The Oil Drum: Campfire | My Year Without a Car

104 comments on My Year Without a Car - (Plus a Request)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

goldfish on March 20, 2009 - 9:51am

I checked out your link, and it does not consider the particular land-use patterns. Which is to say, given the lay of the land, where most people need to go is not usually within walking distance. And society as a whole benefits from mobility.

Suppose you are an entry-level clerical worker that just got hired (miracle in these times) at gross pay of $3000/month. Your take-home pay is $2000/month. You can rent a downtown studio apartment in an ok neighborhood for $1200/month, or can rent a one-bedroom apartment in the suburbs for $800/month. (Prices from http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/apa/) A cheap car can be had for $2000 (cost to buy + tags + insurance), plus around $100/month gas for all car use. Your least expensive option is to live in the suburbs, notwithstanding the commuting time.

The densest part of cities have the most expensive real estate, particularly near subway stations (or other mass transport). Many (most?) lower-echelon jobs don't pay enough for the worker to live within easy reach. We all benefit from the lower cost of labor, that requires the lower-paid workers to live far away in cheaper housing, and commute.

The decision is greatly more complicated when children and schools are involved, and when one is worried about crime. If both of these are far worse in the city, as they usually are, the choice is clear. So, if you live in a suburban cul-du-sac, where the distance between intersections is 1/2 mile and the thoroughfares have 10 lanes with a speed limit of 50 mph, you drive. Walking, most bicycling, and taking the bus is just not smart.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on March 20, 2009 - 1:39pm

And what you actually find is that most lower-paid workers share flats with others, particularly in the inner-city.

Nowhere is it written that a person must live alone and deal with all the bills by themselves.

It's easy to come up with scenarios to show that people are helpless. But when you dig a little, it usually turns out to be bollocks - with a bit of imagination and effort most people can improve their lives.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

goldfish on March 20, 2009 - 2:18pm

One of the points of the article was, in a boots-on-the-ground comparison between the Netherlands and Texas, was advantageous to go car-less in the former but better to keep one's car in the latter. The reason was because of the different way the cities were set up. I personally prefer a walking city, but sometimes life doesn't work out that way.

I don't get the impression that what you are preaching (the "rational" alternative to driving) is tempered with actual experience. For example, you can have a roommate but that interferes with one's privacy. Regardless of that, you can have roommate to save rent money either in the suburbs or in the city, so my point still stands about land use patterns, the price of real estate, and commuting.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on March 20, 2009 - 9:30pm

Are you suggesting I've never had a house-mate and never not had a car in a place poorly-served by public transit?

You know sadly little of my life :) That's okay, how could you? I don't fault you for not knowing, only for not knowing and just making stuff up instead.

I say again: everyone has what are to them very good reasons for not changing their lifestyle in any way whatsoever. Everyone's got an excuse for themselves.

As Yoda said, do or no do, there is no whine.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

goldfish on March 21, 2009 - 12:26am

I know nothing of your life, and have I no interest in learning more. You have tendency to dictate to others ("change their lifestyle"). Good luck with that: you need to get better to be effective.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Kiashu on March 21, 2009 - 3:38am

Environmentalists have tried the gentle approach. It doesn't work.

What creates social change, both good and bad, is small groups of annoying people demanding change. The majority will never want change, but they'll go along with it to make the small group shut up. A majority of blacks did not march with MLK, nor a majority of Indians with Gandhi, and a majority of Germans did not support the Nazis - at least when they first came to power. All change, both good and bad, is created by small groups of annoying people demanding change.

I'm terribly sorry if our desire to have a tolerable lifestyle for future generations causes you some discomfort.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

goldfish on March 21, 2009 - 1:30pm

You are comparing me to the Nazis. I am invoking Godwin's law.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Nick on March 21, 2009 - 2:28pm

Oddly enough, he's comparing himself to the Nazis (and King and Gandhi).

And, he has his comparison wrong. King and Gandhi used non-violence, respect and communication, combined with a willingness to passively accept violence until their opponents could no longer look themselves in the mirror. They raised the level of the debate, and appealed to their opponents better selves (or their pre-frontal cortex, if you like the materialist approach).

The Nazis used fear, scapegoating, manipulation and violence to reduce everyone to thinking with their lizard brains - a completely different approach.

Kiashu sometimes makes the mistake of thinking that ridicule, a subtle form of intimidation, will help his cause. King and Gandhi would not have agreed.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.