5 ms·

> Can your family live with one car It's really funny to read that. It's probably very american to think 2 cars per family is the norm. I think if I group the

> Can your family live with one car It's really funny to read that. It's probably very american to think 2 cars per family is the norm. I think if I group the 10 adults I see the most on average, we own 2 cars together. And we are all between 30 and 55.

notyourwork 8y ago
This depends on where you live though. Midwest basically required a car, living in Seattle and SF my wife and I never need a car. It’s not always as simple as grouping a population. America is big and diverse.
- sametmax 8y ago
  I just came back from the valley, and I get that the american society and infrastructure is encouraging the to use a car. Like Australia. I also get that, living in a city in France, it's easier to avoid having a car. yet I note that you could have a motorbike. You could not have kids. You could move close to your work. You could move in an area requiring less car. You could change your job to one not needing a car. You could bike. You could care pool with friends/neighbors/coworkers. You could use public transports. Etc. But the car is an important artifact of the american culture. You kinda build the country around it, not the other way around.
  - nightski 8y ago
    Meh I live in the Midwest, in an area that pretty much requires a car. Yet my use is extremely limited (a few thousand miles per year). Mostly going to stores and back as I work from home. Yet we travel around the area to state parks, bike trails, etc.. every weekend. Even if I lived in a city, that doesn't mean I would want to be confined to the same 10 square miles my entire life. We live in a vast, beautiful country. Why isolate yourself to a tiny little block? Life is too short for that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - moate 8y ago
    Yes/No? Keep in mind, the shift from farming being a major employment sector happened while the current US infrastructure was being built. The highways and population distribution were in part because of that. Also the US is one of the world's largest in area, and while urbanization is being pushed due to changes in the labor needs, it's something that happens over time not over night. As for "you could do X" most of your statements aren't really proof of an American obsession with cars, just a different infrastructure choice relative to other nations. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Roa... The US has 27% more cars than France per capita. That's statistically significant and reflects difference in city planning/culture, but IDK that I'd draw the same conclusions as you.
  - notyourwork 8y ago
    I guess you are convinced your generalization is sound in basis. Not everyone can afford to move closer to work, that’s a silly assumption. Big cities that lend well to public transportation are not affordable for everyone. You can’t always move closer to work, what if your spouse and you work on opposite parts of a region? I suppose next solution is one finds a new job or quits. Life’s not as simple as your naive point of view indicates.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      If I guaranty 5 million dollars in 3 years for somebody that can go without a car for so long, half of america would find a way. It's just a matter of priority and way of life, with constraints yes, but a choice none of the less.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - billbrown 8y ago
    Or you can just have a car? Why is not having a car an ideal for you? Why do you have to bike? Can't you just walk places? I don't have a car because society is telling me to have a car. I have a car because it's faster to get places I want to go; it's damn hot in the summer; and it's great for carrying around purchases and the family.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      I'm just amazed, not mad.
      - rconti 8y ago
        As a childless American with 3 cars, 1 motorcycle, and 3 bicycles... I must say that plenty of folks would find your "don't have kids" comment equally bizarre. And on the flipside, cars are cheaper than kids :)
        jpetso 8y ago
        My reading of the GP's comment was that those were not suggestions, but a mere observation, where out of many possible and viable alternatives, one is utterly dominant to the point where the others aren't generally considered as alternatives anymore.
HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
"Norm" is probably more than two cars. I have a 17 year-old. When he gets his license, we have a car waiting for him (OK: it needs a bunch of repairs, but whatever). Right now, it's a pain in the ass to drive him places (like to & from work). In my neck of the woods, the average is probably 4-6 cars per family.
- sametmax 8y ago
  It's really exotic for me :) I always thought so funny the american TV shows depicting a 16 years old fighting his parent over his/her first car, and finally getting it. My brother and I, we shared one small motorbike ^^
- moate 8y ago
  National statistics disagree with you. IDK what your neck of the woods is, but there's millions of people who live in urban areas in which car ownership is completely foreign that bring those averages down. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/United-States/Transport http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/United-Sta...
  - HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
    Depends on which statistic you look at, I guess. One line says the US has 765 motor vehicles per 100 people and the next one down says it has 816 motor vehicles per 1,000 people. So which is it?
    - jandrese 8y ago
      765 vehicles per 100 people has to be a typo. 816 per 1000 sounds reasonable when you consider how many are childern, live in big cities, are in the military, etc... There are some pretty big classes of people who own no vehicles whatsoever. If you look at married suburban households the number will almost certainly be over 2. The most common case involves one person driving to work while the other shuffles kids around or has their own job. The public transport option may exist, but is likely inadequate (excessively slow) and undesirable.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
In the vast majority of the US, if you don't have a car, you don't go anywhere.
- jandrese 8y ago
  Vast majority by land area. Per person it isn't so clear cut. Many people live in the city and don't own a car because using a car in the city is somewhat impractical and the public transport options are sufficient.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    That's really only doable in a couple cities in the US, though. Not having a car in Los Angeles, for instance, is extremely impractical.
    - jandrese 8y ago
      That's because LA is one bigass suburb.
gascan 8y ago
I completely agree, it's kind of nuts. It was only maybe sixty years ago that nobody but the rich could really afford two cars, and yet here we are today where it's basically taken for granted as a basic requirement of life in much of America. Which is why I wrote it that way.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

notyourwork 8y ago

This depends on where you live though. Midwest basically required a car, living in Seattle and SF my wife and I never need a car. It’s not always as simple as grouping a population. America is big and diverse.

sametmax 8y ago
I just came back from the valley, and I get that the american society and infrastructure is encouraging the to use a car. Like Australia. I also get that, living in a city in France, it's easier to avoid having a car. yet I note that you could have a motorbike. You could not have kids. You could move close to your work. You could move in an area requiring less car. You could change your job to one not needing a car. You could bike. You could care pool with friends/neighbors/coworkers. You could use public transports. Etc. But the car is an important artifact of the american culture. You kinda build the country around it, not the other way around.
- nightski 8y ago
  Meh I live in the Midwest, in an area that pretty much requires a car. Yet my use is extremely limited (a few thousand miles per year). Mostly going to stores and back as I work from home. Yet we travel around the area to state parks, bike trails, etc.. every weekend. Even if I lived in a city, that doesn't mean I would want to be confined to the same 10 square miles my entire life. We live in a vast, beautiful country. Why isolate yourself to a tiny little block? Life is too short for that.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- moate 8y ago
  Yes/No? Keep in mind, the shift from farming being a major employment sector happened while the current US infrastructure was being built. The highways and population distribution were in part because of that. Also the US is one of the world's largest in area, and while urbanization is being pushed due to changes in the labor needs, it's something that happens over time not over night. As for "you could do X" most of your statements aren't really proof of an American obsession with cars, just a different infrastructure choice relative to other nations. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Road/Motor-vehicles-per-1000-people http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Transport/Roa... The US has 27% more cars than France per capita. That's statistically significant and reflects difference in city planning/culture, but IDK that I'd draw the same conclusions as you.
- notyourwork 8y ago
  I guess you are convinced your generalization is sound in basis. Not everyone can afford to move closer to work, that’s a silly assumption. Big cities that lend well to public transportation are not affordable for everyone. You can’t always move closer to work, what if your spouse and you work on opposite parts of a region? I suppose next solution is one finds a new job or quits. Life’s not as simple as your naive point of view indicates.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    If I guaranty 5 million dollars in 3 years for somebody that can go without a car for so long, half of america would find a way. It's just a matter of priority and way of life, with constraints yes, but a choice none of the less.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- billbrown 8y ago
  Or you can just have a car? Why is not having a car an ideal for you? Why do you have to bike? Can't you just walk places? I don't have a car because society is telling me to have a car. I have a car because it's faster to get places I want to go; it's damn hot in the summer; and it's great for carrying around purchases and the family.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    I'm just amazed, not mad.
    - rconti 8y ago
      As a childless American with 3 cars, 1 motorcycle, and 3 bicycles... I must say that plenty of folks would find your "don't have kids" comment equally bizarre. And on the flipside, cars are cheaper than kids :)
      - jpetso 8y ago
        My reading of the GP's comment was that those were not suggestions, but a mere observation, where out of many possible and viable alternatives, one is utterly dominant to the point where the others aren't generally considered as alternatives anymore.

HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago

"Norm" is probably more than two cars. I have a 17 year-old. When he gets his license, we have a car waiting for him (OK: it needs a bunch of repairs, but whatever). Right now, it's a pain in the ass to drive him places (like to & from work). In my neck of the woods, the average is probably 4-6 cars per family.

sametmax 8y ago
It's really exotic for me :) I always thought so funny the american TV shows depicting a 16 years old fighting his parent over his/her first car, and finally getting it. My brother and I, we shared one small motorbike ^^
moate 8y ago
National statistics disagree with you. IDK what your neck of the woods is, but there's millions of people who live in urban areas in which car ownership is completely foreign that bring those averages down. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/United-States/Transport http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/United-Sta...
- HeyLaughingBoy 8y ago
  Depends on which statistic you look at, I guess. One line says the US has 765 motor vehicles per 100 people and the next one down says it has 816 motor vehicles per 1,000 people. So which is it?
  - jandrese 8y ago
    765 vehicles per 100 people has to be a typo. 816 per 1000 sounds reasonable when you consider how many are childern, live in big cities, are in the military, etc... There are some pretty big classes of people who own no vehicles whatsoever. If you look at married suburban households the number will almost certainly be over 2. The most common case involves one person driving to work while the other shuffles kids around or has their own job. The public transport option may exist, but is likely inadequate (excessively slow) and undesirable.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

In the vast majority of the US, if you don't have a car, you don't go anywhere.

jandrese 8y ago
Vast majority by land area. Per person it isn't so clear cut. Many people live in the city and don't own a car because using a car in the city is somewhat impractical and the public transport options are sufficient.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  That's really only doable in a couple cities in the US, though. Not having a car in Los Angeles, for instance, is extremely impractical.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    That's because LA is one bigass suburb.

gascan 8y ago

I completely agree, it's kind of nuts. It was only maybe sixty years ago that nobody but the rich could really afford two cars, and yet here we are today where it's basically taken for granted as a basic requirement of life in much of America. Which is why I wrote it that way.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]