3 ms·

Is it because cars are expensive horrendous fossil fuel powered polluting machines that are not compatible with city living? Is it because the insurance industr

Is it because cars are expensive horrendous fossil fuel powered polluting machines that are not compatible with city living? Is it because the insurance industry, by its failure to deal with fraud, except by simply pricing it in, had made insurance premiums unreasonably expensive? Is it because the streets are clogged and travel times are huge? Is it because going by bike is just so nice?

nogbit 10y ago
Also add... Is it because many of them are having kids much later in life and don't need a car for all the reasons one would want or need one when they do have kids (school, travel, vacations, trips to grandmas, ski trips, Sunday drives, sports activities, club events, youth groups, pet vet trips, doctor trips, dentist trips, dinner night out, day hike, picnic in the park...shall I go on). Each and everyone one of us can say "I can take the bus to that", but would you or even can you load up your family of four to each and everyone one of those? And in summary, maybe the automakers should adjust their expectations of anyone < 35 years old. Or maybe they should of all went bust in 2008 instead of being bailed out and let market forces reset the playing table resulting in better products and possibly more jobs, but that's another story.
probably_wrong 10y ago
I think I would add "Is it because they are money sinks, requiring substantial regular payments for insurance, maintenance, fuel, and (in some cities) parking spots?".
mhurron 10y ago
I'm simply going to go with - They cost money. That is assuming the article is correct at all.
maze-le 10y ago
I might add: From my point of view, they are more often than not unnecessary. As a single without children living in a european city, the occasions where I really 'needed' a car come down to: change of residence and buying big chunks of material -- like e.g. wood. With a supermarket, several doctors, my bank, and even a police station in about 5-10 min. walking distance, the usage of a car in everyday life routine would be definitly too cumbersome.

nogbit 10y ago

Also add... Is it because many of them are having kids much later in life and don't need a car for all the reasons one would want or need one when they do have kids (school, travel, vacations, trips to grandmas, ski trips, Sunday drives, sports activities, club events, youth groups, pet vet trips, doctor trips, dentist trips, dinner night out, day hike, picnic in the park...shall I go on). Each and everyone one of us can say "I can take the bus to that", but would you or even can you load up your family of four to each and everyone one of those? And in summary, maybe the automakers should adjust their expectations of anyone < 35 years old. Or maybe they should of all went bust in 2008 instead of being bailed out and let market forces reset the playing table resulting in better products and possibly more jobs, but that's another story.

probably_wrong 10y ago

I think I would add "Is it because they are money sinks, requiring substantial regular payments for insurance, maintenance, fuel, and (in some cities) parking spots?".

mhurron 10y ago

I'm simply going to go with - They cost money. That is assuming the article is correct at all.

maze-le 10y ago

I might add: From my point of view, they are more often than not unnecessary. As a single without children living in a european city, the occasions where I really 'needed' a car come down to: change of residence and buying big chunks of material -- like e.g. wood. With a supermarket, several doctors, my bank, and even a police station in about 5-10 min. walking distance, the usage of a car in everyday life routine would be definitly too cumbersome.