Hey, if I post something from Americans For Prosperity, the motivations of the source would sure be considered relevant...

 

Depending on if their research was thoughtfully conducted. I know some of the folks at US PIRG and am familiar with their research methods. I generally find their methods to be sound.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiprDsiDvIQ

 

LOL!  Years ago I came up with the idea of drive on/off train cars for people who wish to travel cross country but don't wish to fly.  Some common areas (such as restrooms) but also the opportunity to sit in your car for awhile if the  desire to avoid the herd strikes. 

 

Those do exist. But I don't think you can get back in your car until you debark for good. Though I don't like just sitting in my car anyway. I always feel sketchy.

There is a very simple reason why young people are driving less, They Simpley Can't Afford It. Invent any other reasons you desire, but that is the main one. The jobs they can get are lucky to hold down the payments on a used car, let alone a new one. Have they suddenly become addicted to a carless socieity? No, what they have become addicted to is being broke most of the time.

 

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not true. As I get older I accept that there's things I just don't understand because of my age and that's OK with me. Pokemon for example. But I don't try to tell younger people how Pokemon works because I don't know. And this is something you don't understand. And it should be OK with you. But it isn't.

They certainly existed years ago (say around 1976), as I remember riding on the what was then called the A Train from NY to Florida. They haulded our car in a freight car, and we were in a sleeper cabin.

They certainly existed years ago (say around 1976), as I remember riding on the what was then called the A Train from NY to Florida. They haulded our car in a freight car, and we were in a sleeper cabin.

 

The Auto Train, from Lorton, Virginia (near DC) to Sanford, Florida (near Orlando). It also had a route from Louisville, Kentucky to Sanford. But Auto Train went out of business in about 1981 after a couple of bad derailments. Amtrak restarted the Lorton-Sanford service a few years later and has been operating it every day ever since.....

 

http://www.amtrak.com/auto-train

There is a very simple reason why young people are driving less, They Simpley Can't Afford It. Invent any other reasons you desire, but that is the main one. The jobs they can get are lucky to hold down the payments on a used car, let alone a new one. Have they suddenly become addicted to a carless socieity? No, what they have become addicted to is being broke most of the time.

 

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not true. As I get older I accept that there's things I just don't understand because of my age and that's OK with me. Pokemon for example. But I don't try to tell younger people how Pokemon works because I don't know. And this is something you don't understand. And it should be OK with you. But it isn't.

 

You say I don't understand it. Oh but I do, and again it boils down to the lack of good paying jobs. The number of grown adults living at home with their parents is the highest  it has been in decades, since they can't earn enough for a place of their own. Of course there is a percentage of the younger crowd who are fortunate enough to have a good paying job and they may also desire to live in an urban setting without a car and walk to work and the bar. But they are not the majority. Increasingly the majority are working at low pay jobs and barely capable of keeping their head above water. How to I know this, because I talk to their parents that's how.

 

An other significant factor is the number of young people is going down as parents are having fewer children. So naturally there will be fewer getting drivers licenses, etc., but I usually see this reflected as a drop in overall numbers, not as a percentage of a given age group.

"The majority," in this case, is just a bunch of minorities cobbled together. Even Wal-Mart workers have cars, so it's obvious underemployment is not, in itself, the sole factor.

 

We also have to look beyond Cincinnati/Ohio to see the whole impact of the back-to-the-city movement. The fact that it's resulting in so much change in urban Ohio is actually a testament to the fact that it's a major cultural force. Most of the people interested in such a lifestyle were not first looking toward Ohio. Not even Ohioans. What do you think the "brain drain" is about? A lot of it is about the sub-par urban living product Ohio's had to offer for many years. My Facebook feed is filled with high school classmates from Cincinnati who moved to NYC, Chicago, Boston, Portland, Austin, Seattle, DC, and Minneapolis.

 

There is even one city (not a neighborhood or a borough (thinking Brooklyn here) but an entire city), Portland OR, which can attribute its entire reputation as a rising star to embracing the idea that urban living is an in-demand product. This phenomenon has been growing since the '90s, and shows no sign of slowing down. Is it really doubtful that a movement big enough to make an entire American city would have enough impact to influence a statistic like vehicle miles traveled? Surely not.

There is a very simple reason why young people are driving less, They Simpley Can't Afford It. Invent any other reasons you desire, but that is the main one. The jobs they can get are lucky to hold down the payments on a used car, let alone a new one. Have they suddenly become addicted to a carless socieity? No, what they have become addicted to is being broke most of the time.

 

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not true. As I get older I accept that there's things I just don't understand because of my age and that's OK with me. Pokemon for example. But I don't try to tell younger people how Pokemon works because I don't know. And this is something you don't understand. And it should be OK with you. But it isn't.

 

You say I don't understand it. Oh but I do, and again it boils down to the lack of good paying jobs. The number of grown adults living at home with their parents is the highest  it has been in decades, since they can't earn enough for a place of their own. Of course there is a percentage of the younger crowd who are fortunate enough to have a good paying job and they may also desire to live in an urban setting without a car and walk to work and the bar. But they are not the majority. Increasingly the majority are working at low pay jobs and barely capable of keeping their head above water. How to I know this, because I talk to their parents that's how.

 

An other significant factor is the number of young people is going down as parents are having fewer children. So naturally there will be fewer getting drivers licenses, etc., but I usually see this reflected as a drop in overall numbers, not as a percentage of a given age group.

 

So you think you know more about it than people who work in the auto industry that actually know that the other factors are affecting their sales in a big way? Or the automotive journalists that also know how the other factors at play? Perhaps they should fire all those eggheads and just hire you.

...

There is a very simple reason why young people are driving less, They Simpley Can't Afford It. Invent any other reasons you desire, but that is the main one. The jobs they can get are lucky to hold down the payments on a used car, let alone a new one. Have they suddenly become addicted to a carless socieity? No, what they have become addicted to is being broke most of the time.

 

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not true. As I get older I accept that there's things I just don't understand because of my age and that's OK with me. Pokemon for example. But I don't try to tell younger people how Pokemon works because I don't know. And this is something you don't understand. And it should be OK with you. But it isn't.

 

You say I don't understand it. Oh but I do, and again it boils down to the lack of good paying jobs. The number of grown adults living at home with their parents is the highest  it has been in decades, since they can't earn enough for a place of their own. Of course there is a percentage of the younger crowd who are fortunate enough to have a good paying job and they may also desire to live in an urban setting without a car and walk to work and the bar. But they are not the majority. Increasingly the majority are working at low pay jobs and barely capable of keeping their head above water. How to I know this, because I talk to their parents that's how.

 

An other significant factor is the number of young people is going down as parents are having fewer children. So naturally there will be fewer getting drivers licenses, etc., but I usually see this reflected as a drop in overall numbers, not as a percentage of a given age group.

 

So you think you know more about it than people who work in the auto industry that actually know that the other factors are affecting their sales in a big way? Or the automotive journalists that also know how the other factors at play? Perhaps they should fire all those eggheads and just hire you.

 

As an actual young person who hates driving, I would first say that my parents are not the best source of information on why i do or do not drive much. But also, I have been wildly impressed by not only my friends who are urban planners, but my friends who have no relation to planning or urban issues. Almost across the board, they are choosing urban neighborhoods and taking transit. They are all (almost) fully employed and capable of purchasing a car, but have little interest in it. It is simply easier to take a bus when I want to play on facebook (or urbanohio). I also think this is all very closely related to the fact that younger people are settling down later and are more interested in going out/drinking. It is easier/safer/legal to walk to a bar and walk home than to drive.

I own two road cars, participate in autocross and track days, and am working on a ChumpCar endurance racer. I can easily afford to drive (and race) but still prefer walkable areas. And if I wasn't in Columbus I'd aim to live near rail transit.

You say I don't understand it. Oh but I do, and again it boils down to the lack of good paying jobs. The number of grown adults living at home with their parents is the highest  it has been in decades, since they can't earn enough for a place of their own. Of course there is a percentage of the younger crowd who are fortunate enough to have a good paying job and they may also desire to live in an urban setting without a car and walk to work and the bar. But they are not the majority. Increasingly the majority are working at low pay jobs and barely capable of keeping their head above water. How to I know this, because I talk to their parents that's how.

 

How exactly does living with your parents correlate to driving less? I have friends that are living with their parents to save money, but as a result, they have to drive more, both to get to work and for leisure. If they had a better job and lived on their own, they'd drive less.

 

What about people that are working two low-wage jobs because they can't find a high-wage one? Those people are driving more miles than they would if they had a better job.

 

Then you dismiss people with good jobs that choose to live in walkable areas calling them a minority.

 

If the "minority" of people that want to drive less continues to grow, even slowly, we will continue to see a decline in driving and a growth in transit usage. I just don't believe that this trend is going to start reversing as the economy grows.

 

An other significant factor is the number of young people is going down as parents are having fewer children. So naturally there will be fewer getting drivers licenses, etc., but I usually see this reflected as a drop in overall numbers, not as a percentage of a given age group.

 

It's not just that fewer people are getting their drivers license, it's that the average age for getting a drivers license is rising. Kids aren't rushing out at 15 1/2 to get their temps and 16 to get their licenses.

You say I don't understand it. Oh but I do, and again it boils down to the lack of good paying jobs. The number of grown adults living at home with their parents is the highest  it has been in decades, since they can't earn enough for a place of their own. Of course there is a percentage of the younger crowd who are fortunate enough to have a good paying job and they may also desire to live in an urban setting without a car and walk to work and the bar. But they are not the majority. Increasingly the majority are working at low pay jobs and barely capable of keeping their head above water. How to I know this, because I talk to their parents that's how.

 

How exactly does living with your parents correlate to driving less? I have friends that are living with their parents to save money, but as a result, they have to drive more, both to get to work and for leisure. If they had a better job and lived on their own, they'd drive less.

 

What about people that are working two low-wage jobs because they can't find a high-wage one? Those people are driving more miles than they would if they had a better job.

 

Then you dismiss people with good jobs that choose to live in walkable areas calling them a minority.

 

If the "minority" of people that want to drive less continues to grow, even slowly, we will continue to see a decline in driving and a growth in transit usage. I just don't believe that this trend is going to start reversing as the economy grows.

 

An other significant factor is the number of young people is going down as parents are having fewer children. So naturally there will be fewer getting drivers licenses, etc., but I usually see this reflected as a drop in overall numbers, not as a percentage of a given age group.

 

It's not just that fewer people are getting their drivers license, it's that the average age for getting a drivers license is rising. Kids aren't rushing out at 15 1/2 to get their temps and 16 to get their licenses.

 

Not much sense rushing out to get a license if you don't have anything to drive. I am just saying I know quite a few people with grown children in their mid to late twenties living with them. They are concerned because they can see their kids are not having an enjoyable life. It is not too hard for a parent to tell. Many of them are working low pay jobs at outlandish hours. For whatever reason it is difficult to just hang on to those jobs. Sometimes they will combine with a couple of others to rent a place to live. Quite often this is short-lived as one with lose their job and be unable to pay their share, so the whole arrangement falls apart.

 

It is not that living with your parents equates to driving less. As you said, trying to hold down two low pay jobs may equate to driving more. But if you are driving a old clunker which breaks down and you don't have the money to repair it, you are frankly shit-out-of-luck as you can't get to either job. Believe me I know a number of people whose kids are in this circumstance, so what happens? - the parents fork out the money to get the vehicle repaired so the kid can go to work. This futher damages their self-esteem as mon&dad have to bail them out. Of course if mon&dad can they will bail them out - that is called parents.

 

This has nothing to do with the desire to live in a car-less society, desire to reduce oil consumption, or any such ideal, it is pure economic necessity. And the massive subsidies all mass transit systems in this country operate under are not going to change the basic economic equation one iota. What has changed is the average American being able to earn a decent living wage.

Not much sense rushing out to get a license if you don't have anything to drive. I am just saying I know quite a few people with grown children in their mid to late twenties living with them. They are concerned because they can see their kids are not having an enjoyable life. It is not too hard for a parent to tell. Many of them are working low pay jobs at outlandish hours. For whatever reason it is difficult to just hang on to those jobs. Sometimes they will combine with a couple of others to rent a place to live. Quite often this is short-lived as one with lose their job and be unable to pay their share, so the whole arrangement falls apart.

 

It is not that living with your parents equates to driving less. As you said, trying to hold down two low pay jobs may equate to driving more. But if you are driving a old clunker which breaks down and you don't have the money to repair it, you are frankly shit-out-of-luck as you can't get to either job. Believe me I know a number of people whose kids are in this circumstance, so what happens? - the parents fork out the money to get the vehicle repaired so the kid can go to work. This futher damages their self-esteem as mon&dad have to bail them out. Of course if mon&dad can they will bail them out - that is called parents.

 

This has nothing to do with the desire to live in a car-less society, desire to reduce oil consumption, or any such ideal, it is pure economic necessity. And the massive subsidies all mass transit systems in this country operate under are not going to change the basic economic equation one iota. What has changed is the average American being able to earn a decent living wage.

 

Very few of my friends in the early 80s had cars but we all got our licenses at 16. But of course we all lived at home so we could at least drive our parents' cars.

 

Today, the driving has been declining since 2004, before the recession, despite the subsidies to the auto industry, highways, oil productions and shipments, etc which have vastly reduced the cost of owning and driving cars in the so-called free market of the USA in a futile attempt to force everyone to drive.

 

 

The Mystery Behind America's Decline in Driving

Many speculate it's because of the sagging economy, higher rates of telecommuting or more people living in cities. But a new study refutes all those claims.

 

BY RYAN HOLEYWELL | AUGUST 29, 2013

 

There's been no shortage of media reporting on the ongoing decline in driving in the United States. Since 2004, Americans have been decreasing their per-capita miles driven every year.

 

What's less clear is why it's happening. A new report shows just how little we understand the trend.

 

In some circles, skeptics have balked at the dip, arguing it's merely an effect of the sluggish economy. Owning a car and paying for gas isn't cheap, so it's logical to assume when times are tough, people would cut back on automobile trips.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/gov-new-report-shows-how-little-we-know-about-decline-in-driving.html

dont forget the big picture, there are more cars on the road than ever and its getting almost exponentially worse every year.

so overall young people and everybody else are driving much more than ever, not less.

here is the most frightening example:

 

 

 

 

dont forget the big picture, there are more cars on the road than ever and its getting almost exponentially worse every year.

so overall young people and everybody else are driving much more than ever, not less.

here is the most frightening example:

 

 

 

That's China.

yes thats china. rinse and repeat all around se asia. probably central and south america too.

Good for them. Let's stay focused on the USA.

no lets not limit thread discussion thats not specified as such. there are young people all over and some are driving more not less. where does the usa stand with that, etc.

 

I think the increase in people driving, particularly in places like China concerns the USA due to the obvious increase in demand for oil products. This is not only going to inflate the price but hasten the day when we run out of supply, which is coming. I likely will not see it, but it is coming.

 

When I consider the whole gasoline driven internal combustion engine vehicle is just a little over a century old and in that short period of time how much of the world's supply of petroleum has been consumed, it does give me pause. We simply don't have a replacement. And all of the other industries which depend on petroleum, plastics of all kinds, airlines obviously, we and all of the other humans on this planet have built a house of cards which will come tumbling down.

 

So I have far greater concerns for the future which I will not see than whether a percentage of young people in the USA are electing to drive less. In the big picture they are a spit in the ocean. I have the same feeling concerning public transit in the form of rail replacing cars. What is going to power these trains? Diesel locomotives - I believe they require oil. Electric motors - what generates the electricity?

 

The world is scared to death of nuclear power plants, though they may be our last resort. Nuclear generated electricity transmitted to local recharging stations to support electric cars, and to support electric driven trains for mass transit.

 

You may have to put up with the inconvenience of having to pull over and hook up for recharging, but the alternative is not travel anywhere.

 

For those wanting to return to the rail transit of over a century ago, and in the Cincinnati area there were many, don't forget the power was usually coal-fired steam engines, beltching air polution all over the place. Are you advocating returning there?

 

 

Rail is not a step backward. Everybody knows this except some American suburbanites.

no lets not limit thread discussion thats not specified as such. there are young people all over and some are driving more not less. where does the usa stand with that, etc.

For those wanting to return to the rail transit of over a century ago, and in the Cincinnati area there were many, don't forget the power was usually coal-fired steam engines, beltching air polution all over the place. Are you advocating returning there?

 

um. no. Modern electric rail systems are not "coal-fired steam engines". While much of the electricity comes from coal-fired power plants, these are still FAR less polluting than the coal plants of 70-100 years ago.

Rail is not a step backward. Everybody knows this except some American suburbanites.

 

Easy to say that. But rail is is step backward as you have to run on their schedule, making it the exact mass control the supporters object to. If you do not want to be government controlled, why in the world would you advocate this? Oh, lets see because you are doing something as an urban  advocate that is environmentally great.  Great for your advocacy, but don't expect everyone else to agree.

Each time you stop at a stop sign or traffic light you are on someone else's schedule.

Rail is not a step backward. Everybody knows this except some American suburbanites.

 

Easy to say that. But rail is is step backward as you have to run on their schedule, making it the exact mass control the supporters object to. If you do not want to be government controlled, why in the world would you advocate this? Oh, lets see because you are doing something as an urban  advocate that is environmentally great.  Great for your advocacy, but don't expect everyone else to agree.

 

That is not really the case in cities with good transit. While in Toronto, there is no reason to ever drive a car. The subways come every couple minutes so there always seems to be one there right when you need one. They are fast, convenient, clean, and get you there faster than driving and you avoid the stress that comes with congestion.  The streetcars were also extremely efficient and combined with the subways took me everywhere I needed to go. Transfers were very easy making the whole experience very pleasant. The city is also walkable which helps a ton. Owning a car is not necessary there. When gas prices rise, cities that have not adopted this kind of transit system will struggle, while the Toronto's and New York's of the world will thrive even more. Although the Cincinatti streetcar is just a small step, it's a great start that hopefully will grow into a much more comprehensive transit system.

Rail is not a step backward. Everybody knows this except some American suburbanites.

 

Easy to say that. But rail is is step backward as you have to run on their schedule, making it the exact mass control the supporters object to. If you do not want to be government controlled, why in the world would you advocate this? Oh, lets see because you are doing something as an urban  advocate that is environmentally great.  Great for your advocacy, but don't expect everyone else to agree.

 

This coming from the guy who wants to see bicycle licenses.

 

Cycling is all about bootstrap-power, freedom, self-reliance, personal responsibility, etc., until you start throwing up red tape. Bicycles are a libertarian's dream compared to automobiles.

... rail is is step backward as you have to run on their schedule, making it the exact mass control the supporters object to. If you do not want to be government controlled, why in the world would you advocate this?

 

Airlines are this way too.

Options, Mr. Brill.  Options.  That is all anyone is seriously asking for.

and its not just that there are so many more drivers every year in china and se asia and booming car sales, but also the opposite, that other so-called wealthy first world countries are experiencing the same leveling off and decline as the usa. for example, i read that car clubs are getting popular in europe, like our zipcars. if its anything like over here, those would probably appeal to younger drivers more than any other age group.

 

Rail is not a step backward. Everybody knows this except some American suburbanites.

 

Easy to say that. But rail is is step backward as you have to run on their schedule, making it the exact mass control the supporters object to. If you do not want to be government controlled, why in the world would you advocate this? Oh, lets see because you are doing something as an urban  advocate that is environmentally great.  Great for your advocacy, but don't expect everyone else to agree.

 

There are none so blind...

Great for your advocacy, but don't expect everyone else to agree.

 

Why would I expect everyone else to agree? I'm not the one trying to push a one-size-fits-all, drive-or-die transportation "system."

Rail is not a step backward. Everybody knows this except some American suburbanites.

 

Easy to say that. But rail is is step backward as you have to run on their schedule, making it the exact mass control the supporters object to. If you do not want to be government controlled, why in the world would you advocate this? Oh, lets see because you are doing something as an urban  advocate that is environmentally great.  Great for your advocacy, but don't expect everyone else to agree.

 

This coming from the guy who wants to see bicycle licenses.

 

Cycling is all about bootstrap-power, freedom, self-reliance, personal responsibility, etc., until you start throwing up red tape. Bicycles are a libertarian's dream compared to automobiles.

 

Did he say that too?  I was the one who advocated bicycle license plates if they are to be driven on public roads.  A matter of accountability.

Did he say that too?  I was the one who advocated bicycle license plates if they are to be driven on public roads.  A matter of accountability.

 

I'm all for that. "Share the road" should also mean "share the responsibility" in terms of behavior, knowledge of traffic laws and financial support of road maintenance. I know there are drivers who treat cyclists as intruders, but there are also cyclists who act like the traffic laws do not apply to them.

Did he say that too?  I was the one who advocated bicycle license plates if they are to be driven on public roads.  A matter of accountability.

 

I'm all for that. "Share the road" should also mean "share the responsibility" in terms of behavior, knowledge of traffic laws and financial support of road maintenance. I know there are drivers who treat cyclists as intruders, but there are also cyclists who act like the traffic laws do not apply to them.

 

I agree. Some cyclists ride on the sidewalks dodging pedestrians, others drive in the street with no regard to the traffic laws, running red lights, dodging crossing pedestrians. I've noticed some cyclists use the the driving lane instead of the bike lane. They follow the traffic laws but ride slow and block cars from passing.

^ The laws in Ohio say that cyclists (and other slow moving vehicles) only have to ride as far right as they deem to be safe.  If the bike lane is filled with gravel or other debris, or they're making a left turn, or the bike lane is going to end shortly, then they have every right to move into the travel lane.  If that travel lane is not wide enough for vehicles to pass, then again, the cyclist has every right to be smack in the middle.

 

I hate when I see the conversation devolve into "oh I see these scofflaw cyclists doing this and that...where's the sharing?  Where's the accountability?  Rabble rabble rabble!"  The reason that happens is because either the laws are not appropriate to be applied unilaterally to all road users, the infrastructure is not accommodating to those who desire to use it in certain ways, or both.  That does not mean one particular type of user should be singled out for further harassment because of anecdotal observations.  If that were true then every car, truck, bus, or other motor vehicle would be limited to 5 mph and need to have someone walking in front with a bright torch to warn everyone they're coming (which was actually done a century ago). 

 

Many motorists drive in bike lanes, some even go up on the sidewalk, they dodge pedestrians in crosswalks, run red lights, speed, swerve, etc.  The difference is that when motorists do it, it's extremely dangerous, many times resulting in serious injuries or fatalities.  It never makes the news because it's so common.  Yet one cyclist injures or kills a little old lady, then everyone goes ballistic.  But that's only because it's so rare, just like major train or plane crashes. 

^ The laws in Ohio say that cyclists (and other slow moving vehicles) only have to ride as far right as they deem to be safe.  If the bike lane is filled with gravel or other debris, or they're making a left turn, or the bike lane is going to end shortly, then they have every right to move into the travel lane.  If that travel lane is not wide enough for vehicles to pass, then again, the cyclist has every right to be smack in the middle.

 

I hate when I see the conversation devolve into "oh I see these scofflaw cyclists doing this and that...where's the sharing?  Where's the accountability?  Rabble rabble rabble!"  The reason that happens is because either the laws are not appropriate to be applied unilaterally to all road users, the infrastructure is not accommodating to those who desire to use it in certain ways, or both.  That does not mean one particular type of user should be singled out for further harassment because of anecdotal observations.  If that were true then every car, truck, bus, or other motor vehicle would be limited to 5 mph and need to have someone walking in front with a bright torch to warn everyone they're coming (which was actually done a century ago). 

 

Many motorists drive in bike lanes, some even go up on the sidewalk, they dodge pedestrians in crosswalks, run red lights, speed, swerve, etc.  The difference is that when motorists do it, it's extremely dangerous, many times resulting in serious injuries or fatalities.  It never makes the news because it's so common.  Yet one cyclist injures or kills a little old lady, then everyone goes ballistic.  But that's only because it's so rare, just like major train or plane crashes. 

 

Counter this with the fact that it many cases is much easier for a bicycle to escape a police officer who sees them doing something ridiculous and dangerous, and bicycles (and their riders) are visually less distinctive.    I'm not even saying charge them anything more than it costs to make the plates and administer the program.

 

There used to regularly be a bicyclist that would ride down Tyler Boulevard in Mentor who rode on the left side (as it is, the side the industrial parks empty into) and would routinely blow through the lights.  It's hard to imagine anything more dangerous.

It's danger to OTHER PEOPLE that's the issue E Rocc.  Again, you're bring up a single anecdote to try to support further marginalizing a whole group of people who are already hugely discriminated against in our transportation system. 

It's danger to OTHER PEOPLE that's the issue

 

Agreed. There are many roads out there where bikes (or pedestrians) do not belong. This is inherent in the design of these roads, and that is the issue which needs to be fixed. Going into this:

 

you're bring up a single anecdote to try to support further marginalizing a whole group of people who are already hugely discriminated against in our transportation system. 

 

.... and that is where the issue lies. An active plan for cyclist expansion needs to be pursued based on current cycling demand. But with that, bike laws need to be reformed to keep cyclists off of roads where their presence is a danger to themselves or other motorists. For instance, this Dublin road below is marked as bike-friendly on Google, but take a look for yourself if you are reading to see if you feel the same way as a cyclist or motorist:

 

The road - https://maps.google.com/maps?q=dublin+ohio&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8838ecc4d450a11f:0xc2176815689028,Dublin,+OH&gl=us&ei=IMCnUp-LNIi1rQHgnoGQCg&ved=0CJUBELYD=bike&dirflg=b&f=d

The area - https://maps.google.com/maps?q=dublin+ohio&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8838ecc4d450a11f:0xc2176815689028,Dublin,+OH&gl=us&ei=IMCnUp-LNIi1rQHgnoGQCg&ved=0CJUBELYD=bike&dirflg=b&f=d

 

I would not take my bicycle on that road, and I would be p*ssed if I was in a car behind a cyclist there too. The fact it is marked as cyclist-friendly is honestly disgusting. There is no infrastructure present to support cycling. But a sizeable number of people would probably like to cycle on the road if they could, so infrastructure should be built to accommodate this demand.

 

Better yet, separate trails should be built to connect major points throughout the metro (as has been done in many areas of Dayton), with a good bike lane network in the core city to support a viable cycling option. In conjunction with the existing walkable built infrastructure, cycling has a viable purpose for short to mid distance (1/2 mile - 10 miles) of travel in a transit schema if the infrastructure exists.

Is this an attempt to get the young mobile device user to buy a car?

Folks in this thread haver said that the use of these devices dissuades yunguns to buy cars.

 

Apple and Google are preparing to compete on yet another front. They reportedly plan to race each other to design the world's most powerful smart car dashboard.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/30/google_and_apple_square_up_for_road_race/

That seems incredibly desperate if anything. I really wish some of these companies would just ASK young people why they aren't buying cars. There are so many assumptions I see thrown around everyday, most of which are certainly true for some people, but for the most part they're missing the biggest point. We don't want cars. Do a lot of us still like driving? Yes. Is the decision to use a car less economy-driven? Sometimes. Are these the main reasons young people don't want to drive? No. Is a lack of 'cool' technology on our dashboard the missing puzzle piece? HELL NO! Cars aren't cool anymore, that's the problem. And I don't mean that there aren't awesome, fun, well built, incredible cars out there. I mean that the thought of being tied down to an incredibly expensive, wasteful machine that is almost never fun to be in is the opposite of what a lot of young people are looking for these days. Cars aren't going to make a comeback. Their decline started well before the economy went to crap and they haven't stopped declining in their use since the economy has stabilized and started to make a comeback. They aren't the future anymore and that's why these companies can't solve the 'problem.' There is no solution for them since cars are no longer seen as a necessity or convenience for millions of people.

A world created around the car isn't any fun to drive in. That's why when people want to have fun driving they have to find a place where the car wasn't able to conquer the landscape.

i wish this was broken down by age.

maybe it is somewhere?

pretty eye opening regardless.

 

 

Break that down by different cities, and you will see some more interesting data. Also do one for various countries. America stands alone, even more than Canada, in its car love affair, shotgun wedding, automobile addiction, or whatever you want to call it.

That seems incredibly desperate if anything. I really wish some of these companies would just ASK young people why they aren't buying cars. There are so many assumptions I see thrown around everyday, most of which are certainly true for some people, but for the most part they're missing the biggest point. We don't want cars. Do a lot of us still like driving? Yes. Is the decision to use a car less economy-driven? Sometimes. Are these the main reasons young people don't want to drive? No. Is a lack of 'cool' technology on our dashboard the missing puzzle piece? HELL NO! Cars aren't cool anymore, that's the problem. And I don't mean that there aren't awesome, fun, well built, incredible cars out there. I mean that the thought of being tied down to an incredibly expensive, wasteful machine that is almost never fun to be in is the opposite of what a lot of young people are looking for these days. Cars aren't going to make a comeback. Their decline started well before the economy went to crap and they haven't stopped declining in their use since the economy has stabilized and started to make a comeback. They aren't the future anymore and that's why these companies can't solve the 'problem.' There is no solution for them since cars are no longer seen as a necessity or convenience for millions of people.

 

Even if this is true (I'm by no means agreeing it is), it's a temporary trend.  The younger people who aren't driving aren't becoming any more collective in their leisure pursuits, if anything the opposite is true.  If it gains any traction anywhere there's a transit strike or a Katrina-type disaster, that will do more to re-emphasize private transportation than any media campaign ever could.

i wish this was broken down by age.

maybe it is somewhere?

pretty eye opening regardless.

 

 

 

This is unshocking to say the least.  What it translates to is 92% of the working world choosing to have at least some personal control of their transportation mode.

 

One could, and perhaps should question how split trips and even those who do different things different days are handled.  The assumption would be if you're more than 50% one of the modes that's where you count, but....

 

 

^ You say "choosing" as if most people HAVE a choice.  You realize how big of a problem that is?  Also why do you keep insisting that factual trends, and statements by the people who are part of those trends, must somehow be wrong or temporary?  Why are you the authority?  Things like transit strikes and natural disasters do not cause people to abandon transit.  In fact those natural disasters cripple the road network just as badly, and even if not the lack of transit causes traffic and parking issues to cripple the city anyway.  People like you said that the tech bubble bursting, 9/11, the financial meltdown, and Sandy would be the end of New York, when nothing of the sort happened, and arguably the city actually grew stronger.  Do you realize how obtuse you're being?

It just doesn't make any sense to them. You've got to remember how pushy TV, movies, newspapers, magazines and even music were with this car-only stuff back in the one-way communication days.

I think this is the more surprising chart. We do not choose to drive. That choice is made for us by a lack of options. And if someone says that government should not be providing choices, that statement should apply to all modes. When government picks winners and losers, we all lose.

 

Somebody please post the Michael Bolton Honda ad.  That's how desperate these car companies have become...it's not about car performance or any of that, it's about Michael Bolton making fun of himself.

 

The car websites are getting interesting(?) because they're trying to turn car buying into a point-and-click experience similar to buying a MacBook Air.  I think Ford has the best website right now, partly because unlike bigger Japanese companies like Honda it's all about the cars (Honda has motorcycles, hovercraft, etc., all on their front page).  Ford.com has the best photography and design, and their compact and subcompact models have the best designs right now, at least amongst American companies. 

I read an interesting article recently about the impact of TV & movies on young people, influencing them on cars.  People who grew up in the 80's had car culture thrown at them non stop in tv & movies:  hit shows like CHIP's, Dukes of Hazzard, Knight Rider, etc all featured car chases each week, amazing driving, etc.  Young men grew up & couldn't wait to get behind the wheel.  Now, not so much, without counting the "Fast & Furious" episodes...  I can't think of a single popular tv show out right now that features a car or a good amount of driving each week...

And how many TV shows have people living in the city these days? Hanging out in cool urban places. Seems like it really got going with Friends, Seinfeld, Ally McBeal and continued with Sex In The City, Big Bang Theory, and more.