladly bankroll the politician who will squelch all this talk of mass transit and get on with the business of business as usual.

That, in brief, is what "structural push" might mean.

Or it might mean something else.

tandempower

Good post, in general, but I just want to add that people suffer because they continue to expect pay levels to cover driving along with everything else the automotive-stimulus economy funds, but it's just untenable in a world where everyone wants a cut of that automotive money. If we would just adjust our spending to lower levels, i.e. give up driving, we'd be fine.

badger1

That's the spirit! You'll fit right in here in "P&R Lite"

cooker

Of course many of us think it's better, but each person has to make their own decisions. I was shooting down the suggestion that we're all about shaming people who don't live up to our standards - that's a fiction created by a small group of resident trolls. They might get bashed for being trolls, but not for their life choices.

tandempower

You mean they're trying to shame us into accepting cars uncritically by accusing us of shaming car-drivers?

Mobile 155

Can we at some point get to the real question, what is better? What is LCF really? Is it the lowest possible carbon footprint? Is it least impact on trees? (some believe it is and insert it as a principal) Is it working for minimum wage or at least giving up a good wage? (Some have suggested it would be better.) Is it anti sprawl? Will it still be with 11-14 billion people in a world designed for 9 billion? Is it giving up heating and cooling as part of LCF? Is it substituting lots of air travel to other countries and being driven to a site will all of your gear to film people not owning a car? Is it not riding in a car or only a car owned by the user? There cannot even be a discussion on five year predictions without minutia that has nothing to do with bicycles or taxis or buses because some cannot identify what LCF is. That in my opinion is why things go off the rails. We all have our opinion on what is best for each of us and how green, carbon light car free or not. And that is the crux of the matter, each has the right to choose their form of transportation.

When I was in Kenya I stayed with people who have never owned a car and some of the elders have never been in a car. That is car free to "them" but I am pretty sure they would trade with someone living in the suburbs because I have asked them. It is more than a theory. Has the world not seen the desire for non human powered transportation even in a car free person using planes, ships, vans and Taxis to film about not owning a car? I think we have.

cooker

They certainly don't. They only have the option to drive because society gave them roads, and there are many restrictions on where or how they drive, and on other choices. In most places you can't do local commutes by ultralight plane or by horse because it is against the law, and there are lots of places you can't go by train because the rails don't take you there, and there are laws against walking or biking on some highway. Many cities plan to expand their car-restricted areas, and if you believe some prognosticators, human driving might be outlawed is some places in the future once self-driving cars become widespread.

So the notion that driving is some kind of "right" is completely false. It's an option that's currently available within limitations, and it may not always be that way.

Mobile 155

Not a right maybe, but as long as it is legal and as long as society prefers it we that practice it have that choice. But that doesn't answer what all of the other trappings have to do with LCF? What have trees, movies, heating, cooling have to do with it? Does not the society itself make the choice supported by who they appoint? Who gets to say what is the right way? Society gave them roads because they paid for those roads. How we use them are regulated by laws and those laws are made by the people society supports. As I have said before not everything relating to where we live, how we live, what we do with or without trees has anything to do with car light or car free. Only the relation to cars has anything to do with it. All of the extra things are what we vote on at the ballot box or with our wallet.

When one says car free people are anti sprawl is there a study to support that? When one says car light people are urban dwellers is there a study to say non urban dwellers aren't or even want to be? No because it has nothing to do with cars or the lack there of.

I have also said if my neighbor want to buy a Unimog to drive their kids to soccer practice and they have the money to do so either because they won the lottery of are related to Bill Gates it should be their decision and I should have zero input. There is far too much hubris in someone saying what is right when they don't have a legal position to back up their contention.

If people are going to talk living car free or car light at least it should have something to do with self evaluation not like someone complaining how society has betrayed the human race. Because society is the human race and they say what is right, better or makes sense. Just because a few disagree doesn't make their opinion right, or even moral.

cooker

If there is such a thing as "right" or "moral", it's certainly possible that a few people get it and the general public don't, but that's not even what I am arguing. Society reaches thoses concenses by debate and hopefully common sense and by reevaluating it's choices all the time, and often there are wide differences of opnion. People who disagree with your opinion or the majority opinion are participating in that continual reevaluation just as you are. And the factors taken into account include more than individual choice. Once upon a time everybody "voted" for freon-propelled deodorant and other spray cans, but when it was found to be generally harmful, individual preferences were overruled for the common good.

Mobile 155

Passing a regulation against CFCs didn’t make people give up hairspray. The thing is the method of delivery was changed. But people didn’t become hair care free it hairspray free like their ancestors. So the subject was never the container. In the LCF world it seems some people think everything is connected. From flora and fauna to housing and wages. The target keeps moving.

tandempower

It's not that simple, unfortunately.

Anyone can hold various opinions for various reasons.

Again, not that simple but material for P&R. Why do you always discuss P&R here and never in P&R?

It does, but you don't want to see why/how and so you argue the logic away regardless of how many times the POV is explained to you. You hate and want to destroy what you're against.

There is hubris in you denying people the right to hold a moral opinion that's not simultaneously a legal argument.

This is all P&R material. Why do you try to discuss it here, when you know it gets people in trouble and gets threads moved to P&R?

Maelochs

actually, that is wildly inaccurate.

Tio say people "voted" for CFCs, it would imply that they were given a series of options, including a variety of pressurization chemicals, and chose the most environmentally destructive.

In fact, the only choices people had were to use or not use hair spray---which, since no one had a clue there was any damage involved, was in no way a moral issue---and which of the equally toxic brands to use.

When people Found Out the stuff was toxic, then they "voted"---made a choice by taking action---against the damaging chemical .... and it was replaced quickly with an only slightly less harmful chemical.

Same with refrigerants. No consumer "voted" for Freon. They chose refrigeration, freezing, and air conditioning.

Not a big deal, but if we start distorting little things, we won't notice when we start distorting big things.

tandempower

Ignorantia juris non excusat. Bad consequences can happen despite good intentions or no intentions. Whether you feel guilty about it or not makes no difference in the end.

Walter S

Jesus do we need to talk about this? You’ve been around for years of this. Of course not. Think of all the things you associate with LCF besides less driving. That’s what LCF is not.

Maelochs

LOL .... it seems so obvious, when you state the obvious ....

I approve of this post.

badger1

The maxim is not applicable. You are citing a legal principle ("ignorance of the law is no excuse") that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the question under discussion.

tandempower

I once hit a pretty big pothole in the dark (it was a drain, actually). The fact I was ignorant of it before I hit didn't lessen the impact, unfortunately. There was no law against me hitting the pothole, but the effect of doing it was the same regardless of my ignorance.

Maelochs

I can understand people putting their fingers in their ears and shouting "La-la-la-la-la" when they don't want to listen ... but not when they are trying to speak.

Mobile 155

You are right. It was just that some threads were moving along pretty well and the tree and less money thing got dropped in as if all car free people were tree hugging minimum wage workers. I should have just let it slide.

badger1

Sure ... so what? As I said, that situation -- and we have all fallen into similar -- has nothing whatsoever to do with the legal maxim you cited: "ignorance of the law is no excuse" for an illegal (proscribed by law) action.