The other thing that happens is that as you walk more and get healthier, it gets easier over time to carry the groceries and you tend to eat less. I experienced this firsthand when I gave up my car: Over time, I had more strength and stamina and also less appetite.
America has an epidemic of obesity and I think for some people that fact makes it unimaginable to live without a car. But I think cause and effect run the other way: So many Americans are overweight and frustrated with their lives in part because we have made it so hard in this country to run errands on foot.
It has become a vicious cycle.
You reverse it by just starting. Let some people run errands on foot and by car. Target the low-hanging fruit, the people (like lv) who say "I could do that if I only had this small bit of help."
Let them take the leap. Take the gains you can access instead of quibbling about "But that doesn't work for everyone!"
Nothing works for everyone and ruining our planet is working for no one.
Not everyone lives in pleasant climates for walking around on foot and doing errands. Sure, maybe in the Bay Area or New England it’s fine, but you do not want to go run errands outside in the sweltering heat of the south. And do you even know what the Midwest is? Young and restless.
I was born and raised in Georgia. I am a former military wife. I have lived in Kansas, Texas, Germany, California and Washington state.
I currently live without a car in an area that gets 76 inches of rain annually. I typically describe it as biblical flood levels of rain. It's a lot of rain.
I routinely go outside in a t-shirt and sweatpants in all kinds of weather, including freezing temps and snow.
Weather is intimidating to people who spend almost all their time indoors and in a vehicle. If you actually spend time outside, you know how to stay warm enough, how to mitigate exposure to wind, rain, etc.
And I'm seriously handicapped by a condition that is known to negatively impact my ability to effectively modulate my body temperature. So I'm not especially impressed by such arguments. I don't think they have much, if any, merit.
Though I would like to see more awnings in the downtown area where I live. I would appreciate that as a means to limit my exposure to rain and I think it's very doable.
I live in Greece and our weather ranges from 40 C to -20 C. We walk to get groceries in all kinds of weather. Sure, you won't go in the middle of the day during a heat wave, but after the sun is set is not bad.
As you said, you just learn to handle the weather. Walking to the super market is a very everyday thing for us.
Unrelated but where in Greece does it routinely get to -20c?
I'm wondering because was born and raised in Israel (similar climate to Greece) and even at the mountain tops -20c would be very rare (and there are generally no settlements of significant size at the peak of the tallest mountains, most people live in the valleys or coasts).
Even in Germany where we live now (1000s of kilometers further north) -20c is very rare.
It routinely goes to -20 C every winter in my hometown, near Florina. Granted, that's in the night, but we do walk around in that kind of weather. Luckily, it's not very humid, or it would have been extremely hard to go out.
AFAIK Israel is quite a bit warmer than Greece, since you guys are much closer to Cyprus (and Cyprus has a noticeably warmer climate than us), no?
I think on the greek coasts the climate would be quite similar to both Cyprus and (coastal) Israel. And either way closer to that than where I now live (northern Germany)!
In general, Cyprus has much warmer summers than even Crete, for example, and much warmer seas. This is all anecdotal, but everyone I've heard (and from when I've traveled there), they're always having more and longer heat waves than us, and everyone comments about how warm the sea there is.
I looked it up and it seems you're right! The summer highs in Nicosia[0] really are significantly warmer than in Heraklion[1]. I assumed it will be the same as Crete and Cyprus are at the same latitude and both are islands but there must be some other effects in play.
In Germany in comparison you can go almost 1000km from south to north and the only difference in climate would be if you're on a mountain or the coast (two German cities at the same altitude will have more or less the same climate even if they are 100s of kilometers apart on the south-north axis).
The best way to gain support is to extrapolate from your own situation. /s
Don't get me wrong: I believe your case, and I believe it's roughly on the path to reducing the effect we have on the planet. But you are missing few practical considerations.
The immediate case that you are obviously ignoring is parents with babies. Babies are known not to regulate their body temperature well, nor to have strong immune systems, nor can they walk long distances on their own. So what do parents do? Move between places with temperate climate and clean(er) air (home with AC/heating, cars, malls...). How do they do that? Driving cars (you've also got your mobile "locker" where you can put a stroller or any other necessities in).
At the same time, parents with small children (as a category) probably spend the most time outdoors walking in our society today, but that's usually walking "without a purpose." When they live in non-walkable areas, they'll drive to a walkable area first.
(Sure, we could subject our babies to all the extremes, but we'll have a higher infant/child mortality rate. We've long stopped subscribing to the "only the fittest survive" mantra.)
Since having a baby is a big investment today, if you are at the same time investing in a house, you'll look for (slightly) cheaper housing options. So, walkable neighbourhoods — I can't imagine anyone not wanting to live in one — are usually priced out of their range.
You are right that this is a loop: parents can't tell when they can stop being so vigilant, especially as children (and parents) are now unused to extreme climates, so they easily fall sick (parents included). And if they've invested in a home outside a walkable area, it's costly to move.
While you say breaking that loop is easy, I don't think it is. Moving places is hard and expensive (and harder and more expensive with children). Accepting higher sickness rates while your kids and you develop your immune and cardiovascular (to better manage body heat) systems is costly too (leave from work, paid help...). You should consider yourself privileged to have been able to do so!
This points at a number of problems: financial incentives for home builders are misplaced, missing regulatory requirements... and sure, insufficiently motivated people. And this is only when constrained with one thing (having a baby): there are plenty other constraints people might have (job availability, care availability, friends proximity...). Basically, people might have to compromise a lot.
If you only focus on insufficient motivation, I don't think you'll get many to "sign up".
The immediate point that you are obviously ignoring is that no one you are replying to has even suggested anything that you seem to be arguing against.
It looks like you are responding to someone saying "ban all cars, anyone living somewhere unwalkable just has to suck it up, regardless of any extenuating circumstances"
What was actually said was "LET people run errands by foot and by car", and "I'd like more awnings"
Basically - make places more walkable. "Low hanging fruit" meaning focus on making nearly walkable places into very walkable places.
I am a parent with small children. We walk to school. With a baby, I would walk to the supermarket, no one got ill any more than the occasional sniffle. Combining a pram and a backpack meant I could easily bring home the weekly shop, much easier than I can now that I have to carry everything.
It's also about places that are wantonly and deliberately hostile to pedestrians. Don't make people drive between adjacent destinations, don't force people to walk 2 miles to get somewhere half a mile away.
If you live in a village with a baby and an elderly parent and your nearest city is Timbuktu or Nuuk, this is not about you.
I also don't buy that "once you have kids you need a car". I have 2 little kids and neither me nor my wife ever had a driver's license. We use transit and bicycle. When our kids were smaller we used a cargo bike, now they each have their own bicycle (kids here start cycling at age 3-4). We also walk a lot. It works out fine.
That's not all they were saying in either this or their other comments.
The comment I replied to had this in response to someone's question about walking in "sweltering heat":
> (talks a lot about personal experiences and hardships and then concludes with...) So I'm not especially impressed by such arguments. I don't think they have much, if any, merit.
The entire tone of the comment is "if I can do it, anyone can". While it's not as strong as "anyone living somewhere unwalkable just has to suck it up", there is definitely an implication of something along those lines.
The "sweltering heat" comment was, itself, a bad-faith "Ha! you didn't think about this edge condition" kind of comment, in response to a comment saying this:
> Take the gains you can access instead of quibbling about "But that doesn't work for everyone!"
The tone of that you describe as "if I can do it, anyone can", I read as "yes I did think of that, because this is my relevant experience, and people living somewhere hot isn't the massive 'gotcha' you think it is"
But the point still stands, this is about reducing car use by making places more walkable, and your reaction read as a response to reducing car use by banning cars.
Many places in North America are actively and unnaturally hostile to pedestrians, so that even those who want to walk end up driving. This is what needs to change first.
Moaning that Oklahoma gets so hot so you can't possibly install pedestrian facilities in suburban Philadelphia, or that some people need to drive along this road, so you can't possibly provide a way for pedestrians to get across it is ridiculous.
Improving walkability also improves drivability, because it reduces traffic and parking demand.
Quibbling about not working for everyone is precisely what you and the "sweltering heat" comment are doing. Take the easy steps and the harder ones can follow.
Moreover, I don't think you are really considering the reality of getting around with small children, just trying to win another gotcha. My kids hated getting into the car as babies. A pram ride along a nice tree-shaded, low-traffic Street would be far more preferable in all but the most ridiculous summertime-midday-in-the-outback heat.
I am very specifically highlighting how it's not all in the motivation (I said as much in my very first comment), but that instead we need to work on developing walkable areas at the same time. You might have an argument that the GP was not saying that, but then you continue to argue something I didn't say either (if you disregard my point of motivation not being the only issue for people to drop cars, the rest of my comment doesn't follow).
As with everyone else here saying they've got kids and no cars, it's obvious you are already living in walkable areas.
You are instead taking my comment in bad faith: nowhere did I mention banning of cars. It seems it's fine to consider individual cases in support of your view as proof of it, whereas counter examples are "edge cases".
I've got small kids, and my baby hates both the car and a pram. If I want to get somewhere nice, it's faster with a car.
> Sure, maybe in the Bay Area or New England it’s fine, but you do not want to go run errands outside in the sweltering heat of the south. And do you even know what the Midwest is?
This thread was talking (in part) about the weather in Japan. Atlanta would be a similar climate to Fukuoka or Kagoshima - even Tokyo isn't too far off, it routinely gets into the high 30s with 75% humidity, yet somehow everyone still manages to get around just fine without a car.
The only thing that makes a car seem so mandatory in north america is because we've built whole cities around the assumption that everyone has one and it's the only way to get around - this damage will take decades to fix.
You're greatly overestimating the difficulty of living car-less in a city designed for it. Even in all the places you are discussing, people used to do this all the time in the times before AC was invented. It's true that there are places like Phoenix, AZ, where it's not really possible to survive (or at least thrive) without constant AC, but this is currently the exception even in the South.
America has an epidemic of obesity and I think for some people that fact makes it unimaginable to live without a car. But I think cause and effect run the other way: So many Americans are overweight and frustrated with their lives in part because we have made it so hard in this country to run errands on foot.
It has become a vicious cycle.
You reverse it by just starting. Let some people run errands on foot and by car. Target the low-hanging fruit, the people (like lv) who say "I could do that if I only had this small bit of help."
Let them take the leap. Take the gains you can access instead of quibbling about "But that doesn't work for everyone!"
Nothing works for everyone and ruining our planet is working for no one.