# Anyone gone car free?



## middleagecyclist (28 Jun 2012)

That time of the year has come round again. Time to insure, MOT and tax...(cough)...sorry, I mean VED the car again. Thing is, despite being the owner of the vehicle I rarely drive it now. Wifey uses it for her commute to work, the occasional trip to the in laws, running the Golden Child around and the fortnightly big shop. I can't persuade her to give it up although I would be more than happy to use a car share scheme or car hire, utilize taxis/public transport for local trips and haul the shopping with a cycle trailer.

Has any cyclist here actually gone car (ownership) free?


----------



## ColinJ (28 Jun 2012)

I _stayed_ car-free!


----------



## DCLane (28 Jun 2012)

I'm as close as - and there's threads on here about people who have.


----------



## NormanD (28 Jun 2012)

I've been car free for about four years now and I don't miss it one bit, most of the places I need to get too are within cycling reach, any further then I'll ask a friend (with car and payment) or use public transport.


----------



## Pottsy (28 Jun 2012)

I'm car free and don't struggle at all with it. 

Mind you, I live in London so public transport is normally the best answer anyway if you're going far. I also have a Brompton for the bike/train/bike routes and I'm a member of Zipcar so I can access a car easily if I need to head out of town for a meeting or family visit, which is only once or twice a month at the moment.


----------



## BSRU (28 Jun 2012)

Almost, our car is basically used for shopping, hopefully with a little more nagging my better half will give in to my wish to buy a trailer for shopping. It is also used for day trips to places in the countryside, mainly NT places and taking stuff to the recycling centre which is not allowed in kerb side collection recycling bins.
I gave the car to my misses last year when she passed her driving test but she rarely drives it as we live very close to most of the towns amenities.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (28 Jun 2012)

Another Mancunian...
No need for a car here. Not had one for over 5 years. At first it was busses, later bikes. Brompton + public transport will do for longer journeys, if the times don't work out hire car (long weekends) or City Car Club (shorter trips). We do most shopping either online or at Unicorn for fresh stuff, you can fit a LOT on a bike and we have felt no need for a trailer yet.


----------



## martint235 (28 Jun 2012)

I've never even taken a driving test let alone owned a car. Can't say I've struggled at any point.


----------



## ianrauk (28 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> I've never even taken a driving test let alone owned a car. Can't say I've struggled at any point.


 

You and me both.
Though when I was 18 I did take lessons but hated it.

And with the wife having a car it can be handy sometimes. Like phoning her up at 8am on a Sunday morning asking her to come and collect me as I was 20 miles into a ride when a rear wheel spoke snapped and buckled the wheel too much to carry on riding.

And for some gawd forsaken reason. I am the chump that washes the bloody car.
Sunday morning, middle class suburbia style.


----------



## martint235 (28 Jun 2012)

Nope, SWMBO doesn't have car either. My FiL and my BiL have cars but I can't remember the last time I called on them for anything, must be at least 4 years if not more.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (28 Jun 2012)

I don't personally have a car, but 'we' have a car that my wife uses and I very occasionally borrow (due to the fact I can't get my bass amp and associated crap on my bike!)


----------



## DRHysted (28 Jun 2012)

I have tried getting the seven dogs on the push bike, but none of them are willing to be at the bottom, and their balance just isn't good enougth.
So the car stays.
I'm managing to get a tank to last over a month now, and last year my annual milage dropped from 13,000 to 8,000. Hopefully it will be lower this year.
Car free here on the outskirts of a small city called Southampton isn't really practical, as our public transport is being reduced all the time as the bus companies cancel the non-profitable routes.


----------



## ColinJ (28 Jun 2012)

Andrew_Culture said:


> I don't personally have a car, but 'we' have a car that my wife uses and I very occasionally borrow (due to the fact I can't get my bass amp and associated crap on my bike!)


If I had that kind of load to move about regularly, then yes - I would learn to drive. Just a few times a year - I would use taxis.

Hebden Bridge has a car share scheme. Members have the best of both worlds - affordable motoring when they really need to drive but not having to actually own cars.

There must be similar schemes in many towns and cities.


----------



## Ian Cooper (28 Jun 2012)

I've never owned a car, never even bothered to learn to drive, because I always felt that cars were somehow evil. Nowadays I just think car ownership is for people who have more money than sense. They are a money pit.

Unfortunately, my wife doesn't share my hatred of cars. I've tried to get her to give hers up, but she's not having it.


----------



## ianrauk (28 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> I've never owned a car, never even bothered to learn to drive, because I always felt that cars were somehow evil. Nowadays I just think car ownership is for people who have more money than sense. They are a money pit.


 

Evil... yeah ok Ian.
I spend more money on my cycling hobby then my wife does on her car. It's me that has more money then sense not my wife.


----------



## Electric_Andy (28 Jun 2012)

I gave up my car becasue I was sick of paying through the nose for petrol, and also i did not like the idea of a 2 car family. my wife still needs hers to ferry the kids around (and we have a baby on the way) but I don't miss driving one bit. The only part I miss is having a good sound system, and I don't dare wear headphones whilst riding!


----------



## Ian Cooper (28 Jun 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Evil... yeah ok Ian.



They pollute, they make us fat and lazy, they kill hundreds of thousands of people per year worldwide, they make all of our bad but harmless habits (anger, drinking, need for speed, tendency to break inconvenient laws) into deadly habits. I'd say that makes cars about the biggest vector for evil that we have available to us - and they are regarded by most people as essential. If the Devil existed, I reckon he couldn't invent a better way of corrupting people than giving them cars.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (28 Jun 2012)

Electric_Andy said:


> I gave up my car becasue I was sick of paying through the nose for petrol, and also i did not like the idea of a 2 car family. my wife still needs hers to ferry the kids around (and we have a baby on the way) but I don't miss driving one bit. The only part I miss is having a good sound system, and I don't dare wear headphones whilst riding!


 
This. Exactly this.


----------



## martint235 (28 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> They pollute, *they make us fat and lazy*, they kill hundreds of thousands of people per year worldwide, they make all of our bad but harmless habits (anger, drinking, need for speed, tendency to break inconvenient laws) into deadly habits. I'd say that makes cars about the biggest vector for evil that we have available to us - and they are regarded by most people as essential. If the Devil existed, I reckon he couldn't invent a better way of corrupting people than giving them cars.


 I hate to be picky but surely eating more than we need to makes us fat? As for lazy I think that just comes from the person regardless of whether or not they own a car. I'm one of the laziest people I know and don't have a car.


----------



## Ian Cooper (28 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> I hate to be picky but surely eating more than we need to makes us fat? As for lazy I think that just comes from the person regardless of whether or not they own a car. I'm one of the laziest people I know and don't have a car.


 
Fat comes from eating and a lack of exercise. Car use removes a lot of the need for exercise. Some nutters even drive up to 5 miles to a gym, exercise there for an hour, then drive home, when cycling for an hour could accomplish the same in less time. Laziness may be inherent to certain people, but cycling mitigates it whereas car ownership feeds it. Again, my point was that car ownership feeds our worst habits and turns them deadly - that is the definition of evil.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> They pollute, they make us fat and lazy, they kill hundreds of thousands of people per year worldwide, they make all of our bad but harmless habits (anger, drinking, need for speed, tendency to break inconvenient laws) into deadly habits. I'd say that makes cars about the biggest vector for evil that we have available to us - and they are regarded by most people as essential. If the Devil existed, I reckon he couldn't invent a better way of corrupting people than giving them cars.


 
Have I:
1. Killed anyone? - No
2. Done Road Rage? - No
3. Driven while drunk? - No
4. Sped? - Not these days, I grew up.
5. Broken a law while driving that I don't agree with? - No
6. Belonged to a satanic cult? - No

Takes all sorts to make a world. Don't label me with the rest please 

Although your list could easily be applied to religion too...


----------



## Ian Cooper (28 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Have I:
> 1. Killed anyone? - No
> 2. Done Road Rage? - No
> 3. Driven while drunk? - No
> ...


 
So you admit you used to speed. As for killing people, driving drunk and road raging, I never said 'everyone' does it. I said it tended to make bad habits deadly - that isn't accusing you of anything. I think you may be being a bit over-sensitive.

As for breaking laws you don't agree with, maybe you agree with all the laws. But are you seriously suggesting that you 'never' speed - not even a few mph over the limit? You 'never' slowly crawl through a Stop sign rather than coming to a full stop? Never used a cell phone while driving? Never done anything that might distract you from paying full attention to the road? I'm (almost) sure such people exist, but I think they are very rare indeed. My experience here in the US is that no one - NO ONE - drives a motor vehicle under the speed limit. If the limit is 55 on the freeway, all the cars go 65mph. If it's 25, they go 35. They do this because they know police won't stop them for going merely 10mph over the limit. The only thing that actually keeps people to speed limits is speed bumps - you actually have to put stuff in the road that damages someone's car, in order to prevent people from speeding.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> They pollute, they make us fat and lazy, they kill hundreds of thousands of people per year worldwide, they make all of our bad but harmless habits (anger, drinking, need for speed, tendency to break inconvenient laws) into deadly habits. I'd say that makes cars about the biggest vector for evil that we have available to us - and they are regarded by most people as essential. If the Devil existed, I reckon he couldn't invent a better way of corrupting people than giving them cars.


 
Would the western world be where it is today without them?


----------



## 400bhp (28 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Fat comes from eating and a lack of exercise. Car use removes a lot of the need for exercise. Some nutters even drive up to 5 miles to a gym, exercise there for an hour, then drive home, when cycling for an hour could accomplish the same in less time. Laziness may be inherent to certain people, but cycling mitigates it whereas car ownership feeds it. Again, my point was that car ownership feeds our worst habits and turns them deadly - that is the definition of evil.


 
Very small minded opinion.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Jun 2012)

Anyhow.

I am now [road legal] car free - although we still have a car in the family.


----------



## Ian Cooper (28 Jun 2012)

400bhp said:


> Would the western world be where it is today without them?


 
Probably not. But would that be a bad thing?

“Man has always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much...the wheel, New York, wars and so on...while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man...for precisely the same reason.”



400bhp said:


> Very small minded opinion.


 
I think you should set your ad-hominem arguments aside. I'll wait for a more considered reply.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Jun 2012)

in one word, yes.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 Jun 2012)

I gave up the car (well, some drunk BMW driver wrote it off when it was parked off road and I was asleep) about 3 years ago. Living in London, it really hasn't been a problem, though I do have access to a car for those picking relatives from the airport kind of journey. There are enough supermarkets and a high street market nearby so I buy a little but often to save having to carry bike, panniers and heavy shopping up the 67 steps to my flat.


----------



## Ian Cooper (28 Jun 2012)

400bhp said:


> in one word, yes.


 
Okay, but not much there that's convincing. Contradiction, as Michael Palin assured us in The Argument Sketch, is not argument.


----------



## fimm (28 Jun 2012)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Another Mancunian...
> No need for a car here. Not had one for over 5 years. At first it was busses, later bikes. Brompton + public transport will do for longer journeys, if the times don't work out hire car (long weekends) or City Car Club (shorter trips). We do most shopping either online or at Unicorn for fresh stuff, you can fit a LOT on a bike and we have felt no need for a trailer yet.


 
Pretty much this - though I don't think it is as long as 5 years since my boyfriend sold his car. We're in Edinburgh. We get our fruit and vegetables delivered through an organic veg box scheme and can walk to the shops for everything else. Last weekend we hired a big estate car because we needed one, most of the time we'll hire something smaller. City Car Club is very useful for shorter trips.

I think it must be a lot harder to go car-free if you have children.


----------



## martint235 (28 Jun 2012)

I'm not totally convinced by the children argument. I'm one of 3 children and grew up on the outskirts of a small northern town with a bus to the centre once an hour. My parents never had a car and I don't think we suffered unduly. Certainly in London there seems to be a perception that anything over a mile is too far to walk with or without children.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (28 Jun 2012)

fimm said:


> I think it must be a lot harder to go car-free if you have children.


Will let you know in a few months...


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Jun 2012)

Not over-sensitive (hence the little waving smiley ), just my reaction to generalisations.

If it says stop there's a reason - so I stop.
My other half is an ambulance driver, and motoring fines would lose her the job. I follow her example.
Got to admit it leads to being tailgated a lot, but my conscience is clear.
Even more of a shock to some - I drive a BMW!


----------



## 400bhp (28 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Okay, but not much there that's convincing. Contradiction, as Michael Palin assured us in The Argument Sketch, is not argument.


 
No idea what you are on about.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Jun 2012)

I think it's time for some draconian law enforcement now.
I agree with Ian that the car is used by many as an extension of their desire to push people around. I'm an advocate of the lifetime ban.


----------



## Ian Cooper (28 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> I think it's time for some draconian law enforcement now.
> I agree with Ian that the car is used by many as an extension of their desire to push people around. I'm an advocate of the lifetime ban.


 
I agree. I'd institute yearly driving tests too. As well as reducing traffic accidents and getting bad drivers off the roads (and potentially onto bikes) it would also create a lot of extra jobs.

But that will not happen in today's car-centric society. It may happen in my daughter's lifetime, after the coming oil shortages make driving much more costly and more obviously misanthropic, and as more and more people move closer to work and switch to cheaper and more sustainable methods of transportation.


----------



## fimm (28 Jun 2012)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Will let you know in a few months...


 Congratulations...
I did say "harder" not "impossible" - and, as I don't have children myself, I'm merely speculating from the outside.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> I agree. I'd institute yearly driving tests too. As well as reducing traffic accidents and getting bad drivers off the roads (and potentially onto bikes) it would also create a lot of extra jobs.
> 
> But that will not happen in today's car-centric society. It may happen in my daughter's lifetime, after the coming oil shortages make driving much more costly and more obviously misanthropic, and as more and more people move closer to work and switch to cheaper and more sustainable methods of transportation.


 
I don't think retests are the answer. Like an MOT where the owner goes home and puts the farty exhaust and wooden wheel back on, it's only good on the day. The most lethal driver can behave for one hour a year. Retesting will remove the nervous and those with health-related problems.

Also, Jimmy Saville and 'clunk-click' changed seatbelt wearing, how about adverts on driving behaviour?


----------



## Ian Cooper (28 Jun 2012)

fimm said:


> I think it must be a lot harder to go car-free if you have children.


I don't find it in any way burdensome. I've been ferrying my daughter around - to kindergarten, to school, to her local events, to toy stores, to the grocery store, etc., for the last 5 years. Piece of cake! All you need is a baby seat, then a Trail-a-Bike (or a trailer if you have multiple kids). Now she's 9 and next school year, she'll be commuting on her own (separate) bike to school for the first time.

A big part of making it easier is choosing where to live wisely. Because I don't drive, we've always chosen our residences based on having all necessary amenities within two miles and having a major city within ten miles. This makes cycling everywhere a doddle.


----------



## Ian Cooper (28 Jun 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> I don't think retests are the answer. Like an MOT where the owner goes home and puts the farty exhaust and wooden wheel back on, it's only good on the day. The most lethal driver can behave for one hour a year. Retesting will remove the nervous and those with health-related problems.


 
It works fine with pilots.



> Also, Jimmy Saville and 'clunk-click' changed seatbelt wearing, how about adverts on driving behaviour?


 
British public information films did a great job in the 1970s, but that was when there were only three channels on TV, and often, because they were really well written, they were some of the most entertaining shows. Today, with hundreds of channels, they don't get anywhere near the same impact, and even if they could work with today's media, funding them in today's political environment would be next to impossible.

Here in the US, public information films have basically been relegated to the job of getting us to support wars and to be pro-American. They are little more than the propaganda wing of government. That's how the conservatives (and most of the liberals too) like it, and they won't countenance any funds spent on educating people - even if it would save lives. In today's anti-intellectual culture, education is seen as a Commie plot to indoctrinate people into Stalinism - I suspect it's a similar deal in the UK, since 'New Labour' effectively destroyed the progressive movement there.

Today, in order to have any sort of cultural impact, you have to get a film to go viral on the internet (like that Welsh one recently about texting while driving), and that's nowhere near as easy as having a captive audience, which was basically the case in the '70s.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Fat comes from eating and a lack of exercise. Car use removes a lot of the need for exercise. Some nutters even drive up to 5 miles to a gym, exercise there for an hour, then drive home, when cycling for an hour could accomplish the same in less time. Laziness may be inherent to certain people, but cycling mitigates it whereas car ownership feeds it. Again, my point was that car ownership feeds our worst habits and turns them deadly - that is the definition of evil.


 
Some of the language in this thread is approaching that of religious doctrine.

We are very, very evil, as we have three cars between two drivers... although I think we'll give up one and the third is an old 60s roadster we rarely use.

I love to cycle and am pleased that my children do, but I live in the sticks and we would find it very difficult to function as a family without the fast, secure, dry, warm, reliable and long-distance mobility offered by a car.

I ask the following out of curiosity and not to needle: Do you gain any benefit from your wife's ownership of a car? Groceries delivered? Lifts to and from events? Taking the lawn mower to be repaired? Collecting aged relatives from the station? Buying 20 litres of emulsion to paint the downstairs hall?

If so, it must be hard reconciling the very definition of evil with the point-and-squirt convenience it brings.

I ask the above in the likelihood that you derive no appreciable benefit from your wife's car. I'm just curious as I've never seen cars described in terms of good and evil before.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Jun 2012)

SWMBO has 'our' car. Ours in the sense that if there is owt wrong with it it is my job to sort it out. She drives to work in it. I got rid of my car in February having owned it for two-and-a-bit years before which I'd been car free for five years.


----------



## martint235 (28 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I live in the sticks and we would find it very difficult to function as a family without the fast, secure, dry, warm, reliable and long-distance mobility offered by a car.


 Would you though? Very difficult or just mildly inconvenient? My parents live out in the sticks. Nearest town is two miles walk away, nearest pub two miles in the opposite direction. On my recent visit I did a LOT of walking but I wouldn't say it was difficult or even inconvenient. My parents are both 85 and also don't seem to have any issues with not having a car.


----------



## lulubel (28 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Probably not. But would that be a bad thing?


 
Not fair. You beat me to it!



Nigel-YZ1 said:


> The most lethal driver can behave for one hour a year.


 
That doesn't mean they can steer without crossing their hands, though - not while remembering to signal, take the correct lane, check their mirrors, look behind while reversing, reverse slowly, and not cut anyone up (among other things).


----------



## lulubel (28 Jun 2012)

I own a car, but it's spent the last 6 months sitting in the garage with a flat battery while I try to convince my OH we really don't need it any more and should sell it.

Does that count?


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> Would you though? Very difficult or just mildly inconvenient? My parents live out in the sticks. Nearest town is two miles walk away, nearest pub two miles in the opposite direction. On my recent visit I did a LOT of walking but I wouldn't say it was difficult or even inconvenient. My parents are both 85 and also don't seem to have any issues with not having a car.


 
We would have to change our lives considerably. As it is, we don't use the car for trips within our small market town:

Church on foot. Church activities on foot or bike. Walk or cycle to the station. Walk or cycle to the local shops. Cycle to cadets. Visit friends on foot. Walk to restaurants. Groceries bought online and delivered.

Then it gets a little more complicated. Our frequent car use as follows (not including commuting):

Brother and family 120 miles away. Mother-in-Law 70 miles away. Friends in near-by towns with poor transport links 15-25 miles away. Municipal dump 1 mile away, but we generate a lot of garden waste. Children to be collected from late-finishing events15-25 miles away. Children to be taken to sports events 15-25 miles away. Tonight I'm taking middle child to a cycle race 22 miles from here with no transport links. I am the last of the fascist parents, but I wouldn't ask a teen to ride a TT and ride 44 miles there and back over biggish hills.

(If you want an argument in favour of cars, go to a cycle club race meet. Wall-to-wall estate cars with racks full of bicycles. Not much evil there, I'd contend.)

I've only scratched the surface of our car use. Much of it could be done away with. Much already has been. We drive less now than when the children were younger, as they can hop on trains and buses where there's a link. But without a car our current _modus vivendi_ would be gone with the morning mist.

I do take your point, but I'm not an 85-year-old pensiner.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> ... If the Devil existed, I reckon he couldn't invent a better way of corrupting people than giving them cars.


 
1. Heroin
2. Cocaine
3. Sexual attraction
4. Jealousy
5. Hand-held fire arms.
6. Console games.
7. Bread and Butter Pudding.
8. Jeremy Kyle.
9. Tobacco.

The list is endless. I wouldn't put the motor car in the top 30. Anything built by Citroen between 1934 and 1985 wouldn't even be on the list.

Likewise the Lancia Aurelia B20, the 1960s Abarth FIAT 500 SS, the Series I FIAT 850 Spider and the Renault 8 Gordini.

None of the above lists is exhaustive. As ever, I am completely right and everyone else is wrong - even if they agree with me.


----------



## sidevalve (28 Jun 2012)

I hear two things here, a lot of "oh yes I'm car free" but oddly the wife still has one. Hmm , Not really car free then. As for cars being "evil" , sorry but grow up. "Would it be so bad if the western world --- " well if you want to live in the third world with ALL that that implies then be my guest, [note just forget the pretty little carbon forks and alloy frames, check out the bikes in use in India or china.The disabled of course would have NO personal transport.
Finally remember this, the automotive industry pours so much money into the exchequer it's almost unbelievable. It doesn't stop with road tax [I'll call it what I want] as everyone seems to think, which is a few billion, then comes tax from new car purcheses, import duties [a lot], tax paid on EVERY SINGLE spare, from tyres to wiper blades,the tax paid by every single garage / dealership / spares or tuning shop, not to forget the income tax paid by everybody thus [and that's a hell of a lot] employed. Add on money raised from minor fines, parking/speeding etc all pouring into the government purse. Let's not omit the hundreds employed producing steel castings for the manufacturers and the people delivering all this equipment [they may be driving trucks or vans but they are paying even more tax]. Add on people who MUST use cars [still paying tax of course] sales reps, mobile tradesmen etc. OH and then tere's fuel duty.This does not of course include the thousands employed on road maintenance and construction [all paying tax of course] because if anyone thinks the roads would be maintained as they are for bicycles and trucks you aint thinking clearly.
Take away the OVERALL contribution of the motor car and yes we would be back to the third world with all the poverty, inequality and hardship that that really involves.
PS What right has ANYONE to label me evil because I choose to drive a car.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Jun 2012)

lulubel said:


> Not fair. You beat me to it!
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean they can steer *without crossing their hands*, though - not while remembering to signal, take the correct lane, check their mirrors, look behind while reversing, reverse slowly, and not cut anyone up (among other things).


 
What's wrong with crossing your hands?


----------



## lulubel (28 Jun 2012)

400bhp said:


> What's wrong with crossing your hands?


 
Nigel was saying it would be easy for dangerous drivers to drive properly to pass a retest every year. According to DSA standards (and they're the ones who would be doing the testing), none of us drive properly, and crossing hands is just one silly example. Technically, you're supposed to steer by feeding the wheel through your hands rather than taking one hand away from the wheel and crossing it over the other because it's supposed to give you more control. Driving instructors have heated arguments amongst themselves over it, but generally you'll be marked down on a test if you cross your hands.

My point was that it's very difficult to pass a test once you've been driving for a while and developed some "undesirable" habits, and the more undesirable habits you have - the more dangerous you are - the harder it's likely to be.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Jun 2012)

lulubel said:


> Nigel was saying it would be easy for dangerous drivers to drive properly to pass a retest every year. According to DSA standards (and they're the ones who would be doing the testing), none of us drive properly, and crossing hands is just one silly example. Technically, you're supposed to steer by feeding the wheel through your hands rather than taking one hand away from the wheel and crossing it over the other because it's supposed to give you more control. Driving instructors have heated arguments amongst themselves over it, but generally you'll be marked down on a test if you cross your hands.
> 
> My point was that it's very difficult to pass a test once you've been driving for a while and developed some "undesirable" habits, and the more undesirable habits you have - the more dangerous you are - the harder it's likely to be.


 
I'm not sure if you are saying that you feel that crossing your hands is undesireable.

Let me assure you that, if done properly, it is absolutely fine.

I remember getting some race driving tuition about 8 years ago off an ex F1 test driver who also gave tuition to the police. I recall him saying that the police standards were changing to a system where crossing hands is acceptable.

Potentially, for a blanket driving test, teaching people a certain way to hold the wheel (or not as the case may be) is probably sensible as you want a minimum set of standards that are easy to adhere to.


----------



## lulubel (28 Jun 2012)

400bhp said:


> I'm not sure if you are saying that you feel that crossing your hands is undesireable.


 
I put it in inverted commas to try and make it clear I was expressing the DSA's opinion on the matter, not mine. I generally keep my own opinions about what makes a good or bad driver to myself because arguments about that tend to get nasty, and that isn't why I come on forums.

To be honest, now that I've stopped driving, I don't really have an interest in how people drive any more, as long as they give me plenty of room when they pass me on my bike. I just wanted to correct Nigel's assumption that it would be easy for anyone to pass a retest. It's actually very hard, as any driving instructor who's had to "retrain" an experienced driver to pass one could tell you.


----------



## Alun (28 Jun 2012)

Why do people think that because they can manage without a car, apart from the wife's of course and getting "occasional" lifts from friends and neighbours and the like, that everyone can?
It's almost as if they can't recognise that other people are different from themselves, have different circumstances, abilities, and needs.


----------



## Ian Cooper (28 Jun 2012)

sidevalve said:


> I hear two things here, a lot of "oh yes I'm car free" but oddly the wife still has one. Hmm , Not really car free then.


Hmm. That would be true if I could drive, but I can't.



> What right has ANYONE to label me evil because I choose to drive a car.


I don't think anyone did. I said car use tends to make bad habits turn deadly, and that that tendency was effectively 'evil'. I understand how much many car drivers are emotionally attached to the 3,000lb chunk of metal in their garage, but I think losing one's sense of humour over it is going a bit far.


----------



## JozeeB (28 Jun 2012)

At the mo I can't see myself being car free, due to poor public transport in my area. If I could get the bus to work in poor weather I would, but it would take me nearly an hour and a half to do a 3.5 mile journey to work due to rubbish connections (and I would not like to arrive at work with a bunch of fashion-conscious teenagers looking like a drowned rat, cold, wet and muddy when bad weather!!). Time limits me with child to get to ready for school too!
If I could sort work commutes, then I'd happily shop online as I hate it anyway and could get the heavy bulky items online and local shop the fresh stuff. Then just rely on OH's car for longer journeys. Would love to save the money, but just not practical at mo.


----------



## middleagecyclist (28 Jun 2012)

JozeeB said:


> At the mo I can't see myself being car free, due to poor public transport in my area. If I could get the bus to work in poor weather I would, but it would take me nearly an hour and a half to do a 3.5 mile journey to work...


You drive rather than get the bus/tram/train when its raining/cold/windy? Can you not just get some decent cycle gear and have a change of clothing at the other end? Is there really no where for you to change/refresh?

I am fortunate in that I have a changing room and shower if I need it and I appreciate not everyone does but find it hard to believe finding a place to towel off and change clothing is impossible. Of course I am almost bald with a grade 1 on the rest so I dont have that problem to consider!


----------



## Mad Doug Biker (28 Jun 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I _stayed_ car-free!



Yep, never driven in me life!


----------



## al78 (28 Jun 2012)

martint235 said:


> . My parents are both 85 and also don't seem to have any issues with not having a car.


 
I presume they are still fully mobile. If so, then at some point the aging process will catch up with them and they will likely lose most of their mobility, so it may be worth thinking about how to deal with that now if you or they don't have access to motorized transport.


----------



## middleagecyclist (28 Jun 2012)

al78 said:


> I presume they are still fully mobile. If so, then at some point the aging process will catch up with them and they will likely lose most of their mobility, so it may be worth thinking about how to deal with that now if you or they don't have access to motorized transport.


Taxi, Dial a Ride, Bus? Just because someone doesn't own a vehicle or have access to a family member/friend with one doesn't take away those choices surely?


----------



## al78 (28 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Taxi, Dial a Ride, Bus? Just because someone doesn't own a vehicle or have access to a family member/friend with one doesn't take away those choices surely?


 
The bus probably won't be viable (not door-to-door, may not be able to get on/off it*), taxis yes, assuming they can afford it. I'm not familiar with Dial a Ride, so can't comment on that.

*which was an issue with my grandmother.


----------



## middleagecyclist (28 Jun 2012)

al78 said:


> The bus probably won't be viable (not door-to-door, may not be able to get on/off it*), taxis yes, assuming they can afford it. I'm not familiar with Dial a Ride, so can't comment on that.
> 
> *which was an issue with my grandmother.


Buses are an aoption. Of course they will not always appropriate.

Occasional, local taxi use would be cheaper than having a private car used for those journeys alone surely?

Dial a ride or Demand Responsive Transport. It is door to door transport, cheaper than a taxi but it has to be shared, pre booked to a degree and the journey may not be the most direct. It is a great option for those too old/infirm/unwilling to cycle/walk/drive/get a bus/ take a taxi and who have no family/friend to ferry them around.


----------



## al78 (28 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> Buses are an aoption.


 
Not if you can't walk to the bus stop.



middleagecyclist said:


> Occasional, local taxi use would be cheaper than having a private car used for those journeys alone surely?


 
Probably.


----------



## The Brewer (29 Jun 2012)

I would love to go car free, I'm all but there. I cycle back and to for work and have a bus stop smack bang outside the house for the other family members. 
The old Zafira is such a financial drain in every way, but then it did come in handy with the double puncture/limited co2 escaped last week.
Biggest worry for me is not being able to get to my mums quick enough when a crisis happens, she suffers with dementia and lives 10miles away. She needs help with her shopping and to attend appointments over 15miles away due to her condition.


----------



## Boris Bajic (29 Jun 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Hmm. *That would be true if I could drive, but I can't*.


 
Understood, but whether you drive or not is not the point.

It's quite convenient to live in a bubble of righteous behaviour if those aspects of life made easier by car use are handled by a driving spouse. It may be that you derive no benefit from your wife's ownership of a car and her use of it.

If that is so, I congratulate you for sticking to your strongly-voiced principles. I'm not sure how you might manage it, but well done if you have.

If you do derive any benefit from the car in your household, then your posts about corruption and evil earlier in the thread lose some of their lustre.

They would begin to sound like US Televangelists pouring fire and brimstone from the pulpit and then relaxing by snorting coke off the bellies of hookers.

But I'm sure that you do stick to your principles and you ensure that you derive no benefit from your wife's ownership and use of a car.

I'm not sure quite how one would manage to live with a car owner and derive no benefit from same. It's certainly not because you don't drive. 

I don't bake bread, but I derive benefit from my wife's ability to do so.

I don't give birth, but I've derived some benefit from my wife's ability to do so.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2012)

I do agree with Boris here ( a rarity!). You can't really start criticising cars and car ownership, if your wife has a car and ferries you around whether you can drive or not.

I don't have a car and can't drive anyway. My other half has a license but hasn't driven for over 10 years and doesn't currently own a car.

If I want to go somewhere I walk, cycle or use public transport. I don't feel my lifestyle has suffered at all.

I feel the above does allow me the space to criticise cars and car ownership if I choose to.


----------



## theclaud (29 Jun 2012)

400bhp said:


> Would the western world be where it is today without them?


----------



## theclaud (29 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> We would have to change our lives considerably.


 
Perish the thort!

All the verbose rationalization aside, I do think the point you perhaps inadvertently make about car-use being gendered is an interesting one. If you look at the different contexts and meanings of car-use, you'll see that where the car is perceived as an instrument of freedom or advantage it is pictured as being driven by men, whereas insofar as it is used for chores, family obligations, or the service of others, it is suddenly a woman in the driving seat. Germaine Greer wrote somewhere that the man who drives to work while his wife takes the bus is the Western equivalent of the man who rides a donkey while his wife walks alongside. I think she's right, but of course the car is only able to operate as an index or instrument of privilege insofar as we have shaped social spaces according to its demands. Take space away from cars and give it to buses, and the man whose self-identification has depended on the symbolic power of his car starts to look a bit of a tit as he's stuck in a traffic jam with the bus whizzing past. And of course he's angry about it. But we're on a cycling forum, where the otherwise subversive notion that bicycles are empowering and cars constraining is commonplace, and now we find that men (I generalize) would like to be cut loose from its ties if only their wives didn't insist that they need it for all those irritating chores they do for everybody else. Is it possible that these women are reluctant to give up the car not because they don't believe that the shopping can be done with a trailer or that the kids can be got to school by other means, but because they know that is _they_ who will be pulling the trailer or hefting the carrier bags and getting the kids up early to the bus stop?

Anyway, I'm putting off saying that *cough* I agree with Boris about considering household car use as a whole. Access to cars is, generally, a pretty reliable indicator of access to privilege. This is not because we need cars - it's a self-fulfilling thing brought about by the status of the car and the negative impact it has on social space. Car use cannot really be sensibly discussed outside of the contexts of inequality within which it operates. Some interesting statistics: http://www.poverty.org.uk/75/index.shtml


----------



## DiddlyDodds (30 Jun 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> .
> 
> Has any cyclist here actually gone car (ownership) free?


 


Not a chance in hell
I love my car , i love my bike


----------



## fimm (3 Jul 2012)

Interesting post, theClaud.
As I understood the OP, it was a question about ceasing to own a car, and a request for experiences of this. I have added mine, with the note that we still _use_ cars that we hire, rather than owning one.


----------



## Crankarm (3 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Fat comes from eating and a lack of exercise. Car use removes a lot of the need for exercise. Some nutters even drive up to 5 miles to a gym, exercise there for an hour, then drive home, when cycling for an hour could accomplish the same in less time. Laziness may be inherent to certain people, but cycling mitigates it whereas car ownership feeds it. Again, my point was that car ownership feeds our worst habits and turns them deadly - that is the definition of evil.


 

What an idiotic post.There is something called freedom of choice. I would hate to live in your fascistic world where there is no freedom. Get real cars are NOT evil. They or more correctly the combustion engine have brought tremendous benefits to society allowing us all to lead the lives we do today having zillions more opportunities and a much much improved quality of life compared to previous generations. Even if you don't use or own a car your life depends on the car or motor vehicles to provide the goods and services you now take for granted.

Yes there are fat people, there are lazy and ignorant people, but cars are not evil.


----------



## Crankarm (3 Jul 2012)

DiddlyDodds said:


> Not a chance in hell
> I love my car , i love my bike


 
+1.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jul 2012)

fimm said:


> Interesting post, theClaud.
> As I understood the OP, *it was a question about ceasing to own a car, and a request for experiences of this*. I have added mine, with the note that we still _use_ cars that we hire, rather than owning one.


 
Sure. I was just running with BB's point. The OP talks about_ persuading his wife to give up the car_, as if he's already done the giving up and she hasn't made the leap, when in fact it sounds like a case of the more onerous functions of a car being outsourced to women, so to speak. This isn't a criticism of the OP's lifestyle, which might well be a simple case of a particular consensual division of labour, but it does follow a familiar pattern. Imagine if we weren't talking about cars but about some other ubitiquous convenience of modern life. As in "I never use the washing machine, but I can't persuade my wife to give it up." The chances are she's not using the car for this:






but for this:






Except that she's unlikely to be smiling. Note that I couldn't find an image of a woman loading shopping into the boot who didn't appear to be inanely delighted about the task...


----------



## Crankarm (3 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> They pollute, they make us fat and lazy, they kill hundreds of thousands of people per year worldwide, they make all of our bad but harmless habits (anger, drinking, need for speed, tendency to break inconvenient laws) into deadly habits. I'd say that makes cars about the biggest vector for evil that we have available to us - and they are regarded by most people as essential. If the Devil existed, I reckon he couldn't invent a better way of corrupting people than giving them cars.


 
What an irrational rant of crap.


----------



## Crankarm (3 Jul 2012)

theclaud said:


> Sure. I was just running with BB's point. The OP talks about_ persuading his wife to give up the car_, as if he's already done the giving up and she hasn't made the leap, when in fact it sounds like a case of the more onerous functions of a car being outsourced to women, so to speak. This isn't a criticism of the OP's lifestyle, which might well be a simple case of a particular consensual division of labour, but it does follow a familiar pattern. Imagine if we weren't talking about cars but about some other ubitiquous convenience of modern life. As in "I never use the washing machine, but I can't persuade my wife to give it up." The chances are she's not using the car for this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Claud - there must be one of some B or C - list celeb.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jul 2012)

Crankarm said:


> . They or more correctly the combustion engine have brought tremendous benefits to society allowing us all to lead the lives we do today having zillions more opportunities and a much much improved quality of life compared to previous generations.


 
Yeah, yeah. They've also f**ked up our urban environment and stunned our imaginations. And made people very, very boring.


----------



## Crankarm (3 Jul 2012)

theclaud said:


> Yeah, yeah. They've also f**ked up our urban environment and stunned our imaginations. And made people very, very boring.


 
I should imagine your imagination is stunning Claud.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (3 Jul 2012)

theclaud said:


> Yeah, yeah. They've also f**ked up our urban environment and stunned our imaginations. And made people very, very boring.


 
I blame Eastenders and Coronation Street for that.


----------



## theclaud (3 Jul 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> I blame Eastenders and Coronation Street for that.


Them 'n' all...


----------



## theclaud (3 Jul 2012)

Crankarm said:


> I should imagine your imagination is stunning Claud.



It was a particular reference. Not everyone will get it.


----------



## swansonj (3 Jul 2012)

fimm said:


> Interesting post, theClaud.
> As I understood the OP, it was a question about ceasing to own a car, and a request for experiences of this. I have added mine, with the note that we still _use_ cars that we hire, rather than owning one.


As I've watched this thread develop, it seemed to me there was an interesting and possibly deliberate ambiguity between car-ownership-free and car-use-free. Lots of people seem to manage by not owning a car, but hiring, borrowing, or taxi-ing when needed. From an environmental perspective, that has some advantage, as you probably do that less often because of the hassle than you would drive a car you owned, but only limited advantage if you still drive whenever you need to / still organise your life in a way that depends on car journeys. But TC has developed a fascinating dimension of the debate as to why car ownership brings social baggage independently of car use. I used to think that my current chosen lifestyle (own a car for the convenience, and also to be fair because work require me to, but still cycle to work, to church, for shopping, to deliver children to school before they were old enough to walk on their own, etc) was politically relatively neutral, because what counted was use rather than ownership, and my car use, for journeys involving just myself rather than the then-new family, did not change much when I owned a car rather than hiring one). Now I'm thinking again.


----------



## middleagecyclist (3 Jul 2012)

I like the way this thread is developing.

Anyway, the car passed its MOT today. Just the VED, service and insurance to sort for another year now!


----------



## Boris Bajic (3 Jul 2012)

I'm also humming and ha-ing a lot more about this thread than I thought I would.

I look at my own family and others in the same generation or with kids the same age.

I think there is much in TC's observation, although it varies from family to family.

I was brought up by a (widowed) single father, so beyond early primary school motherly love was something observed and experienced vicariously rather than felt. All the driving to the shops, sports events, music lessons and similar was done by my father. Likewise (until we were old enough) the loading of the washing machine, the mowing and similar.

I do think the broader division between men and women in terms of parental and domestic duties is much more blurred (and rightly so) than it was. But these things take decades (generations). I love to cook, but certainly do less than half the household cooking. I am happy living in a tip and certainly do less than half the cleaning, dusting and polishing. I love my children but frequently forget what they are studying at school. 

We like to think we move with the times, but I always lay the fire and always clean the grate. My wife doesn't know how. However, all our children (both sexes) have been taught how and get stuck in. So a silly timewarp exemption will peter out. Our children all wield a vacuum cleaner with varying levels of success and pleasure. Our sons are (mirabile dictu) much tidier than our daughter.

I cannot make bread (a lazy excuse) but my wife bakes it all the time. Does this gender 'auto-exemption' extend to car use?

It's a hard one to judge, but in our family I think not. As I look around me, I see that it is women doing the shopping, women ferrying kids around... in the majority of cases anyway.

That happens not to fit our family (by design) or my childhood (by unhelpful fate) but it seems general and will cause me to ho-hum some more on the topic.


----------



## Crankarm (3 Jul 2012)

The number of mums I see burning rubber in their huge 4x4s on the school run or bombing it to Tescos and back with one toddler secured as if he is in the spaceshuttle suggest to me that the fairer sex actually very much enjoy driving their cars. Wo betide you if you happen to get in their way and hold them up. Trouble is women have now got what men had and they are STILL not happy. Well the ones doing the driving are. Women can be so bitchy.


----------



## TheDoctor (3 Jul 2012)

And blokes can be so sexist!!


----------



## middleagecyclist (3 Jul 2012)

Ooops. I obviously spoke too soon!


----------



## TheDoctor (3 Jul 2012)

Please don't take Crankarm as representative of guys as a whole.
Not everyone is as bitter and twisted as he appears to be.
Nor do they indulge in such casual and unfounded sexism.


----------



## Shaun (3 Jul 2012)

Please don't derail the thread - let people make what they will of the replies (and the respondents) and stick to _making_ points rather than trying to score them off one another!

This thread has good potential and is exploring some interesting twists - I'd like to see that continue. 

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## 400bhp (3 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I'm also humming and ha-ing a lot more about this thread than I thought I would.
> 
> I look at my own family and others in the same generation or with kids the same age.
> 
> ...


 
What's the proportion of paid work split in your household?

You have to take into consideration the whole with the arguments TC was giving, rather than look at it in isolation.


----------



## 400bhp (3 Jul 2012)

Shaun said:


> Please don't derail the thread - let people make what they will of the replies (and the respondents) and stick to _making_ points rather than trying to score them off one another!
> 
> This thread has good potential and is exploring some interesting twists - I'd like to see that continue.
> 
> ...


 
I don't think anyone is, and anyway the OP likes the way the thread is going.

Stay away mods


----------



## Sandra6 (3 Jul 2012)

And back to the OP?! 
I don't think I count as going car free, because I can't drive -well I haven't passed the test. But, the more I cycle the less inclined I am to learn to drive properly. 
We do have a car in the family though -which is much more useful when eldest daughter requires collecting from 12 miles away at midnight on occasion than a bike would be. 
I think it's safe to say we do more miles by bike in a week than by car though.


----------



## sunnyjim (3 Jul 2012)

Do learn to drive- it will make you a better & safer cyclist.


----------



## swansonj (3 Jul 2012)

Here's another reflection on my own experience.

Before I met my wife, when I was single, I did not own a car. I occasionally hired to enable journeys, and work provided a pool car when needed for work purposes, but mostly I cycled and took public transport. That often meant journeys taking a long time, which was fine when my time was my own. Now I am married with children, I think that, for instance, taking two or three hours to get back from somewhere in the evening when I could drive it in one hour could be construed as selfish.

In similar vein, I have organised my own life so that the hobbies I choose to do are accessible by bike, I have chosen not to do things that require the car, and work is likewise, through my choice, a bikable commute. But my daughter, for instance, has music lessons and plays in orchestras that would not be realistically feasible by public transport - driving a 14/15 year old home from a 930 finish and getting home at 10 is one thing, public transport arriving home at nearer 11 on a school day is not responsible, and although I would cycle it, I can't expect her to, in all weathers. So it seems to me that to try to be car-free would have an element of selfishness in that I would be depriving her of opportunities. (Others will doubtelss point out that what looks selfish from my family's POV and from the planet's POV could be rather different.)

However, TC (and others) has got me thinking: is what I have written genuinely true, or am I just using my family as excuses, in the way that males are wont to do?


----------



## al78 (3 Jul 2012)

swansonj said:


> Here's another reflection on my own experience.
> 
> Before I met my wife, when I was single, I did not own a car. I occasionally hired to enable journeys, and work provided a pool car when needed for work purposes, but mostly I cycled and took public transport. That often meant journeys taking a long time, which was fine when my time was my own. Now I am married with children, I think that, for instance, taking two or three hours to get back from somewhere in the evening when I could drive it in one hour could be construed as selfish.


 
If you are not doing to such extremes that you could genuinely be accused of neglecting your family (i.e. you are actually spending a reasonable amount of time with your family on other occasions), I don't think it is selfish. 

Would it, for example, be selfish to pursue a career that requires 12 hour working days as opposed to one that only requires 8 hour working days?


----------



## al78 (3 Jul 2012)

sunnyjim said:


> Do learn to drive- it will make you a better & safer cyclist.


 
My lack of car use this year has had an unfortunate side effect, I've become hopeless at parking in confined spaces. I'm taking two or three attempts to get into a free parking space between two vehicles (although a Vauxhall Corsa doesn't have a particularly tight turning circle, which doesn't help).


----------



## Crankarm (3 Jul 2012)

swansonj said:


> Here's another reflection on my own experience.
> 
> Before I met my wife, when I was single, I did not own a car. I occasionally hired to enable journeys, and work provided a pool car when needed for work purposes, but mostly I cycled and took public transport. That often meant journeys taking a long time, which was fine when my time was my own. Now I am married with children, I think that, for instance, taking two or three hours to get back from somewhere in the evening when I could drive it in one hour could be construed as selfish.
> 
> ...


 
Nope perfectly reasonable. It would be pointless you cycling every where with the committments you have. Don't beat yourself up about it. Just get on with life. Cycling everywhere if you are singleton is possible, bloody miserable some times, but still possible. But if you have a demanding family and you live in the sticks then a car is pretty much the only option..


----------



## martint235 (4 Jul 2012)

sunnyjim said:


> Do learn to drive- it will make you a better & safer cyclist.


 How so? I've never learnt to drive and although I make the occasional mistake judging by some of the horror stories on here I make fewer than many driver cyclists.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Jul 2012)

martint235 said:


> How so? I've never learnt to drive and although I make the occasional mistake judging by some of the horror stories on here I make fewer than many driver cyclists.


 
Without wanting to put words into Sunnyjim's mouth, what he really meant was "it might" rather than "it will".

Driving gives a different perspective of using the roads and perhaps provides some empathy from what drivers see etc. It certainly doesn't naturally flow that it will make you a better cyclist (or vice versa) as that depends upon your own personal circumstances.

There are a lot of folk who are poor drivers and poor cyclists (not necessarily mutually exclusive). Some of these may benefit from learning the other skill, many won't (either they don't have the ability to or don't want to).


----------



## simon.r (4 Jul 2012)

One of the main reasons why I don't intend to give up my car is the fact that it allows me, at short notice, to drive anywhere within 100 mile + radius just to do something I want to do. I accept that is selfish and I don't do it very often, but I'd hate not to have that option.

An unexpected sunny Sunday? Day at the sea-side no problem with a car, very difficult without.
Phone call from parents (who live 25 miles away) needing help? No problem, I'll be there in 40 minutes.
An early morning MTB ride in the Peak District (40 miles away)? You get the idea...


----------



## martint235 (4 Jul 2012)

simon.r said:


> An unexpected sunny Sunday? Day at the sea-side no problem with a car, very difficult without.
> Phone call from parents (who live 25 miles away) needing help? No problem, I'll be there in 40 minutes.
> An early morning MTB ride in the Peak District (40 miles away)? You get the idea...


But isnt' the journey part of the fun? Unexpected sunny Sunday, Brighton 3 hours by bike. Probably roughly the same by car as everyone piles out of London on the A23. Riding the bike down would be fun.

For you, 25 miles to the parents, 90 mins in the fresh air with a bit of exercise.

As to driving somewhere to ride a bike, that I just don't understand!

Then again I decided one day to ride to my parents. It was fun (apart from the peak district) and they live 225 miles away.


----------



## Shaun (4 Jul 2012)

I think the parents example was related to speed of response.


----------



## martint235 (4 Jul 2012)

Shaun said:


> I think the parents example was related to speed of response.


 I agree but 40 mins/90 mins isn't going to make a huge difference in an emergency.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jul 2012)

sunnyjim said:


> Do learn to drive- it will make you a better & safer cyclist.


 
This may be the case, but it may not. I'm not sure it helps to make a fairly absolute statement like that on a cycling forum. 

In my experience, road users with experience handling several forms of road transport are more understanding about the needs, capabilities and limitations of other modes. 

I see cyclists and car drivers in the vicinity of buses and HGVs who would never drive or ride that way if they'd sat where the driver is. 

Some "How come he didn't see me?" comments are from riders who may have failed to grasp what a driver in a forward-control lorry cab really can see. 

For all that, a prize turnip on a bicycle would just become a similar vegetable in a car - with potentially dangerous results.

I am not a particularly good driver, cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist of HGV driver, but I am (or have been) less bad at all three because of experience at the others. 

I was amused last year when teaching my (enthusiastic cyclist) daughter to drive. She was quite surprised to see how cyclists appeared (and sometimes failed to appear) to a driver. She rode occasionally to her 6th Form in those days, about 14 miles along a busy NSL single carriageway. She changed the way she rode, having driven a car.


----------



## simon.r (4 Jul 2012)

martint235 said:


> But isnt' the journey part of the fun? Unexpected sunny Sunday, Brighton 3 hours by bike. Probably roughly the same by car as everyone piles out of London on the A23. Riding the bike down would be fun.
> 
> For you, 25 miles to the parents, 90 mins in the fresh air with a bit of exercise.
> 
> ...


 
It obviously depends on where you live, who you want to go with and any other number of variables, but for me the nearest sea-side is about 80 miles away. I've never ridden 160 miles in a day and don't know if I could. If I did I certainly wouldn't have any energy left to enjoy myself when I was there! That 80 miles, in the relatively sparsely populated Midlands could easily be driven in 2 hours, probably less.

I think the driving somewhere to ride a bike thing is an MTB thing. I'm fortunate enough to live near some pleasant trails, but riding in the Peaks (for example) is a very different experience, as you alluded to in your post about riding to your parents


----------



## martint235 (4 Jul 2012)

simon.r said:


> but riding in the Peaks (for example) is a very different experience, as you alluded to in your post about riding to your parents


 It most certainly is!! And one I will be going back to repeat but in a better and stronger frame of mind next time.


----------



## Mike! (4 Jul 2012)

sunnyjim said:


> Do learn to drive- it will make you a better & safer cyclist.


 
I think there's something to be said for this, although it has been pointed out that there are poor cyclists who drive as well as those that don't (and poor operators of every vehicle IMO)

From my point of view I cycle but can also ride motorcycles, drive cars and buses and all of these give me a much better perspective of how to drive/ride each one in a better way in relation to other road users making me safer in the process.

Back on topic we currently have 2 cars in the house, my wife needs hers for her work as she is here there and everywhere with it (most places no public transport) and has to carry a lot of resources with her. I'm seriously contemplating selling the second car which is getting used less and less, with our second child on the way later in the year the money saved would come in handy!


----------



## sunnyjim (4 Jul 2012)

400bhp said:


> Without wanting to put words into Sunnyjim's mouth, what he really meant was "it might" rather than "it will".
> 
> Driving gives a different perspective of using the roads and perhaps provides some empathy from what drivers see etc. It certainly doesn't naturally flow that it will make you a better cyclist (or vice versa) as that depends upon your own personal circumstances.
> 
> There are a lot of folk who are poor drivers and poor cyclists (not necessarily mutually exclusive). Some of these may benefit from learning the other skill, many won't (either they don't have the ability to or don't want to).


 
Thank you 400bhp - That's indeed what I should have said.

Judging from the behaviour of some driving instructors, driving lessons only might make the OP a better driver.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jul 2012)

400bhp said:


> What's the proportion of paid work split in your household?
> 
> You have to take into consideration the whole with the arguments TC was giving, rather than look at it in isolation.


 
You're right. That is something to consider.

As are the proportion of capital in the family home, the one who spends more time digging the vegetable plot, the one who did more reading to the children when they were younger and a gazillion other things.

I come out second best to Mrs BB in most of these equations, but we've managed to muddle through.

Ultimately (as with the ideal of not running a motor car) we really have only to consider whether we're setting the sort of example to our children we'd like to set.

We can add everything up and divide it by the square root of maybe, but if it works it works.

Many are the married friends over the years who've expressed their shock that we don't have joint accounts. Having muddled along for 25 years in broad ignorance of each other's finances and politics, we see that many of the couples who spoke with passion of the honesty and openness of their relationships are now spending a good part of the weekend driving their children between their homes in line with their custody arrangements. I'm not sure now why the joint accounts and frequent public declarations of love, honesty and openness ever seemed like a good idea.


----------



## sunnyjim (4 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This may be the case, but it may not. *I'm not sure it helps to make a fairly absolute statement like that on a cycling forum. *
> 
> In my experience, road users with experience handling several forms of road transport are more understanding about the needs, capabilities and limitations of other modes.
> <snip>


 
I'll try being more doubtfull in future. Eekk!, that was another absolute statement. Arrhg! That's another one.

I might stop now..


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Jul 2012)

sunnyjim said:


> I'll try being more doubtfull in future. Eekk!, that was another absolute statement. Arrhg! That's another one.
> 
> I might stop now..


 
No problem, Sunny Jim.

I've spoken to my people and they're happy that none of the phrases I quote above are of concern to them.

They asked me also to refer you to the qualification 'like that' which I inserted into my cautionary caveat.

My people appreciate your desire to stay within the confines of the caveat, but stress that they do not want to get too pedantic about this.

They do not clarify how pedantic is too pedantic.


----------



## middleagecyclist (4 Jul 2012)

I've wondered if I was being sexist in musing about getting rid of the car. I don't think I was in relation to my marital division of labours at least.

We are both nurses. I'm full time and the wifey is on 2/3 hours (post materntiy leave). She does do more round the house because she is there more by mutual agreement as it helps with our child care. I still do a fair bit of housework and childcare however and anything DIY or car related is my domain alone.

She is not a confident or strong cyclist and would not countenance cycling the six miles to her work place. Shift times means buses are not practical although taxis could well be an option. The car is her choice for this. I cycle to my work place.

I am happy to cycle to and from the supermarket with a trailer or cargo bike but this would mean I need to be available to do the shopping. She often does a big shop while I am working (she seems to enjoy it!). We could do smaller shops, use a taxi or have it delivered. The car is her choice for this although she uses public transport for going into Manchester city centre.

We choose to live near to and walk the Golden Child to school. We both drive her to various clubs and friends, although I take her on the tag-a-long when I can (which she loves). We both agree the car is useful for this. When the wife is working (and so has the car) I use the tag-a-long or public transport to take the Golden Child out.

We do drive to visit in laws about 150 miles away every couple of months. This would be hard to arrange without a car but I would use a car share scheme or hire car rather than keep our own car. We agree the car is good for this.

So, we have gone from each owning a car to choosing to run one only. We could afford two cars and certainly could get by owning none at all. I am very happy we have cut our annual car mileage from 14000 to 9000 miles and use walking, cycling and public transport as local options. For us it's not about sexism but trying to be environmentally aware and financially sensible. I would not be so presuptious as to say what other people should do. What we do suits us that's all.


----------



## al78 (4 Jul 2012)

martint235 said:


> Brighton 3 hours by bike. Probably roughly the same by car as everyone piles out of London on the A23. *Riding the bike down would be fun*.


 
Up until the point where you realize you have to cross the South Downs .

I've only cycled all the way to Brighton (Hove to be more exact) once and I took the direct brute force route via Saddlescombe.


----------

