>The generation most willing to embrace change and even strive for it when we feel something isn't working right.

 

Is "the generation" doing any of this independent of what pop culture is telling them to do?  Absolutely not.  The massive shift toward gay tolerance, interracial relationship tolerance, etc, is the direct result of Hollywood, etc., creating television and movies that celebrated, normalized, and even came in some situations to rank such relationships superior to ordinary straight relationships.  And this is largely across the board age-wise, not just young people.  These days 55 and 60 year-old women who hardly knew any gay people before the year 2003 all want a gay shopping buddy now. 

 

People are MASSIVELY influenced by TV, movies, music, and fashion.  When I was in high school in the early 90s, I was the only person I knew, male or female, who wanted to move to New York City.  The city was lawless and affordable and incredibly creative in a way it isn't anymore.  After Sex and the City, young women moved from the Midwest en masse to NYC and drove up the rents:

http://observer.com/2008/04/in-new-york-its-raining-single-women/

 

It's the same thing with cars.  At some point magazines I don't read and shows I don't watch started depicting young people riding antique bicycles as having cultural sophistication over and above those who drove.  People look at a photo in a magazine and say "I can't be a jock, but I can be that..." and they go about making it happen.  Fashion/creating a new you is painting by number.  The appearance of it all changes from decade to decade, but the game doesn't. 

 

Naw, pop culture is a mirror, not a road sign.  It reflects what we're becoming.  It can spread trends, but it does not start them.

 

Especially since pop culture these days is much more fragmented than it was. 

^ Well put!

>The generation most willing to embrace change and even strive for it when we feel something isn't working right.

 

Is "the generation" doing any of this independent of what pop culture is telling them to do?  Absolutely not.  The massive shift toward gay tolerance, interracial relationship tolerance, etc, is the direct result of Hollywood, etc., creating television and movies that celebrated, normalized, and even came in some situations to rank such relationships superior to ordinary straight relationships.  And this is largely across the board age-wise, not just young people.  These days 55 and 60 year-old women who hardly knew any gay people before the year 2003 all want a gay shopping buddy now. 

 

People are MASSIVELY influenced by TV, movies, music, and fashion.  When I was in high school in the early 90s, I was the only person I knew, male or female, who wanted to move to New York City.  The city was lawless and affordable and incredibly creative in a way it isn't anymore.  After Sex and the City, young women moved from the Midwest en masse to NYC and drove up the rents:

http://observer.com/2008/04/in-new-york-its-raining-single-women/

 

It's the same thing with cars.  At some point magazines I don't read and shows I don't watch started depicting young people riding antique bicycles as having cultural sophistication over and above those who drove.  People look at a photo in a magazine and say "I can't be a jock, but I can be that..." and they go about making it happen.  Fashion/creating a new you is painting by number.  The appearance of it all changes from decade to decade, but the game doesn't. 

 

Naw, pop culture is a mirror, not a road sign.  It reflects what we're becoming.  It can spread trends, but it does not start them.

 

Especially since pop culture these days is much more fragmented than it was. 

 

Indeed the pop culture people aren't actually capable of creating their own trends. Believe it or not, they're not creative enough in that aspect. They're good at turning out the product they make (media). Their goal is to spot some small cultural phenomenon that nobody knows about, repackage it to be sold to the masses and make beaucoup bucks. So it is a mirror yes, but the subject would be lost in the void without the content creators. People have made moonshine for centuries, but now it's big because there's a show. Not only did the Sex and the City fans move to New York en masse, they started dressing exactly like them with the sleeveless outfits, bare legs and sandals 3 seasons of the year.

 

It is tougher to get the message through with a fragmented media and an internet where most content is available to anyone in most countries, but it still happens. There's always going to be a cohort of the population that wants to be spoonfed concepts and ideas rather than seeking them on their own.

>The generation most willing to embrace change and even strive for it when we feel something isn't working right.

 

Is "the generation" doing any of this independent of what pop culture is telling them to do?  Absolutely not.  The massive shift toward gay tolerance, interracial relationship tolerance, etc, is the direct result of Hollywood, etc., creating television and movies that celebrated, normalized, and even came in some situations to rank such relationships superior to ordinary straight relationships.  And this is largely across the board age-wise, not just young people.  These days 55 and 60 year-old women who hardly knew any gay people before the year 2003 all want a gay shopping buddy now. 

 

People are MASSIVELY influenced by TV, movies, music, and fashion.  When I was in high school in the early 90s, I was the only person I knew, male or female, who wanted to move to New York City.  The city was lawless and affordable and incredibly creative in a way it isn't anymore.  After Sex and the City, young women moved from the Midwest en masse to NYC and drove up the rents:

http://observer.com/2008/04/in-new-york-its-raining-single-women/

 

It's the same thing with cars.  At some point magazines I don't read and shows I don't watch started depicting young people riding antique bicycles as having cultural sophistication over and above those who drove.  People look at a photo in a magazine and say "I can't be a jock, but I can be that..." and they go about making it happen.  Fashion/creating a new you is painting by number.  The appearance of it all changes from decade to decade, but the game doesn't.

 

Well, I think the reactions to the Atlantic article support my point: That most of us old farts are looking at things from our own perspective and going with the flow of the status quo and and judging the young and dismissing their view of the future that they will lead.

Media and culture are like transportation and land use -- they feed off each other.

I found this interesting quote in an unrelated article:

 

For one thing, humans are irrational and prone to habit. When those habits are interrupted, interesting things happen. After the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minnesota, for example, the number of travelers crossing the river, not surprisingly, dropped; but even after the bridge was restored, researcher David Levinson has noted, traffic levels never got near their previous levels again.

 

So imagine that a bunch of young people are driving less for a variety of reasons. Maybe they can't afford a car. So they find other habits that don't require so much driving. They communicate with their friends via Facebook and text messages. Maybe they start walking, biking, and taking public transit more.

 

Then, later in their life, let's say they have a better paying job and can afford a nice car. Or they get married and have kids, which usually correlates to more driving. Except that those car-light habits are already ingrained in their lifestyle. So, some of them will try to raise their family in an urban area (maybe not downtown, but in a more walkable medium-density neighborhood). Some of them will decide that a car still isn't worth the money, even if they can afford one, especially if they have "nice" transit options like rail or BRT.

Yep, just like depression-era folks who kept their spendthrift ways throughout life.

Yep, just like depression-era folks who kept their spendthrift ways throughout life.

 

Like the 90-year-old lady who kept her life savings in her mattress until the day she died.

I shouldn't have used the word "spendthift", that word actually means someone who spends a lot. I always forget that -- I should have used the term "thrifty" instead.

I shouldn't have used the word "spendthift", that word actually means someone who spends a lot. I always forget that -- I should have used the term "thrifty" instead.

 

And I thought you were being sarcastic!

I saw this while watching the Crimson Tide intercept Johnny Douchebag. I never would have imagined seeing a commercial like this when I was in college. Pretty obvious as to who they are directing this commercial.......

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0xxrPtMTlM

I saw this while watching the Crimson Tide intercept Johnny Douchebag. I never would have imagined seeing a commercial like this when I was in college. Pretty obvious as to who they are directing this commercial.......

It'd be interesting with some pretty older women who bring up getting out of the nursing home. A geo trcking device would probably help sell the things.

^ Do you think that commercial would garner the same sort of response as the one from Lee Thibodeaux in the YouTube comment section?

Contrast that with this '70s car commercial. It says "banned" in the title, but there were still plenty of print ads that were just like this back then. I've got a car mag from '72 where a tire ad proclaims that the tires will last 500 more dates "depending on how far the girls go"

 

 

 

Another interesting article about the auto industry recovery, basically it has been entirely fueled by 40 plus buyers. Young buyers have been a non factor.

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/overdrive-how-americas-amazing-car-recovery-explains-the-us-economy/279413/

Another interesting article about the auto industry recovery, basically it has been entirely fueled by 40 plus buyers. Young buyers have been a non factor.

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/overdrive-how-americas-amazing-car-recovery-explains-the-us-economy/279413/

 

I wouldn't even say 40-plus. Recent coverage suggests it's the population 55 years and older. Talk about a perishable market....

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/29/boomer-buyers-key-auto-industry/2371213/

^ No wonder Buick has been doing so good!

Buick does really well in China.

Funniest thing I've seen in a long time! Reminds me of some guys in Cleveland's Little Italy....

 

I'M NOT DRIVIN' TO FLORIDA!!!

 

Here's a graph that proves something my roommate and I started suspecting about 3 years ago as we looked through some '90s car magazines -- the mid to late '90s was an especially expensive time to buy a car when inflation is figured in. Basically the cars cost the same then in raw dollars that they do today, despite 15-20 years of inflation taking place. By the '90s, some of the sheen had worn off of the automobile already for young people due to bland daily drivers, computerized engine controls and reduced sexual promiscuity. But the wretchedly high car prices of the '90s probably planted the seeds of the automobile hobby as being only for rich people as it is perceived today. No longer is the car hobby seen as a dirtbag thing to do; instead with all the roadcourses (new ones are "Motorsports Country Clubs" for 1%ers) opening up, small town dirt tracks and drag strips closing and NASCAR attendance in the crapper the perception is that only the rich and teams funded by university engineering departments seem to be left.

 

On the other hand, buying a car today costs the same as it did in the still-car-mad '80s. The article and graph are a little old, but I have seen newer data that say things are still about the same today as they were in '06 relative to inflation.

 

 

This does take the wind out of the bellows from deniers that the price of new cars is too high as compared to the past. We often see contextless numbers used to try and prove a point. "$31,000!" they say, even though $31,000 was what a decent car cost in 1998. So the price of the cars is actually not a factor when compared with anything made after 1985. But look at that big run-up going into 1985.

 

Look at the second graph in the article and see what the price of gas has done though. The gas price graph would actually be lower today than it was there in 2008 but VMTs continue to drop. Cars have inflated in cost much less than the rest of the CPI. Dramatically less so, really.

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/81546-real-prices-for-new-cars-keep-going-down

Interesting stuff -- thanks!

 

I would also like to see a chart showing the per capita individual income and average family or household income vs the CPI, the price of cars, and the price of gas. I suspect real incomes are flat or falling in comparison to those those cost items.

The increased number of truck and SUV models through the 90's is going to skew average prices. It's no surprise it came down somewhat when the SUV market tanked.

I read a book on the auto bailout that claimed that Detroit would have bankrupted in the 1990s without the unexpected "success" of the SUV, which was bringing in something like $4,000 per unit as opposed to the $1,000 the minivans they were replacing.  Don't know if those figures are correct but I bet the general argument is. 

 

I'd say that's about right.

The increased number of truck and SUV models through the 90's is going to skew average prices. It's no surprise it came down somewhat when the SUV market tanked.

 

But the years 2000 to 2006 were still big SUV and truck years. They didn't start trailing off until 2007.

Interesting stuff -- thanks!

 

I would also like to see a chart showing the per capita individual income and average family or household income vs the CPI, the price of cars, and the price of gas. I suspect real incomes are flat or falling in comparison to those those cost items.

 

Sorry I don't have a link but I found someone on another forum who studied just that. He attempted to come up with a total household economic outlook based on the typical home mortgage, CPI, price of cars, price of gas, typical wage, etc.

 

The result was that the worst time since the end of WWII was the recession of 1981. The second worst time was the recession of 2008.

The scene earlier this month in my Honda:

 

I just did the math.  With interest the cost of this car when it had 80,000 miles was about $9,000 and I've done about $9,000 in work on it (transmission, belts, catalytic converter, brakes + rotors, front end suspension, six tires, new windshield, two passenger side windows, replacement #1 cylinder, crankshaft sensor, starter, two or three batteries). 

 

Altogether, I've owned this car for 90 months and it has cost $200/mo with all payments and repairs.  The argument for keeping an old car running over buying a new one is certainly supported by the math.  A new car would cost at least $100 more per month over that same time period, plus the insurance would be double, so more like $200 more per month. 

 

Well done!  I'm at about 159k on my Altima right now and I've had it for 73 months.  Paid $7200 in September 2007, and it already had ~103k on it at the time, and I've only had to do about $2500 in work on it (struts at 120k, radiator at about 150k), though of course, I've been getting regular oil changes, transmission flushes, and all the other routine stuff as well that I would be getting in any car.  That puts me at about $133/mo. plus insurance, which really isn't much for a car that old, like you mentioned.  I'd love to be able to take a picture like that eventually.  However, considering that I've put about 56k on it in 7 years (8k/yr), I'd have to hold onto this thing to around fall of 2018 to get it there.  I'm hoping to be up to a Tesla before then. 8)

How I Gave Up My Car and Don’t Miss It At All

Chicago | 11/08/2013 12:15pm | 1

EDWARD MCCLELLAND | NEXT CITY

 

And just like that, for the first time in my adult life, I was carless. Reduced to the same transportation options I’d had when I was a junior high schooler riding a ten-speed bike to the video arcade. I’ve always loved cars. I went to high school across the street from an auto plant in Lansing, Mich., a city that took its identity from the Oldsmobile. I subscribe to Motor Trend. Every February, I go to the Chicago Auto Show, sit in a Ford Mustang V-8, and think, “Maybe this year!” But I’d long realized that owning a car was not essential to my big-city life, and in fact, was becoming a hindrance.

 

....If you absolutely have to buy something big, or hard to find, there’s the Internet. One of the bartenders at my neighborhood tavern (where I now spend more time, because it’s a 10-minute walk), often goes weeks without leaving Rogers Park.

 

“I don’t have to,” she says. “I can order anything I need online.”

 

....A survey by Zipcar found that 65 percent of Millennials say losing their computer or phone would cramp their style more than losing their car. And 73 percent would rather shop online than drive to a store. Millennials think cars are expensive, bad for the environment, and waste time that could be better spent riding a train and monitoring social media on smart phones. So I may be ahead of my time.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/how-i-gave-up-my-car-and-dont-miss-it-at-all#.UoFl5y7jbqM.twitter

Why are state DOTs still pushing for massive highway expansion? While Salt Lake City is very progressive with transit, Utah DOT is still doing stuff like this:

 

Which U.S., Ohio cities led the decline, increase in driving? Which saw rise in no-car households?

 

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/12/us-cities-leading-decline-driving/7767/

 

Interesting that in Cleveland, the share of workers commuting by private vehicle dropped, but vehicle-miles traveled per capita (how driving is measured for an area) increased yet the percent of households without a car increased!

Why are state DOTs still pushing for massive highway expansion? While Salt Lake City is very progressive with transit, Utah DOT is still doing stuff like this:

 

 

While Salt Lake City gets huge props for its light rail and commuter rail (and a connection to the airport!), it's important to remember that the city is very suburban and extremely low density. Comparable Midwestern cities like Toledo and Grand Rapids have much bigger and denser urban cores despite their lack of transit.

 

Salt Lake City is not pedestrian-friendly outside its main street downtown. It's really lacking in historic neighborhoods and historic commercial buildings (abandoned or occupied) outside its downtown. With that said, they are seeing urban infill along the streetcar lines. The city is moving in the right direction and certainly improving from an urban standpoint.

 

*Just don't go there looking for nightlife...

Which U.S., Ohio cities led the decline, increase in driving? Which saw rise in no-car households?

 

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/12/us-cities-leading-decline-driving/7767/

 

Interesting that in Cleveland, the share of workers commuting by private vehicle dropped, but vehicle-miles traveled per capita (how driving is measured for an area) increased yet the percent of households without a car increased!

 

I don't think that's too counterintuitive.  If the first and third facts there were moving in opposite directions (the share of workers commuting by private vehicle increased while the share of households without a car decreased, for example), that would be a more odd result.  But the second one, VMT per capita, doesn't seem like it would necessarily correspond to the other two.  It suggests that those who value their cars the most, because they're the ones that use them the most, are the ones that are keeping them, while those who used them least are the ones most likely to let them go entirely.  Seems reasonable enough to me.  I guess the only wrinkle is that the high users increased their usage enough to counter the aggregate drop in use from those who went from "low use" to "no use."

 

P.S. Also, would car sharing miles traveled count as "private vehicle" use?  Not that that's a huge number in Cleveland either way, but just curious as to how the definition of "private" works here.

P.S. Also, would car sharing miles traveled count as "private vehicle" use?  Not that that's a huge number in Cleveland either way, but just curious as to how the definition of "private" works here.

 

I think so. This description is used to exclude taxi cabs.

Which U.S., Ohio cities led the decline, increase in driving? Which saw rise in no-car households?

 

http://m.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/12/us-cities-leading-decline-driving/7767/

 

Interesting that in Cleveland, the share of workers commuting by private vehicle dropped, but vehicle-miles traveled per capita (how driving is measured for an area) increased yet the percent of households without a car increased!

 

I don't think that's too counterintuitive.  If the first and third facts there were moving in opposite directions (the share of workers commuting by private vehicle increased while the share of households without a car decreased, for example), that would be a more odd result.  But the second one, VMT per capita, doesn't seem like it would necessarily correspond to the other two.  It suggests that those who value their cars the most, because they're the ones that use them the most, are the ones that are keeping them, while those who used them least are the ones most likely to let them go entirely.  Seems reasonable enough to me.  I guess the only wrinkle is that the high users increased their usage enough to counter the aggregate drop in use from those who went from "low use" to "no use."

 

P.S. Also, would car sharing miles traveled count as "private vehicle" use?  Not that that's a huge number in Cleveland either way, but just curious as to how the definition of "private" works here.

 

It might be explained by people changing jobs but not moving....both common in this area in this economy.

Also telecommuting, which I do a lot of. When I need to go into my office downtown, I take transit. I have driven my car maybe 5,000 miles so far this year.

We're driving less, taking transit more. Now let's invest accordingly

Kaid Benfield

Posted December 5, 2013

 

A comprehensive new analysis of government data demonstrates that Americans are driving less per person, and taking transit more, both overall and in a strong majority of our large metro areas.  Especially because the new report is consistent with a multitude of information showing changes in living patterns and lifestyle preferences, we should shift more public resources into transit, to keep up with and strengthen the trends toward more sustainable modes of transportation.

 

This is not to say that a majority of Americans don’t drive (including yours truly, to an extent), of course; we’ve built so much sprawl that many people have little choice.  But we are becoming more multi-modal every day.  We need to evolve our communities so that they become more suited to alternative modes, including walking and bicycling as well as transit, so that more Americans have more choices.  And, where options do exist, we need to support and maintain them better in order to reduce carbon emissions, other forms of pollution, and automobile-dependent land uses.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/were_driving_less_taking_trans.html

U.S. Teenagers Are Driving Much Less: 4 Theories About Why

EIA sees slower growth in U.S. miles traveled as more teens shun licenses

 

Marianne Lavelle

National Geographic

 

Throw a sheet over the little deuce coupe, park the little red Corvette, and send the pink Cadillac to the ranch.

 

U.S. teenagers just aren't as into driving as they used to be, U.S. government forecasters acknowledged Monday in dramatically altered projections for transportation energy use over the next 25 years. (Take the related quiz: What You Don't Know About Cars and Fuel.)

 

Growth in "vehicle-miles traveled" (VMT)—that key gauge of America's love affair with the automobile that once reliably ratcheted up year after year—will slow dramatically, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says in its new Annual Energy Outlook. The EIA slashed its projected annual VMT growth rate to 0.9 percent, a drop of 25 percent compared to its forecast only a year ago.

 

Read the rest:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131217-four-theories-why-teens-drive-less-today/

Its the gas prices which are making teens say "no thanks" to driving. I couldn't imagine working for $7.50 an hour and having to spend over $3.00 a gallon for gas. I'd much rather get on the bus and keep my hard earned money in my pocket if i were a teen today.

Its the gas prices which are making teens say "no thanks" to driving. I couldn't imagine working for $7.50 an hour and having to spend over $3.00 a gallon for gas. I'd much rather get on the bus and keep my hard earned money in my pocket if i were a teen today.

 

That's only a small part. They're still spending (albeit less) and certainly not on cars. Instead, they're buying phones, apps, gaming, bikes and going out.

 

We've hashed this out a lot in this thread, and what's been reported extensively is that teens, voiced through numerous surveys and focus groups, the age at which they are getting their drivers' licenses, and evidence of their buying habits is that, yes, many still like cars. But they prefer spending their more limited dollars buying other things and living a lifestyle that doesn't require as much car dependence as it did for older generations. You can lease a KIA, or a Versa or an Accent and seldom use gas, if that's what you want to spend money on. But they're not.

 

Not to the mall, but to the

I bet college plays a huge roll in it.

 

More teens than ever are going straight to college after highschool. Most kids dont bother(or cant) own a car in college since they walk everywhere and owning a car would be useless and expensive.

 

I wonder if there is any easy to find data on what the percentage of people after college get a car for the first time.

More teens than ever are going straight to college after highschool. Most kids dont bother(or cant) own a car in college since they walk everywhere and owning a car would be useless and expensive.

 

Are more kids going straight to college since I was a teen in the 80s? BTW, all my friends got their driver's licenses the day they turned 16 whether they had cars or not. The data (also posted in this discussion) shows kids are getting their driver's licenses MUCH later.

 

EDIT: here's some new cheap cars on the market. Check out the gas mileage on all of them....

http://money.cnn.com/gallery/autos/2013/02/06/cheapest-cars/

 

And the lease rates make them cheaper. When I was a teen, leasing just wasn't available and if it was, the lease terms stunk.

U.S. Teenagers Are Driving Much Less: 4 Theories About Why

EIA sees slower growth in U.S. miles traveled as more teens shun licenses

 

Marianne Lavelle

National Geographic

 

Throw a sheet over the little deuce coupe, park the little red Corvette, and send the pink Cadillac to the ranch.

 

U.S. teenagers just aren't as into driving as they used to be, U.S. government forecasters acknowledged Monday in dramatically altered projections for transportation energy use over the next 25 years. (Take the related quiz: What You Don't Know About Cars and Fuel.)

 

Growth in "vehicle-miles traveled" (VMT)—that key gauge of America's love affair with the automobile that once reliably ratcheted up year after year—will slow dramatically, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says in its new Annual Energy Outlook. The EIA slashed its projected annual VMT growth rate to 0.9 percent, a drop of 25 percent compared to its forecast only a year ago.

 

Read the rest:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131217-four-theories-why-teens-drive-less-today/

 

PIRG's views should be utterly discounted.  They are what they are:  a lobbying group for bigger government and more government control over our lives.

 

That said, it's the point about internet usage that is IMO the most telling. 

 

It used to be that being able to drive was the first major milestone vis a vis independence from parental control.  The next was having your own car.  If you were among the first in your peer group to get either, it was major status points.  This was particularly true for males. 

 

When something was that important, there were levels of status of course.  For women, the nature of a boyfriend's car was just as much of a potential status booster.  So throw that in the mix

 

Now, the car isn't as key as a tech savvy kid can always get around their parents' control.

PIRG's views should be utterly discounted.  They are what they are:  a lobbying group for bigger government and more government control over our lives.

 

 

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.

^That reason has been discussed upthread. However once a young person adjusts their lifestyle for that reason, a certain percentage of them will also realize it is an expense they can do without even when their income goes up and this creates a change of attitude/trend. Also, in order for any young person to have a social life that involves drinking alcohol, driving is no longer an option even if you have just one drink. Your generation did not have to adjust your driving habits in order to be social with friends, these kids do.

 

I had a car when I moved to Chicago 15 years ago and realized it was not neccesary and have not owned one since. None of my friends have cars.

There isn't A reason why. There are multiple reasonS why. To say it's because of just one factor is denying that a whole set of circumstances are coming together at the same moment. It's as much due to declining incomes and the rising cost of driving as it is due to the digital revolution, the back-to-the-city movement, the improvement and expansion of public transit, and the fact that having the coolest bike is hip. I don't say this because I want to. I say this because publications in the automotive and digital industries are saying it.

 

So this didn't come from a treehugger publication....

 

Why Young People Are Driving Less

Is the Automobile Over?

By Todd Lassa | From the August 2012 issue of Motor Trend

 

Automakers pitch new small cars, from the Fiat 500 to the Ford Fiesta and Chevrolet Sonic to the Acura ILX, as models designed to appeal to America's urban-oriented Generation Y. Marketing experts fill product presentations with statistics and anecdotes of how tuned-in youth fetishize smartphones, the Internet, and keeping in touch with friends via Facebook from their loft apartments in "walkable" cities.

 

Cars? Not so much.

 

The problem begins with the assumption that youth moving back to the cities want A- or B-segment hatchbacks, when they're more likely to spend the money on smartphones, tablets, laptops, and $2000-plus bikes.

 

Gen Y has car enthusiasts, of course, just like every other age group. As always, car enthusiasts are a minority. Today's young people appear to have less interest in driving and owning a car than do their mainstream, non-enthusiast older counterparts.

 

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2012/1208_why_young_people_are_driving_less/#ixzz2oAvPg1eX

 

________________

 

5 reasons young people are not buying cars or getting their drivers license

By Bill Roberson  —  September 1, 2013

 

Why aren’t young people driving or getting their driver’s licenses, and by extension, buying cars? Teens and young adults started holding out on getting their golden ticket to motorized freedom in about 1984, according to an article in The Atlantic, and there are several reasons why that trend started and is increasing today.

 

When my niece turned 16 in 2008, family members braced for the inevitable: successful completion of her driver’s test and her first solo forays out onto the open road, where teens hook up, make out and to the greater worry and sleep deprivation of their parents, get hurt or killed.

 

But 16 went by with no license, then 17, and then 18. Was she ill? Scared? Confused about life’s priorities? No, it turns out she was perfectly normal and part of the growing trend among young adults who have decided for a variety of reasons that driving a car, buying a car, or even getting a license, is not a high priority.

 

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/5-reasons-young-people-are-not-buying-cars-or-getting-their-drivers-license/#ixzz2oAwFo49D

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

 

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

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. 

PIRG's views should be utterly discounted.  They are what they are:  a lobbying group for bigger government and more government control over our lives.

 

 

 

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