It's a chicken+egg problem. I've considered riding a bicycle to work (it's only about 6 miles), but there are busy streets without bicycle lanes (or even sidewalks), and drivers in the area are known to be actively aggressive against cyclists.

These things drive down the numbers of cyclists, which increases the general feeling that they aren't accepted, and that it's not worth it to cater to them.

> if we could just use those forbidden things called school buses and public transportation.

If they were available and timely? Sure. We have buses in my area. They come hourly. They aren't practical unless you have a lot of spare time, and each connecting bus compounds the problem. I can get to some nearby cities by train, but it's almost always more convenient, faster, and cheaper to drive there myself.

Cars will become a luxury instead of a necessity when those problems are fixed...and those problems will be fixed when cars become unnecessary for a reasonable quality of life.

I suspect a lot of it is pure population density. The US needs to make downtown areas pedestrian and bike friendly, and then allow high density development near the centre. That makes the bike lanes and the bus network self supporting.

In London there was a very big push to extend the bus network about 15 years ago, by the left-wing mayor (who had been given newly created powers). He also introduced a congestion charge for other vehicles. Both policies were quickly supported across the political spectrum. In central London few people use cars now, it is just far more of a hassle. The last mayor expanded bike lanes a lot, and now bike journeys are on course to overtake car journeys in central London.

The big development definitely helped to establish the network, but it happened on top of high density (in the number of people working in the centre, if not actually living there). And now we are getting much more housing closer to the centre.

If I lived in London (only part of the UK I've been to) or most cities in Europe, I doubt that I'd need to rely heavily on a car. Between the Tube and walking, we got where we wanted/needed without much hassle.

As an example closer in size to where I live right now: Heidelberg, Germany. Trains made it easy to get between nearby cities. Streetcars and such made it easy to get around within the city. Walking and biking were both pleasant and common. Population density didn't seem much higher than in my neighborhood, but useful businesses (groceries, bakeries, etc) were in easy walking distance from our hotel.

Also the intentional lack of parking. Even if I would get a car I wouldn't have where to park it (or it would be very expensive). The US mandates parking which prevents high density benefits and increases building costs.

> there are busy streets without bicycle lanes

The real problem is that the lane isn't wide enough for a cyclist and motor vehicle to travel side by side with the motor vehicle remaining in the same lane. When a bicycle lane is added despite that, it leads to a bicycle lane that's too narrow and vehicles will pass without leaving sufficient clearance (at least 3 feet).

> (or even sidewalks)

Riding on the sidewalk isn't safe (and in many jurisdictions, is illegal). Mixing unpredictable pedestrian traffic with cyclists is not safe, and the number of potential conflicts that cyclists have with motor vehicle traffic when approaching an intersection is far greater compared to riding on the road and following traffic rules.

Also having to slow or stop for each driveway and intersection will significantly lengthen the time of the trip.

> The real problem is that the lane isn't wide enough for a cyclist and motor vehicle to travel side by side with the motor vehicle remaining in the same lane.

If that were true, it would be the real problem. As it is, even though there is space, cars frequently ride the shoulder. Most of the streets around here are pretty wide.

> Mixing unpredictable pedestrian traffic with cyclists is not safe

A problem, in theory...but not much of one with the low volume of foot+bike traffic around here. People here love their cars.

Meh. The streets of Beijing are even busier, the motorist even more aggressive, most of the bike lanes have become parking for cars, and it still seems to work.

A lot of people do things that I wouldn't consider doing myself and live in conditions that I'd (strongly) prefer not to, given reasonable alternatives. If my area were like Beijing, I wouldn't live here. If it were like, say, some parts of Tokyo or various cities in Europe, I wouldn't have a problem.

Hard to imagine they could be more aggressive. Ever had an F-150 try to run you over, or aim for your head with his mirror?

Imagine if no driver could see you, or they pretended not to see you. They aren't aiming at you specifically, but they refuse to acknowledge your existence.

If you are in Mississippi redneck country...ya, you aren't going to bike their. But most cities should be ok.

You've highlighted Seattle as if it's an example of a terrible place to rely on a motorcycle, but I'd take the rain over snow, ice, and sub-zero temperatures.

I'd be fine with my commute for most of the year. Having to get to work in the winter makes a pretty good case for a car though. And unless there's a bike/motorcycle that will turn into a car for three months of the year, I'm sticking to the one that works year round.

This past winter I actually rode several times in below freezing temperatures. I definitely wasn't comfortable, but I wasn't particularly prepared for it. Single digit and below... yeah, I'll forgive you if you can't take a bus. Short term leases would be on my mind if that were the case for me.

Like I said, though, snow on the road is a good stopping point for the average driver – car or motorcycle.

Due to the economy I'd love to ride a gas-powered bike and for the environment's sake would gladly take an e-bike instead. But I live in a city with 50%+ humidity and 80+ degree weather most of the year. It's brutal to be out in the sun and stopped in traffic; Texas doesn't allow lane splitting.

All that aside the reason I take public transportation instead of risking a bike is my fellow drivers. We've had several hundred wrecks with our 7.5 mile long at-grade light rail. What chance do I stand on a bike when most people down here drive trucks or SUVs and can't avoid a flipping train? It's frustrating.

The only trouble I have with motorcycles is the safety aspect. My parents were involved in an accident on a two wheeler. I myself have been involved in a rather serious accident but luckily the car took almost all the damage and I escaped with minor whiplash. Its also why I would never drive a coupe other than for pleasure. Statistically, the amount of driving involved with living in most American cities makes it rather likely that one will be involved in an accident.

Apologies, I don't mean to question your lifestyle. I'm merely expressing one of my biggest concerns with driving. Of course the best solution is to not have to drive so much.

There are three people in my household. Between us, we drink 30-40 (depending on the week) 2L bottles of soda a week, as well as a couple of 12-packs of soda cans, maybe an 8-pack of gatorade/powerade, and 15-20 half liter bottles of water. Food is not the largest part of what we bring back from the store.

There are a lot of opportunities lost when you can't carry more than, well, you can personally carry. The "white cheddar mac & cheese" brand that everyone in the house likes as a meal base is on sale? With a car, I can easily choose to just buy 40 of them to throw under the counter to last us for the next two months. Without a car, I can't take advantage of sales like that.

With a car, I can decide to suddenly throw clothes in a suitcase and drive to Florida or Delaware (I live about halfway between those). Without a car, such things would have to be planned well in advance.

With a car, I can drive 3 hours to Atlanta to pick up a monitor arm with my two friends in the car for company.

With a car, I can go to the home improvement store and pick up lumber so my friend can build a nice gaming table for D&D days.

Is a car a luxury? Sure, from the perspective of 1920. So are 4K screens and guest bedrooms and mini-fridges and king-size beds and neighbors whose walls are not your walls, but that's not a reason to feel as though people should reject any of those things.

What you are describing is 100% the contrary of my daily life and of what I aspire to become in the future.

No wonder that I am more than happy with a good bicycle and a yearly ticket for all public transportation in my country. Of course, I don't own a car.

I drink tap water, no "white cheddar mac & cheese" but as many fresh vegetables / meet / cheese as possible (ok, and lot of pasta). If I want to go to Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Vienna, Rome, London or Berlin there is a (more or less direct) train every two hours. Just buy a ticket over the internet, print it, and jump on the train (And while I wonder where Delaware is and why I would want to go there, I can take my laptop with me and keep on working during the whole ride to Paris).

I need a monitor arm? Just choose one in the internet shop and it's delivered tomorrow morning at my doorstep. Or I can pick it up later in the afternoon at the delivery place 10 minutes from here.

If I want to go and play table tennis with my friends, there are public parks where we can meet... Basketball? Checked. Football (you would probably call it soccer)? Even easier. Want to have a swim together? In the lake or in the river in summer or in a public pool if it's cold.

No 4K screen, no mini-fridges, no king size bed, no cold walls... but i agree a real guest bedroom would be nice!

Owning a car is for me just unpractical. And for the few times a year I would need one, I can find alternative solutions or book one through car sharing.

It gets to the point where I wonder if owning a car or not shapes your life in such different way or different choices in life makes you own a car (or not)...

And if you have kids or caring responsibilities in the future?

What may be tenable for a single person doesn't fit everyone's needs,

I don't disagree that there are lots of places in which a car is less practical, and where there are a lot of services which make up for that, at least mostly.

I have lived without a car for periods of my life, and done a lot more walking, and scheduled my life around public transit time. A Thursday afternoon train of thought upon being asked if I want to go to an event with work friends in 2009 in DC might have gone like: Hm, it looks like the last line back leaves station B at 12:30AM, and so to connect with that I could take the yellow to B from A at 11:55PM... no, that one arrives at B at 12:20, so if it's a little late I won't be able to get on the 12:30 from B... let's see, the next earlier leaves at 12:05AM, and if I get on the train at A at 11:30PM then I'll still have only 10 minutes leeway, but I can just take the 12:30AM train if I miss the 12:05AM. I need to get to B a little early because when I was there late last year they'd locked one entrance at 10PM and I might have to walk a few more blocks to the other side. So, best case I leave the event to walk to station B at 11:00PM and arrive home about 12:30AM... the event starts at 10PM, so an hour and a half of transit to spend an hour there and miss the second half... "Hey, everyone; I'm just gonna head out. You guys have fun, though."

Automated shared cars will probably completely change this. As long as I can walk out of my house and get in a vehicle and go exactly where I want to go without waiting, considering schedules, making connections, or stressing constantly until I'm safely on the last one about missing a connection and being late, I don't care about whether I am taking "public transit" or my own car.

At least we have the pasta in common. ;)

You probably do not want to go to Delaware at all; it was the first place that came to mind because I went there recently, and Florida (which apparently you do know...) is about the same distance south. I should have used Orlando / Disney World and Philadelphia, perhaps, for better name recognition.

> No 4K screen, no mini-fridges, no king size bed, no cold walls...

Well, my point was more separation than temperature... :)

> It gets to the point where I wonder if owning a car or not shapes your life in such different way or different choices in life makes you own a car (or not)...

I would argue that both are true. In many places one could live, a car is an enormous asset. In places without good infrastructure or with very high costs, a car might well be more trouble than it's worth. But owning a car will give options which weren't available before, so in that sense it shapes your life as well.

Just counting the bottles, soda intake in your household works out to 3350cc/day*person, on average. If you're not exaggerating, you have a very unhealthy habit.

Most of it is accounted for by two of us. My typical fluid intake is around 6000cc/day, including soda, coffee, bottled water, and tap water. The myfitnesspal site claims 2L of Coke Zero has 70 C, which would imply that a total (after coffee creamer) of ~200 C a day just from soda consumption. Apart from that it's just slightly acidic salt water, so I don't think I'd characterize it as "very" unhealthy. Perhaps "somewhat". :)

> we drink 30-40 (depending on the week) 2L bottles of soda a week, as well as a couple of 12-packs of soda cans, maybe an 8-pack of gatorade/powerade, and 15-20 half liter bottles of water

WTF?? That's a very unhealthy amount of sugar. Why would you buy bottled water?

There's no sugar in any of that. Or, trace amounts. It's all "zero" and "diet".

I buy bottled water for two reasons. The reason I started buying it was that I wanted to drink more water and less of everything else (I was using a ketogenic diet and there's some question about whether some artificial sweeteners cause an insulin response, and to what degree that would partially defeat the point of the keto diet).

Most of the time during most days I'm in front of some screen or another, with a glass of Diet Mountain Dew or Coke Zero nearby, and I only really pay attention to the drink when I have it in hand and notice that it's empty, whereupon I get up and refill it. This process keeps me drinking enough not to be dehydrated during the day (much more than enough, obviously), but if I don't do this, then I will at first be distracted by not finding my nearby drink, which pulls me out of whatever I'm working or playing on. This would be fine if it happened every thirty minutes, but it happens basically as soon as I stop thinking about it, which is difficult to work through. After I've adjusted to that, or if I'm in an environment in which I don't expect a drink to be nearby, I have the opposite problem, where I can sit in the same position typing and mousing for far too long. So, having a drink nearby prevents dehydration and soreness, by keeping me drinking unconsciously and prompting me to get up and walk around every thirty minutes or so.

Now, at this point you are probably thinking, "No problem! Just fill the glass with tap water and everything's the same!" In practice, however, that turned out not to be the case. For whatever reason, I was unsuccessful at training myself to drink water this way. Instead, I would find myself dehydrated and stiff with a full glass of water nearby.

At some point about five years ago, though, I found that if I had a small bottle of water (a half-liter, say) instead of an open-top glass of water, I drank that automatically and only noticed when it was empty. So, rather than fighting whatever part of me is uninterested in open glasses of water, I just bought a bunch of 0.5L bottles. Since I just put them next to my desk, I don't actually get up to refill anything, but drinking one every 45 minutes or so will force me to get up and walk in any case, so it's all good.

At first I spent some time refilling these bottles rather than buying new, but it was more trouble than it was worth: trying to train myself not to toss them, trying to be gentle (they're quite fragile), washing, filling, and drying them, keeping track of one or more containers (the plastic they come wrapped in is not a reusable container), and worst of all, keeping track of whether I need to do a refill or will run out during an upcoming stretch of work... I'm willing to pay a few bucks a week to just not have any of that.

So, I still do some of that, but have returned to drinking a lot of soda, as I mentioned, rather than 12-16 0.5L bottles every day. A 12-pack of them lasts me several days, now.

The other reason I still buy them is that sometime while I was drinking them almost exclusively I got in the habit of keeping one or two by my bedside, which solved the wake-up-with-dehydration-headache problem I had for the previous ~20 years, without any further conscious attention.

Probably too much detail. But that's why.

> Since I just put them next to my desk, I don't actually get up to refill anything, but drinking one every 45 minutes or so will force me to get up and walk in any case, so it's all good.

I don't understand. You do walk, or you don't walk?

> At first I spent some time refilling these bottles rather than buying new, but it was more trouble than it was worth: trying to train myself not to toss them, trying to be gentle (they're quite fragile), washing, filling, and drying them, keeping track of one or more containers (the plastic they come wrapped in is not a reusable container)

That's easy. Refill each one a few times before throwing it out. Don't wash it, and don't have multiple to keep track of.

> and worst of all, keeping track of whether I need to do a refill or will run out during an upcoming stretch of work...

But you run out and need a refill with soda or disposable bottles too. How is that a negative of refilling water?

I walk, but not to refill.

> That's easy. Refill each one a few times before throwing it out. Don't wash it, and don't have multiple to keep track of.

It takes quite a bit longer to refill one of these, due to the mechanics of pouring into a neck. I can refill a widemouth class from a 2L bottle on autopilot while mostly still thinking about the problem that was at hand, but I have to devote much more attention to refilling a half liter bottle, and I'm inevitably going to spill some on the outside of the bottle anyway, which means drying the bottle, which means either using a paper towel or a cloth towel, but using a cloth towel means I need to have just washed the bottle or I'm dirtying a towel which can't be used to dry clean clean dishes, now...

A refill of soda, or just grabbing a new half liter bottle and twisting the cap, can be done without much conscious attention. See above for the much more involved process of refilling a half liter bottle. :)

If you're going for a walk, then the 10 second difference in pour times shouldn't matter.

How about a bottle with a lid that screws off for fast spill-free filling?

(I'm still utterly baffled that you can drink soda from a glass but not water from a glass. Have you tried a colored glass that looks like it has soda?)