I don't love cars

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

In honour of the new ILX board, and obviously this question is not going to go there..

I don't love cars. I have a real blind spot regarding makes, models and types in general. Don't get me wrong, I like cars inasmuch as they get me from A to B and play me music while they do this.

But I have no yearning for bigger/better/grander, just working/reliable/comfy.

And yet, 1) I'm a bloke 2) I'm an "advanced driver" passtest (it was a free thing at a past workplace)

― Mark G, Monday, 23 April 2007 10:48 (eighteen years ago)

I know what you mean. I have no interest in any car made after about 1980, but I have to admit that modern cars are kinda classic in their reliability and comfiness - at least German and Japanese ones are. I have done 75K miles in my my current Toyota and I think I have only changed bulbs and tyres in that time. It never so much as misfires.

But.....it's a boring car. I had much more fun when I drove an MGB or a Beetle, or even old Fords. Actually, no.....forget the old Fords, they were shit. I guess the need to move kids about and sometimes carry tons of musical equipment around means that a boring sensible car is needed. Plus...could I go back to driving in the summer without aircon?

But I am thinking of getting something more fun as well at some point soon - something old and full of character.

― Dr.C, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:16 (eighteen years ago)

What, like Jeremy Clarkson?

― Marcello Carlin, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:18 (eighteen years ago)

Like you.

― Dr.C, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:18 (eighteen years ago)

I'm an "advanced driver"

you did the IAM test for free? that's one forward-thinking workplace, yo.

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 23 April 2007 11:26 (eighteen years ago)

I never cared that much about makes/models of cars either. Modern cars are all ugly anyway.

― Hurting 2, Monday, 23 April 2007 13:32 (eighteen years ago)

"forward thinking workplace" = "BP"

Funnily enough.

― Mark G, Monday, 23 April 2007 13:34 (eighteen years ago)

I don't like cars and I can't drive cars. If they looked pretty like they did in the olden days I might be more interested.

― chap, Monday, 23 April 2007 13:40 (eighteen years ago)

I'm an ecofascist who would like to make private ownership of cars illegal, turn the interstate highway system into bullet-train tracks, force retail and housing development into the cities to head off suburban sprawl, and in my wildest fantasies I see fleets of bicycle commuters and shoppers.

Of course, if the "peak oil is now" people are right, I may live to see all this yet.

― Oilyrags, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:21 (eighteen years ago)

Oh. I'd better not mention that I really, really love my BMW sport coupé then. :(

― C J, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:24 (eighteen years ago)

I wouldn't consider myself a "car" person, but I can't help but turn my head when there's a lovingly restored muscle car from back in the day driving by. Or, hell, some ultra-expensive sports car cruising by. Though I usually am half admiring and muttering "twat" under my breath, as the drivers more often than not look like twats.

I miss my Toyota Echo. That baby was fuel-efficient, plenty of headroom, and it would zip into any old parking space with ease.

― Gukbe, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:27 (eighteen years ago)

I'm like Oilyrags. Because of environmental (and economic) reasons I've never gotten a driver's license, and have no urge to get one. I might give it some thought though, if someone comes up with a truly ecological car. But so far I'm happy to live a car-free life.

I've never understood how people can spot different car marks and models by just looking at them when they drive by. To me they look all the same, unless they're really old or customized.

― Tuomas, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:33 (eighteen years ago)

― sunny successor, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:34 (eighteen years ago)

...solving global warming at a stroke

― ledge, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:35 (eighteen years ago)

I don't understand how it would increase the homicide rate?

― Ed, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:37 (eighteen years ago)

I've never understood how people can spot different car marks and models by just looking at them when they drive by. To me they look all the same

You think a Lotus Elise looks just like a Skoda Rapide??

― C J, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:37 (eighteen years ago)

i don't love cars but i do love driving

― gabbneb, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:37 (eighteen years ago)

I don't understand how it would increase the homicide rate?

-- Ed, Monday, April 23, 2007 9:37 AM (2 minutes ago)

being forced to be squished up against the rest of humanity day after day is bound to push a lot of people over the edge, no?

― sunny successor, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

yeah fuck a car. the idea of spending that much money on something that loses value instantly makes me ill.

― will, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

or instantly loses value makes me ill

― will, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:46 (eighteen years ago)

Don't buy lunch then.

― Mark G, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:46 (eighteen years ago)

oh i'm pretty strongly with oilyrags on this one, minus the whole "private ownership" bit.

that being said, i really do like driving cars, fast, and out here life would be pretty much impossible w/o one. moreover, a 4wd pickup would actually be really, really useful. but if i got one i'd feel compelled to do what my buddy did and convert it to biodiesel. which would be a fun project anyway

― river wolf, Monday, 23 April 2007 14:54 (eighteen years ago)

cars are rubbish and for twats

― RJG, Monday, 23 April 2007 15:01 (eighteen years ago)

"a car should be your servant, not your master" -something i heard at a conference a few months ago

― get bent, Monday, 23 April 2007 15:04 (eighteen years ago)

that conference 8080

― river wolf, Monday, 23 April 2007 15:05 (eighteen years ago)

I also struggle to see a car as anything more than a means of conveyance with a radio. I also don’t get why guys seem to think having a fancy car makes them more attractive, especially when all they talk about is bloody cars. I have never dated a man with a car newer than 1985.

I am with oilyrags too, actually. The only thing with that is, if we outlawed private cars and did away with highways, I wouldn't be able to drive across Canada one summer with my kids, when I have kids, which sounds like fun. Selfish, polluting fun.

― franny glass, Monday, 23 April 2007 15:05 (eighteen years ago)

rw otm

― dan m, Monday, 23 April 2007 15:16 (eighteen years ago)

In 1980, geologists said we'd be totally out of oil in 25 years, for certain, if we kept up current consumption rates. 25 years have gone by and our oil consumption has increased by orders of magnitude, and there's still no sign of the oil tap shutting off. Face it, nobody has a fucking clue how much oil we got left. Given that we haven't even started to touch the "dirty" reserves which are more difficult to refine, I'd say that it's gonna be a few more lifetimes before the advent of "pedal-by shootings".

― libcrypt, Monday, 23 April 2007 19:28 (eighteen years ago)

I think the best that the "ecofascists" can hope for is that oil becomes more expensive than biodiesel.

― libcrypt, Monday, 23 April 2007 19:31 (eighteen years ago)

i thought i didn't love cars, but now that i'm car-free in a car-intensive city, i find myself relishing random rides i get from friends around town, being able to see more than the %2 of the city i see on 2-3 bus routes, etc. but then again i've definitely become attached to a few pros of carlessness: drunken bus rides, no traffic stress, more exercise.

what this place really needs is a couple hundred strategic deaths in hancock park or wherever so we can get a west side metro line.

― strgn, Monday, 23 April 2007 22:38 (eighteen years ago)

I also struggle to see a car as anything more than a means of conveyance with a radio.

yeah. I mean, having a car is better than having no car, but good public transit would be better still (although I'm not sure where I would rock the fuck out then)

― bernard snowy, Monday, 23 April 2007 22:50 (eighteen years ago)

I don't love cars, but I kind of love that Top Gear show.

― Drooone, Monday, 23 April 2007 22:53 (eighteen years ago)

Angelenos to thread

― admrl, Monday, 23 April 2007 22:53 (eighteen years ago)

Good things about no longer having a car in Chicago:

1. No more car insurance that goes up every year because people here just love ramming into parked cars.
2. No more parking tickets because I didn't move the car so they can sweep the street.
3. No more buying gas for $3.50 a gallon.
4. No more circling the block for an hour looking for a space.
5. Still having access to a car with iGo.
6. Walking and biking more.
7. Learning to love the bus routes more. They're so much more convienent when you have mastered them.
8. No stupid car repairs, servicing, etc. Expenses that always come about at the wrong time.

NEVER AGAIN.

― Jeff, Monday, 23 April 2007 22:54 (eighteen years ago)

I essentially use my 13 year old car for large shopping excursions and trips to relatives in the country badly served by public transportation. I've put less than a thousand miles on it annually over the course of the last couple of years. My all-time favorite car, as I've said for ages, is an available cab when I want or need it.

― Michael White, Monday, 23 April 2007 22:55 (eighteen years ago)

whats funny is i live in the same state and not terribly far even from chitown & yet every single one of those things are so foreign to me i have trouble just imagining them.

its the god damn 'great' lakes fault i figurr.

xp

― deeznuts, Monday, 23 April 2007 22:58 (eighteen years ago)

I actively hate cars. I like old cars aesthetically, but I hate cars, car people, and car society.

― The Real Dirty Vicar, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:06 (eighteen years ago)

I'm with you DV. I like the look of some old cars, especially the ones that cost a tenner to start, but cars are basically plums.

― Keith, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:09 (eighteen years ago)

Cars, roads, traffic accidnets, noise, pollution, the smell... outside the obvious pleasures of indulging in nihilistic road fantasies, what's to like about cars? But I am alone in this among my friends. When I sound off about cars, that always seems to precipitate a conversation about how cool this or that car is. I am fed up with being told I need a car. I am nearly 40 and a single parent, and I've never needed a car. And, unless you live in a cattle station or work in the transport industry, nor do you. Especially not to get to work in the morning, with three vacant seats around you, putting on your makeup or blathering away on your mobile phone. Humpf.

― moley, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:12 (eighteen years ago)

i drive a nerdy car & it really doesnt fucking matter moley. roll down a window, light a cigarette, put on some good music, this and this alone (& it is enough) = the appeal of driving cars

ok driving obscenely fast is also fun but mine for whatever reason tops out at 104 & i havent driven over 90 in at least a year & i couldnt care less

― deeznuts, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:17 (eighteen years ago)

cars are rubbish and for twats

What an enlightened, nuanced, humane viewpoint.

― Granny Dainger, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:18 (eighteen years ago)

The new board is also for those who hate cars!

― Spencer Chow, Monday, 23 April 2007 23:28 (eighteen years ago)

I am pleased that recent car design is at least getting somewhat RISKY...it's ugly, but it's broken past the absolutely revolting past 20-25 years of fiberglass homogeneity.

― Abbott, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 04:04 (eighteen years ago)

threadstarter otm absolutely. my wife and i have honda civics, i'm pretty sure during my lifetime my ambition won't move past a honda accord to accomodate my long legs (+ enviro improvements or whatever). I have zero ego wrapped up in automobiles, other than getting them 4 cheap.

― tremendoid, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 04:23 (eighteen years ago)

The irony of the lady at work talking about how disgusting it was when she cut off a bike rider and he spat on her car. Spitting's pretty gross but pumping poison into the atmosphere's worse no?

― badg, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 05:15 (eighteen years ago)

I miss driving cars, but I do not at all miss the hassles of car ownership. The hassles would be multiplied by owning a car in the city (tickets, street cleaning, permits, wear and tear, parking). But I absolutely love getting behind the wheel of a car I don't own. A 6 hour drive to Michigan (and then another returning) passes in no time, and I'm hungry for more even after I arrive.

― Jesse, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 05:59 (eighteen years ago)

The 15 hour drive from New Orleans to Chicago (which I did 3 times last summer) was a little boring at some points, but I would not hesitate to undertake it again.

― Jesse, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 06:00 (eighteen years ago)

The irony of the lady at work talking about how disgusting it was when she cut off a bike rider and he spat on her car.

She actually said she cut him off? She's lucky it was a lone biker, and not a group of vigilante Critical Mass assholes like the ones that woman in SF met.

― Jesse, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 06:12 (eighteen years ago)

yes: spitting might be bad, but so's driving like a twat and endangering a more vulnerable road user.

(unless it's markelby running all those red lights JOKE JOKE JOKE :) :))

― grimly fiendish, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:49 (eighteen years ago)

M White, yesterday:

http://www.michaelkurland.com/hansomcab.jpg

― Mark C, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:23 (eighteen years ago)

My all-time favorite car, as I've said for ages, is an available cab when I want or need it.

cabs are great. expensive, sure, but a drop in the bucket compared to full-time car ownership and all that that entails. i keep the number for yellow cab in my phone... no matter where i am, they always send a car around within 10 minutes. i only use them late at night when transit gets dicey though.

― get bent, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 11:51 (eighteen years ago)

The other day I contemplated getting my license, but then I realized it would be silly. I would rarely if ever use a car. I don't really need it. Would be handy to go to the supermarket and stock up on food. But hey I can do that multiple times per week: free and cheap exercise

― nathalie, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 12:00 (eighteen years ago)

I don't really understand how people can work up any sanctimony over not owning cars -- it's 100% dependent on the good luck and high rent of living in the kind of city where that's feasible (or, half the time, way more convenient). How ecologically smug can you get about doing what's convenient? (Haha and how smug do you want to get, when you're probably just guilting young people into moving to your cities and driving up your rent?) I am a non-carowner because I live in a giant city with a subway system, not because I'm so enlightened about the planet.

Anyway, any American who's ever set foot on the ground for even a second outside of a major city center should realize pretty damn quickly that getting rid of cars would require a social and logistical reorganization on the level of a sci-fi movie set in the year 3000. Getting rid of cars wouldn't lead to homicide: it would lead to children starving to death because mom collapsed while carrying groceries 8 miles from the store because dad rode the bicycle 90 miles into the city to work and is too tired to ever come back. Our stuff is set up in such a way that people absolutely unequivocally NEED cars, and you're not going to get very far cutting down on them without some major long-term changes in planning and zoning to allow people to live at all without them. It sucks, but finger-wagging at people for being part of a car culture is the equivalent of finger-wagging at people for being part of a "needing to buy groceries" or "wanting to get children to school" culture. (And there are better ways than finger-wagging to convince people about the social changes that would be required here: lots of places have done good work convincing residents of the aesthetic and social niceness of living in mixed-use, walkable, planned, more self-sufficient neighborhoods, because to be honest people don't want to have to get in the car and drive two miles to Wal-Mart just to pick up toilet paper.)

Sorry to rant a bit, but geez; from the city suburbs on out, forgoing the car would be a life change practically on the level of climbing up a mountain and living on grubs. There are lots of ways to gradually start changing that, though -- one I'd certainly like to see is a big investment in the outer edges of city public transportation and "Park and Ride" spots, so that more suburb-to-city commuters would at least drop their cars off at the point where they don't need them anymore.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:34 (eighteen years ago)

nabisco that is exactly why i own a car. i mean, i can do grocery runs on my bike, but getting just about anywhere else in MT is pretty much impossible without a vehicle

― river wolf, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:38 (eighteen years ago)

rubbish and for twats

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

Thank you, nabisco.

I currently traverse a TX city carless but would not recommend it. Oilyrags has massive balls to take it on willingly. As soon as I save enough money I will once again be among the wheeled. (and I could also give a shit about make/model as long as it's reliable and has A/C. But if I could afford it I would buy a hybrid.)

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:40 (eighteen years ago)

Well and even in pretty populous areas, the whole economic system is built around people being in cars, a bad old decision people today can't exactly reverse by swearing off of them. The supermarket, the subdivision, the big-box store, the mall, the industrial or office park, the grouping of all small businesses in strip malls along the major streets -- the whole system is car-reliant.

There's actually an element to this that totally pre-dates cars, too! We have kind of a idealized vision of people living in quaint farm-like homes (which I think the suburb tries to recreate), but of course that's based largely on those homes being economically self-sufficient, with a dairy cow and some poultry out back and an underclass actually running around gathering material goods. Whereas now people everywhere engage in a level of constant economic interaction that's totally urban -- impossible no matter how many horses you had -- but still want to live in a countryside/village style.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:52 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry, xpost. As far as people who are all INTO cars, I don't personally get it, but whatever, it seems as normal as anything else to be interested in. And unless you've grown up in such a big city that you're just totally inured to the very presence of cars around you, it's not that hard to recognize different types. I don't mean following the market so much that you're all like "oh look, that's the new CL9 Turbo," but just knowing (in the US, for example) what an Altima or a Camry looks like, as distinct from a Volvo or a Lexus? Just having a sense of general types, anyway, whether you know the names or not. They're labeled right there on the back, and on the off chance that you witness a bank robbery, you don't want to have to look the cop in the eye and go "umm it was blue? with kind of a curvy trunk?"

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:59 (eighteen years ago)

I don't care too much about people owning cars. I'm from rural North Carolina, where you have to own a car and probably a truck, and a tractor, and several ATVs.

My wish is that more cities would have car free-zones. It doesn't have to be large, but just an area around the central business district that only has electronic/hybrid shuttles/buses/trains. OR a monorail.

― Jeff, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 17:08 (eighteen years ago)

That'd be totally great -- you'd have to let trucks in to move goods, though, and there'd be a taxi question.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 17:10 (eighteen years ago)

one of the main reasons i live in new york is so that i don't have to live with a car.

― forksclovetofu, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 17:39 (eighteen years ago)

I hate to add to the chorus, but really, nabisco OTM.

― admrl, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 17:42 (eighteen years ago)

I am not a fan of cars, am originally from a city where owning one is pretty pointless, now moving to a city that is so car-centric the current situation of sharing one car with my wife is more or less untenable.

― admrl, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 17:45 (eighteen years ago)

I am curious as to how much of the car hatred here is ecologically based and how much it's class based. Conceivably, we could eventually have automobiles of some kind that emitted very, very little or nothing, depending on how they were powered.

― Michael White, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 17:57 (eighteen years ago)

explain class-based hatred.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 17:58 (eighteen years ago)

I think he means the kind of class & culture stuff underlying notions like "red states" and "blue states?" (Which are problematic: there are perceptions on both sides that yr red-state car buff is going to be of a lower economic/social class than your city-dwelling Earth-lover, but these are not necessarily accurate in the least.)

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 18:06 (eighteen years ago)

i don't like them from a land-use perspective. the traffic they put on the roads, the necessity for all that parking...

― get bent, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 18:38 (eighteen years ago)

cars are just annoying. whether I think about the pollution bit or the effect on pedestrians bit or the effect on the city and planning bit or the fannies who like going fast bit. they not only symbolise but are a contributing factor to a v selfish, insulated attitude/mindset, in society. also, they are good at making people angry--the people who are driving them get angry w/ each other and w/ pedestrians and w/ the roads and w/ the government and w/ themselves (one would hope) and it makes everyone else angry, too, at some time or another. meanwhile, the reasons for owning a car seems seem to be an idea of independence or individuality or something about identity

I am talking about a city. nabisco talks about suburbs, low-density w/ gardens and stuff. yeah, these make cars "necessary" and, yeah, they were only made possible by cars. as an idea (or part of one), suburbs may predate cars, but what does that matter? they, too, are v easy to see as being about selfishness and insulation and ideas of independence and individuality and identity

I don't actually care about surburbs being laid out for people driving around and lots of people driving around them, forgetting the emissions part. just means they...will have to drive around, if they want to get anywhere. the problem is, when they leave the suburbs, to go to the city...they will, most likely, drive to it and around it, too. why wouldn't they? that's what they do. having cars only helps to discourage or devalue, in a way, public transport. whether it's within a suburban area, village, town, city or between one and the other

and the stupid cities invite it! commuter towns, w/ cheaper property/land prices and lower taxes and cheaper amenities and plenty of roads straight into the city. sure, you have to pay for parking and you have to spend hours, each day, on the road (even if you're only 10 miles away) but you probably DO save money and have a bigger house w/ no-one upstairs playing loud music and a private garden to do private gardens stuff in. GREAT

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:09 (eighteen years ago)

they, too, are v easy to see as being about selfishness and insulation and ideas of independence and individuality and identity

Not everyone can live in a big city. Our numbers as a species are far too great!

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:16 (eighteen years ago)

'when they leave the suburbs, to go to the city...they will, most likely, drive to it and around it, too. why wouldn't they?'

this is absolutely false, as someone who lives in a small town but has been to chicago numerous times, & has spent that time driving solely to a hotel/parking garage, & then out of it

as for what ms misery quotes, yeah thats bs outside of 'insulation', which i can buy. im not sure where the other i words come from

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:21 (eighteen years ago)

(oh & as for the 'drive to it' part, ive taken the train at least 50% of the time)

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:22 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, but you you did drive to it and around it, enough to get to a hotel/parking garage. how many hotel rooms are there, in chicago?

Not everyone can live in a big city. Our numbers as a species are far too great

our numbers are far too great to live in low-density, suburban areas, rather. all that area taken up for v few people. we need land for farming, etc, to support our numbers. not all land is useful for farming but none is useless enough to warrant house after house, terraced, semi-detached, detached, some w/ front and/or back gardens or surrounded by garden, some w/ single/double garages and each w/ a single/double lane road right up to the front of their property

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:40 (eighteen years ago)

wish I had converted simple html to bbcode

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:41 (eighteen years ago)

I think this is a US/Europe divide so I shall leave it.

I can drive for 8 hours in my state and not see a thing.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:41 (eighteen years ago)

yeah...I suppose you probably can!

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:47 (eighteen years ago)

I dunno, deeznuts, there really are plenty of people who keep on driving around cities. (Possibly just due to weird cultural stuff about leaving your car far away from you.) For instance, NYC has been batting around using congestion tolls for most of Manhattan, and people who commute from the edges of Queens keep complaining that they're going to get hosed, since they don't have quick subway access -- and for some reason this debate doesn't spend much time on the possibility of adding enough parking around the ends of the subway lines for these people to, like, umm, get out of their cars for two seconds and catch a train (thus saving themselves not only any congestion tolls, but daily parking in Manhattan).

RJG, I was kinda saying the impulse that creates suburbs can also be traced back before "selfishness" and "independence" into just ... farming, and its spread-out land use, plus a very long history of western culture making a big deal out of land ownership. Yeah, there's an issue in American culture in particular about wanting to cut yourself off from society in your own private land domain, and you can blame that on people's personal cultural stuff -- those ideas are half of how we settled our vast sparse west in the first place. But the other part of the issue is that even in more populated areas, we haven't adjusted our goals to a new economic system. Farmhouses, plantations, and manors were all dependent on the land right around them being self-sufficient. This isn't true any more, but we still identify with that style of living, and the thing that's papered over this gap is the car.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:49 (eighteen years ago)

i dont get the point of yr first question, or the point of the statement before it! like i said, approx half the time i took the train. chicago is about 4-5 hrs driving distance from where i live, which is hardly undoable in a day. in what way am i supposed to feel immoral or whatever about any of this? cuz i really dont get it

we still have an enormous amount of land used for absolutely nothing

aargh I AM NOT DAVID BROOKS

xp

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:49 (eighteen years ago)

does saying Not everyone can live in a big city. Our numbers as a species are far too great mean "there are too many of us--not everyone is going to want to live in a city!!"? just wondering

crosspost

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:51 (eighteen years ago)

I meant it's not possible! Places like NYC and Chicago are pretty crowded already and there's plenty of other room in the country. Should the US just build 10 or 20 megtropolises on the east coast and leave everything else to the buffaloes?

And yeah, not everyone likes living on top of other people. If you don't like that, and it's not neccesary, I don't think you're immoral for choosing not to.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:53 (eighteen years ago)

rjg isnt that just plain common sense??? since when in human history has that not been true??

--Possibly just due to weird cultural stuff about leaving your car far away from you.--(nabisco)

even as someone who comes from a culture where EVERYONE has their own car from the age of 16 up, pretty much regardless of income, i stil dont really get this. but maybe thats just me. great second para btw.

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:57 (eighteen years ago)

I know what you're saying, nabisco, about the harking back to all the farms. it is an idea. an idea rooted in culture and history that is completely distorted and, to me, useless. one that doesn't bare any resemblance to people living on a farm and being self-sufficient and so on and on, other than trying to take up and own enough land to give an approximation of a slightly similar feeling in a completely different context

crossposts

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 19:59 (eighteen years ago)

DUDE try even finding decent SIDEWALK infrastructure to go about by foot in 98% of cities.Good luck strolling about on freeway overpasses & through half-mile parking lots.

― Abbott, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:01 (eighteen years ago)

i think that was exactly his point!

xp

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:02 (eighteen years ago)

rural living can be very nice. We plan to move out of the city onto a few acres in 5 years or so. I look forward to it.

xxpost, yeah, my bus commute includes a .5 mile each way to and from house/stops/office and much of that is no sidewalk, have to walk in the street with the cars.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:02 (eighteen years ago)

the deeznuts guy, you are lucky to have a train you are able to take, into chicago, then. don't you think? do a lot of people use it? is it more or less "expensive" than taking your car?

the point of the how many hotel rooms was just if everyone w/ a hotel room in chicago brought their cars into town even just to park up then the city would be full of hotel room cars, going to or leaving their hotels, never mind a car for any other purpose

And yeah, not everyone likes living on top of other people. If you don't like that, and it's not neccesary, I don't think you're immoral for choosing not to

guess it all comes down to what you think is necessary

more crossposts

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

RJG pretty much otm, even though I like cars as objects, like zooming about in them and like being inside and snug when it's pissing down. I just hate them in (British) society, hate the "road lobby", hate the fact there are now more than cars than people here. Oh, and speed cameras. Hate them also. RJG's right: cars do make you hate.

― stet, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

Whatever: moral or not, it's a silly argument. There has been nothing in human history, including the murder of millions of people, that has ever successfully dictated to people whether they should be urban or rural, whether you're Pol Pot or RJG. The only real discussion revolves around a lot of small practical businesslike stuff you can do with planning, zoning, infrastructure, and public transportation to steer your population in good directions -- usually through the perfectly fair tactic of making them pay to cover the consequences of whatever it is they're doing.

trying to take up and own enough land to give an approximation of a slightly similar feeling in a completely different context

Yeah RJG, this is what I mean -- I think we're in total agreement about this! Culture hasn't caught up to the fact that context has changed, and that kind of living just isn't appropriate any more. But even intellectually realizing this doesn't stop me from gut-level pleasure thinking of reading a book on a big patio, looking out on a long green lawn with a dog running around. It's a deep thing to get rid of.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

DUDE try even finding decent SIDEWALK infrastructure to go about by foot in 98% of cities.Good luck strolling about on freeway overpasses & through half-mile parking lots.

to me? yes, that is a bit of a problem

rural living can be very nice

guess it all comes down to what you think is nice

crosspostsssss

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:07 (eighteen years ago)

i think some extremely car-centric cities will be unlive-able in several decades. i can't imagine how shitty driving in l.a. will be in twenty years' time.

― félix pié, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:11 (eighteen years ago)

Flying cars will save us all UNLESS it's like that recent Dr. Who episode where you end up on the freeway for 22 years.

― Abbott, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:12 (eighteen years ago)

"the deeznuts guy, you are lucky to have a train you are able to take, into chicago, then. don't you think? do a lot of people use it? is it more or less "expensive" than taking your car?"

yeah, i do think! esp around here. its an amtrak (as all passenger trains are) & it costs about 30 bucks last i knew (i think thats one way but its been awhile). anyway im sure its cheaper, but i dont know by how much. if anyone wants to work out the cost of driving 250 or so miles in an avg car be my guest.

as for 'do a lot of people use it', fuck no, which is why amtrak is constantly bankrupt (& i think cheney tried to get rid of them completely a couple years ago).

ive yet to figure out what dr who is & i had absolutely no idea there were any recent episodes

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:14 (eighteen years ago)

rjg to get this straight you believe its immoral for a non-farmer to live rurally/suburbian/even anything other than urban??

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

And still it's not like in any towns at all in the GMT time zone except maybe Denver & SLC. Srsly. That's millions of people with SHIT public transport.

― Abbott, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:17 (eighteen years ago)

And largely bcz of rural etc. & sprawl but even in the towns proper it's just a depressing joke.

― Abbott, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:17 (eighteen years ago)

gut-level pleasure, yeah. I, too, imagine I'd love to be able to do/enjoy a lot of things to give gut-level feelings of pleasure or freedom or one of the others. not fair for it to be just me, though, and, if everyone did similar things, it'd would make life and whatever you want, to provide your gut-level feeling, difficult to impossible

it's v easy to talk in extreme extremes, about things like this. I am all for "real discussion" and people paying for the consequences of what they're doing. especially if it means cities won't be planned for their convenience/domination, etc

crosspostsssssssssssss

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:18 (eighteen years ago)

rural living can be very nice

guess it all comes down to what you think is nice

well that's why I said CAN BE instead of IS! Everybody's different and differences should be allowed and respected.

re:amtrack vs. car. Depending on yr local gas prices and how fuel-effeicient your car is the price would be about the same. I took a approx. 250 mile car trip this weekend for almost a tank of gas (at $30) each way.

Amtrack would've been a bit cheaper for me but the ride is twice as long (6 hrs compared to 2.5 hours by car) and I would've been screwed once I got there (DFW) as there isn't public transport between all the places i was going.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:20 (eighteen years ago)

rjg to get this straight you believe its immoral for a non-farmer to live rurally/suburbian/even anything other than urban??

in a way

guess it all comes down to what you think is urban

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:22 (eighteen years ago)

I would've been screwed once I got there (DFW) as there isn't public transport between all the places i was going.

this is a direct result of your car ownership

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:23 (eighteen years ago)

i was wrong btw its more like 35 bucks round trip tho from that pod its more like 200 miles i think

anyway here amtrak is def faster than car too

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:24 (eighteen years ago)

you'd think the prices would go down, if it was more used, too, wouldn't you?

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:26 (eighteen years ago)

im sure they would, im defintely not denying theres a whole lot thats seriously fucked up re public transport in this country

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:28 (eighteen years ago)

I would've been screwed once I got there (DFW) as there isn't public transport between all the places i was going.

this is a direct result of your car ownership

Although I know what you're getting at I'll be pedantic and say: I don't own a car; this is because this particular metropolis is made up of many medium-sized cities and while there is public transport within them their individual governments have not come up with a way to coordinate transport between cities.

Also, my family has lived there for generations. Should they all uproot themselves b/c of the evils of car culture? Where should they move to? What kind of jobs would they get?

I understand where you're coming from but that kind of idealism is not possible in the real world.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:29 (eighteen years ago)

Incidentally, just because I hate cars and want their use and influenced minimized (which, as Nabisco has correctly pointed out, is going to be basically impossible without a major shift in nearly all aspects of the culture and a corresponding amount of pain) doesn't mean I don't occassionally wish I had one. Especially when trying to meet teh ladeez. Teh ladeez basically consider a carless person to be a useless kid - that whole subplot of "The 40 Year Old Virgin" was depressingly otm.

― Oilyrags, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:31 (eighteen years ago)

also, in July and August. Car would be nice then.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:31 (eighteen years ago)

NO KIDDING. Also getting groceries & going to laudromats is quite a chore.

― Abbott, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:31 (eighteen years ago)

Or at least more shade and shorter distances to walk.

xpost

― Oilyrags, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:33 (eighteen years ago)

Dude, even walking around on campus when summer's in full swing slays me. I want a club car.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:34 (eighteen years ago)

I understand where you're coming from but that kind of idealism is not possible in the real world.

I'm on the internet!!!

yeah, I was just indulging in hyperhyperhyperbole

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

I want summer dress codes for men to include sarongs.

― Oilyrags, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:35 (eighteen years ago)

On the internet, I am quite happy to be carless. It's just when I have to get offline and go outside. . .

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:36 (eighteen years ago)

RJG - not related to this thread - but your student photo - was that in the Tap in 1999? I was there, I think.

― Keith, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:36 (eighteen years ago)

I believe Buckminster Fuller was fond of the idea of dense urbanized living spaces.

Having lived as a child (and thus a non-driver) in rural, suburban and urban environments, I have found suburban living the least appetizing.

i can't imagine how shitty driving in l.a. will be in twenty years' time.

The Bay Area isn't L.A., but it regularly figures amongst the American cities with the worst commutes. A mere seven years ago, I was regularly driving for work, and I can say that on those occasions when I do take out my car nowdays, the traffic, the bad manners, and the stress seem worse than they did in the late 90's. That might might be partly subjective but the increase in driving time isn't. Thankfully, there is good public transportation here and many are the nights when I take a train home then a bus out and cab home.

― Michael White, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:37 (eighteen years ago)

xposts

Haha if you made the bulk of the American west carless and urbanized, you would wind up with one miserable metropolis surrounded by untold impenetrable wilderness, getting all material goods via air-drop due to all ground shipments being torn to pieces by ferocious cougars.

Umm one thing that's faintly reassuring here is that I feel like the oldest American generations have a vision of this nation as ceaseless and unchanging, whereas younger generations -- thanks in part to ecological issues -- seem way more open to thinking about and planning for change. So I hope that as they age to become more of the voting base, we'll cease to have these situations where government can't begin to respond to any problem that isn't immediately present -- e.g., there's no reason MOST big cities (LA chief among them) shouldn't be more actively planning ahead with their public transport, leaving enough adjustment time for their planning and demographics to wrap around whatever they come up with.

xpost
RJG, you're acting as if people could abandon their car ownership -- like going on strike -- and this would somehow reorganize the landscapes they live in. This is just really not true, for very obvious reasons.

Similarly, your point about not everyone being able to have a large green lawn is well taken in 2007, but no so much as of the point where suburbs came into fashion -- the whole 50s American suburban boom was based around the sense that we all could live like that, the sense that these things were democratizing, and that every American could have a nice slice of his/her own. And the thing that would make this possible would be the car, which ranked right up there with deliberately inhaling smoke on the list of "things you'd have thought people would figure out weren't all good."

Just for the record, another thing to keep in mind here is that the suburbs are currently kinda cheaper. They are less in demand. The price of a one-bedroom apartment in my city would buy you a giant McMansion with land in the back where my parents live, plus enough left over to buy a car and years' worth of gas. In some parts of the US, we have actually switched from the gritty city and the suburban manor to the reverse -- glittery city life versus aesthetically unappealing strip-malled suburban ghettos.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:38 (eighteen years ago)

without a major shift in nearly all aspects of the culture and a corresponding amount of pain

sounds like when they talk about the gun control in america and the global warming in the world and um lots and lots of other things that we'll never bother trying to make better

haha, keith, tap, yes...but think it must have been more like 2000 or 2001. wish I knew!

the crossposts

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:39 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry, that shouldn't be "suburbs" in the last paragraph, but more exurban areas, smallish towns, etc.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:40 (eighteen years ago)

. In some parts of the US, we have actually switched from the gritty city and the suburban manor to the reverse -- glittery city life versus aesthetically unappealing strip-malled suburban ghettos.

Yes that describes most of TX.

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:42 (eighteen years ago)

"which ranked right up there with deliberately inhaling smoke on the list of "things you'd have thought people would figure out weren't all good."

alrite this is a bit of an exaggeration yeah??

also 'just for the record'!!!???!!!

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:45 (eighteen years ago)

the more you drive, the less intelligent you are

― félix pié, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:45 (eighteen years ago)

Xpost hahaha, dude, RJG, a united government could take away every gun in America, and the only cost would be a whole bunch of deaths, a few minor rebellions, and a possible civil war. A united government could cut the living hell out of US greenhouse emissions, and the only cost would be possible economic collapse and ensuing social disorder. Either of those things would seriously be WAY more plausible than getting rid of every privately-owned car in the country, which would involve knocking 98% of buildings in the country down and rebuilding them in a more convenient position.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

TRUE TRUTH

― Abbott, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

'The price of a one-bedroom apartment in my city would buy you a giant McMansion with land in the back where my parents live, plus enough left over to buy a car and years' worth of gas'

'just thought id mention that in passing'

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

That's another exaggeration for effect, but possibly you can see why the hypothetical "get rid of cars" stuff isn't even hypothetically helpful to us.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:47 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think that's a huge exaggeration. Big cities in America are definitely more expensive to live in than less-densely populated areas.

Is rural/suburban living associated more with the upper-class in the UK?

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:49 (eighteen years ago)

I meant I was exaggerating about the gun / greenhouse / cars thing, not the price comparison. The price comparison is an understatement: I'm talking $500k Manhattan apartments versus $300k grand subdivision homes, which is actually describing $200k rather conservatively as getting you "a car and gas!"

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:51 (eighteen years ago)

27 stretch-limousine Hummers
that I leave running even when I am sleeping

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:52 (eighteen years ago)

Is rural/suburban living associated more with the upper-class in the UK?

Rural, yes.

― Keith, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:53 (eighteen years ago)

That's where RJG lives, with his 4x4 for climbing up the front of damns.

― Keith, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:54 (eighteen years ago)

RJG, you're acting as if people could abandon their car ownership -- like going on strike -- and this would somehow reorganize the landscapes they live in. This is just really not true, for very obvious reasons.

look, nabisco, I'm just UPSET, OK?

haha, yes, of course it is a catch 22 because public transport systems will only respond to public demand or policy and what I am demanding requires people to sit on a pavement until a bus stop appears w/ buses to their destination. it's v unfortunate

based around the sense that we all could live like that

I know that I am fortunate that the 1950s happened in the past and that I can see what happened and why and what has happened since. although most of the plenty of trouble I have w/ suburban areas and all that they require and the effects they have is about today, another good bit of it is...I don't think that sort of "good living", then, was a good idea, socially. even if it was sustainable

― RJG, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:55 (eighteen years ago)

we have actually switched from the gritty city and the suburban manor to the reverse

I'm sorry to bring this up, but I'm curious to read how you think the modern climate wrt racism affects all this, nabisco. Mostly rural blacks moved in great numbers to American cities especially after the 20's and within a generation, white people started leaving, but many cities, including my neighborhood in SF are formerly black areas that are being 'gentrified' by suburbanites coming back to the city.

― Michael White, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:56 (eighteen years ago)

http://student-kmt.hku.nl/~david4/joomla/images/stories/segway.jpg

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 20:57 (eighteen years ago)

We're already down with that in Austin:

http://www.austintexas.org/stay_and_do/images/display.php?id=141

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:01 (eighteen years ago)

$500k Manhattan apartments

Where?

― Michael White, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:01 (eighteen years ago)

I am in love with my car and with cars in general, but I will happily give up my right to drive (and consider my past fancy a quaint notion) when public transport is a viable alternative (in LA I'm thinking that will be a long time). I will also be happy to vote cars out of existence when it comes time.

― Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:04 (eighteen years ago)

Well the reason I'm butting my head here isn't that I disagree with you, RJG. I guess I just don't think it helps to look at these things as strictly "good" and "bad." They're giant cultural shifts in the way human beings live, and they're complex, uncontrollable things that move by flux, not firm decisions, etc.

Anyway, re: suburbs, the main selling point was surely the giant growth of the middle class at that point, which was socially good but looks increasingly like it won't be sustained. You're right that suburbs didn't turn out well, socially -- they faked the feel of small towns without any of the interdependence of small towns, and the social rituals they created to deal with that never did make up for it.

Also yeah, I'm beginning to feel the obvious US/UK divide in discussion, which at this particular time of day is going to make UK posters the misunderstood ones?

xpost

Michael -- again, I was being totally generous about the price comparison! Yes, you could spend plenty more than that. As for race stuff, well totally, though I think the mechanics of it early in the 20th century (where cities absorbed a menial-labor class of immigrants and minorities) are maybe different from the past few decades (the late 70s / early 80s as the apex of white flight out of cities, and the 90s/00s as the steep part of the ramp of regentrification -- though I think there's still a ways to go, what with a large demographic cohort of kids coming who've grown up on the idea that young people live in cities).

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:08 (eighteen years ago)

suburbs didn't turn out well, socially

I think that's rather sweeping.

― Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:10 (eighteen years ago)

the two times ive seen public transport in la depicted onscreen or in reality its ended with an explosion or a man dead (fortunately this man was tom cruise)

hollywood really needs to start showing the POSITIVE aspects of public transport, for the kids

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:10 (eighteen years ago)

Well I'm trying to have a conversation with a broom, so ...

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:11 (eighteen years ago)

This is reminding me of when we hosted a Mexican exchange student my jr year of high school, and how on her first day with us she revealed that she thought there was a bus system in our town and it had never occurred to her that she'd be dependent on my parents for rides to places, just like we were. She must have felt so trapped and un-agencied! I think she actually cried. I was dumbfounded -- WHITEHALL? Have PUBLIC TRANSIT?? What did she think it was, a major urban area?!

― Laurel, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:11 (eighteen years ago)

"I will also be happy to vote cars out of existence when it comes time."

im assuming you mean within well-definied urban areas, cuz if you mean it literally its absolutely preposterous to think this country could sustain itself without cars.

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:13 (eighteen years ago)

Transporters dude, the Star Trek kind.

― Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:14 (eighteen years ago)

What are their emissions like?

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:17 (eighteen years ago)

I'm thinking about people mortars that lob little pods for miles and miles.

― Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:19 (eighteen years ago)

Massive quantities of lost skin cells clogging up the atmosphere. That's why everyone had good skin on Star Trek -- those things exfoliate like nuts.

― nabisco, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:19 (eighteen years ago)

I winced as I misread that last phrase, nabisco.

― Michael White, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:20 (eighteen years ago)

Spencer OTM . It's also pleasant to see RJG extend beyond the terse and monosyllabic.

― admrl, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 23:22 (eighteen years ago)

God old Lefsetz weighs in:

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2007/05/07/the-price-of-gas/

― moley, Monday, 7 May 2007 23:52 (eighteen years ago)

four weeks pass...

My stupid car is leaking oil and I can't get a garage to look at it before next week, and I have to drive to Portumna tomorrow, which is all the way over on the other side of the country (about 100 miles away). Is this a stupid thing to do?

I do have AA, though.

― accentmonkey, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:08 (eighteen years ago)

Do you have triple A as I don't those drunks could help you much. ;)

How much oil is it leaking? Is there not some chain garage that could take a look? How about another city on your way?

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:10 (eighteen years ago)

AA is what it is here.

My guess is: one of those a's is "American" for you.

― Mark G, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:11 (eighteen years ago)

um, just buy a couple of extra quarts to bring with, have it looked at when you get back

― river wolf, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:11 (eighteen years ago)

i had a car that leaked oil for, i don't know, 6 years. quite possibly the least alarming of all possible car problems.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:12 (eighteen years ago)

Thanks. I feel reassured now.

That looks so sarcastic written down, I know, but it's really not. I will buy extra oil and put it in the boot.

― accentmonkey, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:13 (eighteen years ago)

do get it looked at, tho. if it's hemorrhaging, that's a problem; if it's dribbling, you'll be totally fine.

― river wolf, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:15 (eighteen years ago)

I guess this thread is too new for it to be the one where I told the story abotu how I got a ticket because I was walking down a busy street blind-drunk giving the finger to every car that went by, which is hilarious, because that's how I feel about cars all of the time, I just got drunk enough to do it once. Seriously. I am paying taxes on those fucking roads. Fuck that.

― Will M., Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:15 (eighteen years ago)

AA is what it is here.

Duh, why did I think Trish lived over here?

Well, do you have an alcoholics anonymous equivalent over there?

― Ms Misery, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:17 (eighteen years ago)

Confusingly, we have alcoholics anonymous here too. But the automobile association came first, so it's the AA everyone thinks of.

Ms. M and River Wolf, it actually is leaking pretty fast, in that I can see a drip coming out every couple of seconds. The only thing is, though, that if it breaks down I have super-plus coverage and will be towed to a garage and provided with a rental car to continue my journey. I'm just annoyed that I can't get anyone to look at it before I go. This is partly because there aren't enough decent mechanics in Ireland, and partly because it is now summer, and it will be impossible to get anything done anywhere in the country before September.

I am getting it looked at next week.

― accentmonkey, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:18 (eighteen years ago)

Trish, you can keep an eye on the oil level via the dipstick -- are you familiar with it? Just to give it a check before you take off on yr trip. Oil leak is, yes, thoroughly unalarming most of the time, but you have to keep tabs on it.

― Laurel, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:20 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, I know about the dipstick, but have never found it to be a reliable guide to my car's oil level. It seems to always say there's plenty of oil in it, even when there isn't. Something similar to this happened me before, in my old car, and I checked the oil level every day, but the car still ground to a halt in a plume of black smoke more than once, even when the dipstick said everything was fine. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

― accentmonkey, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:24 (eighteen years ago)

First of all, check the oil when it's cold -- running the engine will, by design, splash the oil all over the place so it can do its job, but that won't help you figure out how much is in there. So if it's just been running, give it, I dunno, an hour or so? to cool and resettle. Then: pull out dipstick, wipe it clean on a rag, reinsert it all the way, then remove again and check level.

If that measures up fine and yet you STILL seize up the engine, something else is very wrong -- beyond my diagnosis.

― Laurel, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:31 (eighteen years ago)

Come to think of it, oil has nothing to do with engine cooling, so if you had a coolant leak or a radiator problem you could still end up with clouds of smoke and a ruined engine, unrelated to when you last checked the oil level. That could explain your last auto's sudden demise...?

― Laurel, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:38 (eighteen years ago)

Oh no, it was definitely oil, because it would do that and then I would put oil in again and it would go fine.

I loved that car. It was nothing special, but it was my car, and then some bastards set it on fire for no reason and now I have this stupid Ford Focus which I have hated from the day I bought it.

But now I am buying an Opel Astra estate. Oh yes.

― accentmonkey, Tuesday, 5 June 2007 14:50 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.