Hacker News Reader

Comment by mturmon | Hacker News Reader

Reading the comments to the story (on the Buzzfeed site), one sees the dichotomy between younger residents and longtime residents. (I've been here about 20 years.)

The latter tend to give all kinds of arguments about why owning a car is necessary, including safety, convenience, and cost. And they may be right -- for them. They live in the hills of a relatively remote area, like La Crescenta or Burbank or Chatsworth, and have Sunday brunch at some place in the Valley, and drive to Costco to fill up a freezer and a garage with goods, and drive to their dentist, doctor, and gym across town as well. It's a whole series of decisions, and it locks down tighter and tighter.

But newer residents are showing that a different way of life is possible, by making all these decisions differently. It's fantastic. It has changed the streetscape a lot, as various local enclaves spring up to offer services within walking or cycling distance, or near to transit.

But the gap between these two lifestyles really makes for some major disconnects around subjects like housing development along thoroughfares, density of development, parking, and bike lanes.

View on HN

That's because young people don't have families.

You see this play out with every generation. I read an article recently that incredulously reported that Millenials - the car rejecting generation! - have started buying cars. Of course they have, because they're coming into the age where they get married, have kids and move to the suburbs.

So, you're right, in that this is a young/old split. But don't expect it to persist as the young become old.

EDIT: the more I think about it, the more interested I'll be to see if there is, in fact, a trend in the opposite direction. The suburbs are a total compromise - close to job centers, retail facilities, etc etc, while far enough from city centers to be affordable. The coming era of remote work and efficient delivery services might mean that living further away from the city makes more sense. But there are a lot of caveats in that.

Sources?

I can't even remember if this was the article I read, but a quick Google of "millennials buying cars" returns:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/forget-stereotypes-mil...

Not very strong evidence. Essentially, it says that Millennials are more likely to buy a car in the next 12 months than people 30-50 and people 50+...right because presumably such other groups already own cars?

I'm an anecdote. Wife and 3 kids (the oldest is 3 1/2) and about a year ago I sold my truck so we're down to 1 SUV for the family.

I was able to do this because the office space I moved in to is only 4mi from our house so I ride my bicycle or my motorcycle. I know a motorcycle is technically cheating in a way, but it gets 45mpg, means I never have to ride share, and costs me 1/6th as much to insure as the $55k truck did.

We live about 14mi south of downtown Portland- which has pretty good public transport, but means we've got pretty piss poor options if you don't want to spend 2+ hours getting downtown.

My gym is 2 blocks from the office, we chose our suburb neighborhood because there's literally a dozen parks and playgrounds within walking/biking distance for toddlers.

We, as a family, absolutely need the car for 99% of things. Me, as a 34 year old guy going about his daily non-family business, can get by even in the 'burbs without a car.

On the other hand, I can report of my childhood (born '96) in a German mid-sized city where we almost always used the bus, despite our family having two cars.

The first car was only used by dad who worked in another city with – at that time – no train line existing yet, and the second car was only used whenever we’d go camping or buy large amounts of groceries.

We kids by ourselves always used bike or bus, and when we with our parents went to the city, or shopping, it almost always was bus, too.

Yep, the same millennials who swear they'll never move to the suburbs, do just that once they find a spouse and realize that a 2br in the burbs is SO much cheaper. And the schools are so good!

As with other developed countries, the number of people choosing to not have children keeps going up. It's not a default thing you can assume that people - even married couples - will inevitably do.

State Farm Insurance has an amusing TV ad about the things young people say they will never do: https://youtube.com/watch?v=O1Z91YkPatw

Reminds me of teens/early 20s who say they won't marry and/or have kids and save up to retire before 40... wonder how many don't end up with a kid and a mortgage by then.

happy wife happy life...

I used to say such things to my mother 20 years ago - mostly about the children. My words were more that I wouldn't do it before 30, and then it was a maybe. (I never have wanted children, honestly).I told her any man I married would just have to be happy with that.. She swore I'd change my mind. I still don't have children. I'm 38, and will remain childless. My husband is fine with this.

But I do think most folks that say such things wind up with long-term relationships (legal marriage isn't as attractive with many) and a child or two when they are 25-30, either by accident or something changes when their mind stops developing.

Had the same schtick from my family.

30 years old now, still don't want kids. I've Never felt even a pang of paternal instinct.

I don't live in LA, so my situation might only partially comparable. but there are quite a few things that make it possible for me not to own a car that my parents didn't have access to. For example car sharing/ride hailing services that were not available 20 years ago, delivery services that didn't exist in that form. Electric cargo bikes make it feasible to carry medium loads without too much physical effort.

I can quite well imagine not buying a car for the next decade and instead rely on a combination of all of the above, something that would have been very hard for my parents generation.

I think even families may be shedding cars. Maybe not BOTH cars, but I know at least two families that have gone from two car households down to one car households.

Having kids totally requires having a car. Just try walking around with diaper bag while holding a 15 lbs baby. Or 2.

If by "car" you mean "baby carriage", then sure. Weird definition, though.

Maybe. My daughter (almost four) has spent pretty much her whole life living downtown: Chicago, New Rochelle, Wilmington, Baltimore, DC. When she was a baby we'd take the Metro North to Costco in Port Chester and load the stroller up and go home. We did that even though we had a car.

I don't think you can really extrapolate from generational history here. As recently as the 1940s, most kids were raised in the city or in rural areas. You've got maybe three generations raised in the suburbs. Not exactly ancient history.

It's also worth noting that what the suburbs are is changing to become less car dependent. Lots of people having kids in new developments in Reston, VA, which is a suburb but organized more like the bedroom communities of yore (with a little downtown) than the sprawling subdivisions that prevailed from the 1960s to 1990s.

East coast is definitely different than west coast in terms of density. Come out west and you will see suburbs.

The east cost still has plenty of suburbs, they are just slightly higher density than what you might see surrounding LA or San Diego. See the MD-DC corridor, with almost no public transit except light rail, but townhouses are abundant. People that grew up in LA don't even know what a townhouse is.

I recently just stopped driving into New York City from Westchester. I used to have no qualms about driving for an hour and then taking some 10 minutes to find parking, but there is a better way. The Metro North is 35 minutes to Grand Central and parking is relatively easy, especially when I am going in on an evening. I realized it isn't worth my time to drive in given that I can do other things on the train such as read or write or just close my eyes. As a bonus, I am certainly less stressed when I get where I am going.

Also old cities have different "suburbs" than newer cities. Boston's "streetcar suburbs" were built along public transit first and foremost so they're the perfect blended suburb for families. Nice and quiet but a short train's ride away from downtown.

We commute by bike or transit as a family in Boston through all seasons. We own a car but it sits parked unless we're going on a special weekend trip or something; the car averages 6k miles per year and I'd estimate that Christmas, etc account for about 1/3 of that.

I'm currently discovering that it's amusingly much easier to live without a car in the city with a family-with-kid than with a family-with-dog. Not a lot of medium-or-larger-sized-dog-friendly public transport that I've found. But if there isn't a good park for your dog to run around in close by, and you don't have a yard cause you live in an apartment... it's suddenly essential to have a car! Same with getting to the vet, etc.

>Not a lot of medium-or-larger-sized-dog-friendly public transport that I've found

Why would you want to transport your dog inside the city? Apart from the occasional visit to the vet maybe?

For their walks, you could always use your neighborhood and peripheral places -- shouldn't there be some suitable spot within 1 mile or so at least?

> Why would you want to transport your dog inside the city?

My office has an open dog policy, but I almost never see dogs in the office, and when I do, they're inevitably small (the kinds you can hold on the subway). Meanwhile, on the Mountain View campus, dogs everywhere. You need a car to bring your dog to work with you.

>Meanwhile, on the Mountain View campus, dogs everywhere.

And how does that work for people trying to concentrate while working, with barking etc? Or are those dogs parked outside of the office?

Have you ever heard someone at Google complain about the policy? I haven't.

Perhaps for not wanting to be that guy?

Besides, I don't work at Google. At the companies I did work, when someone brought a dog to work (few times) it was always a problematic situation, people tried to ignore the ruckus, moved to nearby desks etc.

> "And how does that work for people trying to concentrate while working, with barking etc?"

People are considerate enough not to bring poorly-behaved dogs to work. I've run into many dogs around the office and have never had a barking problem - they usually just roam in a small area around their owner/team, quietly.

Pretty much the only time I've heard a dog bark at work was when someone accidentally kicked it...

>they usually just roam in a small area around their owner/team.

That sounds quite distracting in a small/medium office space by itself.

My experience has been people who bring dogs to work are often oblivious to the nuisance they cause to others who try to focus.

Amazon also encourages dogs... they have a three strikes policy and lots of warnings. The dog has to be quiet and well behaved to come into the office. Lots of goldens, labs, corgis and bulldogs in the office.

The dogs that come into the office are all well-behaved. It's part of policy, and coworkers aren't jerks. It's still an office, and there's no better way to turn coworkers against you than bringing in a disruptive dog. People are smart enough to know not to bring in a dog that will make enemies.

I like the dog policy, because every so often I have the nice surprise of being able to pet a fluffy dog, at work. In practice it's not so bad as what you're thinking it might devolve into.

Google has at least 1 dog-friendly morning and evening shuttle to/from SF.

Move to Seattle. (On second thought, please don't, the rent is high enough, thanks.) Public transport is universally dog friendly.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/dog-learned-ride-bus-s...

Sounds like you just came up with a new service. LyftLeg?

When I got married and had a child, I went from car free to one car. Still a low car lifestyle (commute and grocery shop by bike, prioritized a walkable location during our house search, etc) but my car usage definitely increased.

Still, it increased much less than it otherwise would have because we love getting around without a car and because driving is not a status signal to our peers. I might be wrong, having not lived through previous generations, but I think actively preferring to not drive is relatively common now, and it seems like there used to be some stigma attached to not owning a car that is now utterly absent.

Well, heh, anecdotally I know a few families with young kids with no cars. Medium-sized Pacific Northwest cities (Seattle and Portland).

Of course, plural of anecdote and all that, but I'd be curious if there's any actual data on the trend. Know of some?

Carfree Portland cargo bike family of 4. I spent part of my no-car dividend on an electric longboard. :)

Car free is tough, but using a car less is entirely possibly in a lot of places. All you need is a bit of infrastructure, and a bit less zoning, so that you can live close to other things.

Then it becomes a "right tool for the job" situation. We had a car in Italy, but regularly rode our bikes, or took public transportation for various things.

If you actually want data on this, not just confirmation of your own bias that family=cars, here's a cohort analysis of driver's licensure and car ownership rates: http://nexus.umn.edu/papers/Cohorts.pdf

Actual data, not just anecdotes, nice work.

Yeah, it's hilarious. All that's happened is millennials have delayed child bearing due to financial pressures / infantalization / choice. I know I'm already sick of car-free life and ready to go to a healthier mix of public transportation, walking and driving.

What's healthier about it?

> That's because young people don't have families.

I fit that profile. I've lived in LA for >15 years & didn't use my car much.

I now have two small children.

Still don't use my car much.

Groceries? Google Express. Diapers & other random things? Amazon. Taking my son to preschool? I hooked up a trailer to my bike & drop him off on the way to work.

My son loves trains, so taking the Metro is a blast with him. It's maybe a 30 minute walk to the closest stop & from there we can hit the beach, downtown SM, the Science Center & so on.

To be fair we do have a car. Rare is obviously rare, but when it happens, I use the car. Along with trips to home depot or to see a friend on the other side of town.

But honestly, LA is a great to live car free. If you develop your life around a car it naturally becomes hard to remove the car. But if you start off developing your life w/o the car, it's much, much easier to ditch it.

>That's because young people don't have families. You see this play out with every generation. I read an article recently that incredulously reported that Millenials - the car rejecting generation! - have started buying cars. Of course they have, because they're coming into the age where they get married, have kids and move to the suburbs.

If that was the case, you'd see it repeated in every generation, but we don't. People in the 50s and 80s still wanted a car even when they were 16, and bought one as soon as they could afford it.

People in general buy less cars nowadays, and those that do buy, also buy smaller cars increasingly more.

You are looking at this in much the wrong way.

Here's the real trend:

People who are currently 25 own less cars than people who were 25 ten years ago.

People who are currently 30 own less cars than people who were 30 ten years ago.

People who are currently 35 own less cars than people who were 35 ten years ago. (Note, these are the people who at 25 owned more cars than current 25 year olds)

Yes, when the people who are currently 25 turn 35 (aka the millennials age), they will own more cars than they did at 25. But all trends support the idea that they will own less cars than the people who are currently 35.

While not exactly purchases, I like this graph showing every age cohort is less likely to take out a car loan today than in 2003.

http://public.tableau.com/profile/joe.cortright#!/vizhome/Ca...

And also this graph about how many people have driver's licenses, every age cohort has gone down since 2008. And for young cohorts, it has gone down tremendously since 1983.

http://public.tableau.com/profile/joe.cortright#!/vizhome/Dr...

Those two facts can be explained, partially, as follows: People are delaying families longer now, as well as having smaller families(which maybe means you can get away with living in an apartment in a city which doesn't require cars). For example, the average age of first-time mothers went from ~21 in the 1970s, to >26 in 2014.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/14/46281645...

I think it's you who are looking at this the wrong way. They wrote: > That's because young people don't have families.

People who are currently 25 have less babies than people who were 25 ten years ago. People who are currently 30 have less babies than people who were 30 ten years ago.[0]

People living familyless lives longer means that the cars will come later in their lives. Having children and not have a car is a very tough proposition, considering the volume and mass of babystuff you have to handle.

Of course the cars might not come at all if people continue to chose solitude over offspring.

[0] http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=fertility-and-birth-r...

It sounds like that while there may be a link between "having a family" and "owning a car", should not a delay in "having a family" have a noticeable correlation to a delay in car ownership?

Both of you seem to be describing the same thing in related, correct ways.

You make great points. To be fair, the effects here could still be reconciled with the parent post about likelihood of car ownership increasing with caring for children if it's also true that younger people are having kids later in life than cohorts that are 10+ years older.

I don't claim this is the case per se, nor that it explains the effects entirely. Just that it's a consideration and it might be unfair to say the thinking is necessarily "in much the wrong way".

The issue with delivery services is they rely on the density of city populations... In the Phoenix area most of said services don't exist, and many that have tried have failed. It's a pretty stark contrast to more dense cities, and even locally Tempe has a lot more options than the greater Phoenix area does.

I also hope that similar ride sharing systems take deeper hold in Phoenix... Personally, I really enjoy driving, so seeing traffic become less dense (currently not nearly as bad as the coastal cities by any means) would be nice.

> You see this play out with every generation. I read an article recently that incredulously reported that Millenials - the car rejecting generation! - have started buying cars. Of course they have, because they're coming into the age where they get married, have kids and move to the suburbs.

European prospective: in most cities and towns it is not hard at all to have a family with kids and have no car. Many things are at walking distance and for the rest there is a widespread public transportation network.

The only people that _need_ cars are those living in rural areas or on the new suburbia-style boroughs born along secondary highways (new development of the last 50 years).

Actual European perspective: Your country is different from other European countries.

Here all my friends with young kids are buying 4x4s and people carriers as taking a baby and a toddler on the bus is a bit of a nightmare.

Or maybe Your country or region is different.

I'm in Norway living in a decent sized city (for Norway). The public transportation is great here, and taking a baby or toddler on the bus doesn't seem to be an issue at all. People often don't take young children out of their strollers.

Now, off in the countryside, it seems that public transportation thins out (though isn't non-existent), and more people have cars. Usually small-to-medium sized front wheel drive cars, families usually have a 4 door model.

I definitely see in Norway that people across generations use car less often. One can argue that rise of payed roads, higher and higher fees to enter cities etc. contributes to that. However, those measures are implemented by politicians who are elected by grown ups with cars, as they are more likely to vote.

Totally agree, I have heard demographers say that basically millennial's are a bigger group than the baby boomers and will have as big if not bigger economic impact. Yes they have delayed families and home ownership but this is because of financial hardship related to the great recession. But make no mistake, these people will have families and will buy houses and cars and couches an all that. I recall the good ole hippie generation was going to be living in communes and sharing free love and all that crap. What did they end up doing again? Oh yeah, they eventually had to get jobs, got married, had kids, moved out of the city etc.

I've been hearing that "young people don't have families" explanation since all my friends were young people who didn't have families, but the long-promised exodus to the suburbs continues not to materialize. If anything, we've all been clustering more and more closely together. The people with kids want to be around other people with kids, but we all want to be around our friends. If people can't afford a house on their own, they're far more likely to find another family and set up a co-housing arrangement than to exile themselves to the suburbs.

Exactly - it really depends on where you live/work, but LA's a surprisingly nice city for cycling in. It almost never rains, the Bus's all have bicycle carriers for emergency punctures/Hollywood, and the cars are rarely going fast enough to be a problem. The bicycle theft problem is also much less than usual, since not that many know how to ride a bicycle.

> Bus's all have bicycle carriers for emergency punctures/Hollywood

Can you elaborate on the Hollywood part?

Hills I guess?

As darkr says.

Most of LA is really flat, and perfect for cycling, but those hills were just annoying. Fun coming back though.

Hollywood is hillier than Van Nuys, which brings me to ask, what is it like exactly to go over the hill (i.e. go between Downtown LA and The Valley) on a bike?

If you ride a bike regularly for exercise the ride itself wouldn't be too extreme because the hills are not that steep for a fit cyclist, but for those of us who only ride in the flats it'd be a brutal ride over the hills. That said even if you're fit, the main roads that go over the hills are not particularly bicycle friendly because usually it's either cars sitting in traffic or cars driving aggressively because there's a break in the traffic or cars driving aggressively trying to beat the traffic.

There are a few less-trafficked routes but those are windy with Waze drivers driving, you guessed it, aggressively.

If you go west of the major LA hills to Topanga and above Malibu there is a vibrant weekend cyclist community that only has to deal with... aggressive drivers in fashionable cars out joy riding (I jest somewhat but that area is one of the most popular with serious and casual cyclists (lotta spandex up in that piece!)).

Busy roads with no shoulder and aggressive Land Rovers.

I live in a Jersey suburb of NYC, it's a relatively poor area but everyone has a car and drives everywhere.

I ride a bike, I dont have to lock it up because no one is interested. (Doesnt hurt that it's not new/no brand names on it.)

> [...] since not that many know how to ride a bicycle.

Come on, seriously? It gives a pretty poor image of the average american. Manual transmission? Don't know how to use that. Bicycle? What is that thing?

Average American in a Norman Rockwell painting, maybe. A lot of kids grow up these days without learning how to ride a bike. We just learn to drive early.

And I've never encountered a non-smug argument against automatic transmission.

I have, because just recently someone tried to convince me it's just plain impossible to go at slow speeds (<10mph) in a car.

And apparently that's very difficult when you don't have the clutch to moderate speed, or so I was told. It might just be that American drivers aren't used to going in any sense slow at all.

(But those damn bikers, always zipping by! By the cries, you must think cyclists in America have some magic potion that makes them go 50mph instead of, you know, <=20mph peak)

Strange idea.

My 1999 Rover 75 has an automatic transmission and I have no trouble driving slowly (if I must). Never had any trouble driving cars in the US either (many visits over the last 20 years) and quite a lot of that was pretty slow (freeway from Raleigh to RDU on a Friday afternoon can be pretty much walking speed sometimes).

My 2002 automatic Corolla moved forward very slowly when in drive with no application of the accelerator at all. Obviously, it's possible.

> It might just be that American drivers aren't used to going in any sense slow at all.

We have traffic jams here too. They are a huge percentage of time spent driving. (Since they're so slow.)

Well, it isn't impossible, but automatics vary on ease of this. Most automatics will move forward without pressing on the gas if they are in driving gear. Some do this faster than 10mph. Going less than idling speed requires fancy brakework.

It is much easier with a manual transmission. It isn't going forward with some power from you. Ease up on the clutch a bit and give just a bit of gas and you have no problems.

Is it smug to enjoy the perception of having more control over the vehicle's performance?

What's funny to me is the observation that only low end and high end cars have had manual transmissions. I started out with a low end Honda and either had to give it up or jump to a high end vehicle a decade later. I bought a second hand Audi to keep going with a manual at the time.

Car's are a heck of a depreciating asset.

Not at all smug to enjoy it, but smug to judge other people who don't care about that and just want their car to take care of shifting gears on its own.

Is it smug to enjoy the perception of having more control over the vehicle's performance?

Enjoy it all you like, as long as you keep it to yourself. The point was about the argument, not the enjoyment. But "perception" is correct. After driving a '16 Corvette (Mom's) and a '15 BMW 428 (rental), I'm convinced that a manual transmission is good only for nostalgia or a mis-placed sense that one can do better with a manual. With double-clutch transmissions attached to an eight speed gearbox, I am now the bottleneck in the equation. I've played with the flappy paddles and concluded, "meh, who am I kidding, the computer can do this better and faster than I can". Let alone having to push a foot pedal and move a lever. To add insult to injury, a lot of cars I've looked at get better mileage with the auto than the manual. sigh

In conclusion, those with the smug attitude along the lines of "a real driver would drive a manual" can stuff it, the machines have won. There's no more need to manually shift the gears than there is to manually advance the ignition with a lever on the steering column. That said, four out of five vehicles in our house have manuals (the Leaf doesn't have a transmission at all), but were I to buy a modern performance car today it would have one of them there fancy DCT eight speed autos.

As for the mid-range being auto-only, makes a bit of sense to me. Low-end offers manuals for economy. High-end for performance, even if it's not entirely accurate these days. Mid-range? You mean the people that just want to drive to work in some thing other than an econo-box? Yeah, I guess they'd go auto since they're not trying to save money nor are they really "into" cars.

This isn't an argument that everyone will care about, but it is a legitimate one for some: manual transmissions are much easier/cheaper to repair/rebuild.

The question seems to be which you'd care to replace first: clutch or rebuild the tranny? So I've been told, anyway. I've driven manuals all my life and don't recall replacing a clutch in anything I've owned, car or motorcycle. Come to think of it, of the few auto trannies I've had I don't recall having to get those rebuilt, either. And I've owned some hard-ridden vehicles, so maybe I'm just easy on tranny parts.

The tranny has to be removed in either case, so it's a question of what's easier once the tranny's out. For me, I'm happy to put a clutch in. I haven't the first clue how an auto tranny works Well, I have an idea of the principal, but no working knowledge of what those little check balls and the like do.

I wore the clutch out on the first manual I had in just over 6 years (too much slipping out slowly, I'm sure). After that, it went another 15 years or so before other reasons made the clutch/tranny life moot. Replacing a clutch is quite a bit cheaper, though, than rebuilding an entire automatic tranny.

> And I've never encountered a non-smug argument against automatic transmission.

Manual are cheaper and ubiquitous. If you want an automatic car in Europe, you pay premium on a new car, and a very large premium each time you rent a car.

I'm not sure how that works for second hand cars - there are less but less people interested too, so not sure where the balance tip. In any case, automatic car tend to be expensive cars to begin with (BMW Series 5, ...) - you won't find as easily a regular joe car that is automatic.

Manuals are the same price in the US as automatics (or are more expensive) and are harder to find. Buying a new manual doesn't make economic sense here anymore. It's purely for the fun.

Manuals are the same price in the US as automatics (or are more expensive)

This is absolutely false. Not every car is offered with manual transmission, but cars that can be configured with both are almost always cheaper with a manual. I cannot recall every seeing a case where it was the more expensive option.

An example: http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/

$800 more with automatic, about 5% of the cost of the car.

That's the purchase price. In the US, the market for manual transmission cars is smaller and so unless you plan on driving it into the ground, that manual transmission could very well end up costing the same.

On top of that, automatic transmission cars are more fuel efficient, so the operating costs might be a wee bit lower.

It wasn't clear, but I was talking about the lower resale value of manual transmission cars.

Manual transmissions are almost always a custom order. You can walk into any dealer and ask that $800 be knocked off and chances are you will get it. But this only applies to the cars on the lot, which are almost always automatic.

If you are lucky the dealer might have a cancelled order on the lot with a manual transmission.

Manuals should be cheaper because they're cheaper for manufacturers to make. Unfortunately, in the US they've become a niche product that doesn't move very well, so you're going to get a lot more resistance on price when you're haggling with the dealer.

My girlfriend's car got stolen a few years back. When I asked the cop how much this happens locally he asked me what I drive, and when he found out my car had a manual transmission he laughed and said nobody would steal my car - the kinds of people who steal mass market cars don't know how to drive a manual any more.

Automatic transmission cars are not popular in the UK. I've never really understood why, but I get the impression that they are considered to be expensive, unreliable and somehow offering poor performance or fuel economy. I've never owned one (there aren't many for sale) and so I wouldn't know whether such opinions have any basis in fact. However, IIRC passing the driving test in an automatic only allows the driving of automatics whereas passing it in a manual allows driving all cars, so driving lessons are conducted in manual cars.

It is slightly amusing that my current manual car has a display I can't turn off which tells me when it thinks I should change gear. The software which issues these instructions can tell when I am trying to accelerate rapidly or navigate hills and changes its instructions accordingly, so it might as well be changing the gears for me.

For a long time manual transmission cars got better fuel economy. That has only recently changed where automatics beat manual transmission cars.

The high price of gas in Europe is a key reason why people chose manuals for a long time.

Last time I looked up the claims that autos have better fuel economy, all I saw were manufacturer ratings being quoted. I'd love to see a real-world study of real drivers.

I know that personally I can tell I'm a much worse driver in an auto. I'm lazy - so in a manual that means paying extra attention to lights and the traffic so I can engine brake and coast more and avoid stopping and starting from first. In an auto I'm simply lazy period so I end up driving more stop-and-go. I wonder how much of an outlier I am.

6 or 7 years ago I owned my only automatic after a few mostly poor experiences hiring, especially in the US. It was pleasant enough in traffic jams, but everywhere else it was compromised - it'd change gear when I'd prefer it didn't, preferred to drive like a limousine driver (slow, and very steady, slow gentle changes) to such an extent that I had to keep it permanently in sport mode, though it was far from sporty.

The book figures said it gave just about the same economy as the manual version, but real life use gave me far further from those than I ever remember experiencing with a manual.

I'll never have another unless it is a sporty thing with 8 speed, paddles and a prancing horse on the bonnet.

I'm just going to venture that most who DO own automatics frequently experience 'heavy traffic'.

In the US, no: Most folks simply own automatics, regardless of where they live.

The only time I recall wishing I had one was when I was driving through London (normally something I avoid at all costs) and got stuck in very slow traffic for about two hours.

> it'd change gear when I'd prefer it didn't,

That may be an issue with the particular model?

In all the "automatics" I drove, American as well as Japanese models (the latter only several Hondas), I had no problem to know and control very precisely when the shift up or down would occur. I would drive up a hill and I knew exactly if I pressed down just a millimeter more the care would shift, which I delayed from happening until the ascend got less steep. That level of control was easy to get with only a little bit of experience with the specific car/transmission.

Oh you could certainly affect the point of change with position of right foot. But that makes for as much of a compromise. Now you might have to back off mid turn instead.

I suspect I'd have noticed or cared far less if more of my vehicles hadn't been sports and I'd bought more mobile sofas, driving accordingly. :)

Overall I prefer the lazy V8 approach to avoiding gearchanges - have vast torque on tap.

> IIRC passing the driving test in an automatic only allows the driving of automatics whereas passing it in a manual allows driving all cars, so driving lessons are conducted in manual cars.

Somebody else mentioned this too. In the US, there are different driving tests for manual and automatic cars. It would be plausible to me that passing the test in an automatic meant a license that was restricted to automatics, but I just looked over my license and didn't see anything obvious. The "restrictions" section says only "corrective lenses".

However... I can't drive a manual transmission. I know I can't, and that's why I don't try. It's completely superfluous to restrict my license; I suffer the harm of trying to drive one.

And similarly, if you're not planning to drive manual, there is no benefit to having a license that says you can. If you can't drive manual, there's really no benefit to having a license that says you can. The benefit comes from having the skill, not the license. If you could, like me, get a license that allowed you to drive manual cars without knowing how, would you go out and start driving them without knowing how?

The license is less saying that you have sufficient skill to operate the vehicle in question, and far MORE saying that you are aware of geo-spatial relations and laws related to being legally responsible for operating such a vehicle.

Just like having a permit saying you can legally own firearms would not mean that you are in any way proficient at their use; just that you know when you should and shouldn't use them.

OK, but my point is, it doesn't make any sense to learn how to drive manual so that you can get a license permitting you to drive manual. If you didn't bother to learn, you wouldn't need the license.

But somehow multiple people are presenting the license as a reason to learn to drive manual when you otherwise wouldn't. Logically, that doesn't work.

I'm from the UK, and automatics are pretty rare here. If you do your driving test in an automatic, your license is annotated so you can only drive automatics, so people do it in manuals instead; and then, of course, they buy a manual, because they're cheaper.

So my first experience with an automatic gearbox was on a holiday to the US. And I loathed it. It felt like all the controls were connected to the road via rubber bands --- everything seemed to happen a couple of seconds after I moved the controls. If that had been my only experience of an automatic, then I too would be saying how horrible they were.

But then, much, much later I tried driving a hybrid with a CVT automatic gearbox. (I can't even remember what it was now.) And it was... amazing. It felt just right. There was no lag, there was no uncomfortable feeling of being in the wrong gear. It was like it was reading my mind. I put this down to being an expensive hybrid with lots of low-end torque from the electric motor, but then just this year I drove a Nissan X-Trail, also with CVT, and it was just as good.

So I'm willing to say: not all automatic gearboxes are the same.

The CVT in my wife's Honda is surprisingly good. No "sag and surge" due to shifting. It just keeps going (with an engine RPM proportional to the throttle amount) as you hit the freeway onramp.

Her car has a bigger engine than my Prius (also with a CVT as well as the motor/generator), though. My car does very well around town, being quite peppy in the 0 to 30 range, but a bit more doggish getting up to freeway speed. But it makes a good daily driver otherwise.

Traditional automatics seem to change gears and re-clutch slowly. The 5 speed on my old small pickup was fun to drive, once I learned how to do it years ago :-)

That rubber-band feeling is exactly what CVTs are known for around here. Maybe you got one the whole time? Of course, rental cars have the most terrible engines no matter what.

The fastest gear switching is on DSG/DCT engines, or electric cars which don't have gears in the first place. Both of those should beat a manual car in speed and mileage.

BTW, as an American who can't drive manual or ride a bike, and grew up in a city which didn't even have sidewalks, I recommend this as a great way to become a computer expert.

I'm a, to put it lightly, a cycling enthusiast.

I bet this means that people don't know how to get from A to B on a bicycle, rather than, you know, being able to pedal a bicycle in a straight line, and keep the thing upright.

For example: which streets are the best to take? What's legal/illegal to do? (sidewalks OK? "I DON'T KNOW? I'M SCARED TO RIDE ON THE ROAD/NOT ON THE ROAD") Where do I lock up this thing? What happens at night - do I need lights? What kind of light? What do I do if it start raining? Oh no? What do I do about my wheel - the tires not holding air!

These are topics not always taught to you... ever by... anyone. Especially the legal aspects of bicycle rights on the road. That leads to all sorts of arguments about what bikes can/cannot do and creates a horrible opposing relationship with cyclists and other road users. As a motorist, if you don't ride a bike as an adult, you may have NO idea what a cyclist is allowed to do on the road, but the same can be said about a cyclist that's JUST getting into riding a bike. They'll make all sorts of mistakes, and put themselves in bad situations, often angering other users of the road. How long is that going to last, until that bike is back in the back of the garage?

What's the solution? Seek out a support group of cyclists to help you.

I'm kind of surprised. I live in France and spent my time growing up in the countryside. I was aware of common cycling regulations, all the do and don't, by the time I was in 5th grade.

I know biking in a city is very different from biking on a road in the middle of nowhere. And, even I, prefer to avoid crowded circulations and difficult crossings, because those other road users are pesky assholes (at least in Paris) when it comes to sharing anything with pedestrians, cyclists, or even other motorized vehicles. Kudos to cyclists support groups!

When I rode in France - once on a two-month tour through the country, and once living in Paris, I was incredibly shocked at how aware motorists were to cyclists. Motorists would drive fast around me, but I wasn't worried that their intentions were maligned. Coming back to the States, and I had to readapt to being much more defensive.

In short: it's just embedded in the French culture. France has le Tour, we have football.

Switzerland takes this to a whole 'nother level, saying nothing about the Netherlands, Denmark, etc.

In the States, I feel very much like an enemy on the road. I mean, I'm just riding my bike to work.

I can't agree with this sentiment enough, you have to ride defensively on the road, you're seen as a second class citizen, and drivers don't act with the same respect as they do other cars. However, I've never lived in France so I have nothing to compare to.

It's essentially class warfare, when cars are seen as a symbol of wealth, status and mobility. It's not car vs. bike. It's the status quo vs. a competing idea that, if it takes root, unearths a value system based on owning and using an expensive personal item that devalues precipitously as soon as it's driven off the lot, adds a hefty environmental cost, etc: the automobile. And that upheaval is going to cost powerful people money.

Also look at: public transportation.

It's no wonder that higher economic mobility people have chosen essentially a private town car company (or at least a virtual one, that undermines things like workers rights) to replace personal car ownership (at least partly so) and not a bicycle or public transportation. The illusion of the status quo is still there - except that it's enhanced, as you're paying a premium for someone else to do the stressful work for you.

As an American that has explored Europe, it's just not the same thing. Trains are amazing, people flaunting wealth by buying enormous cars is seen as a faux pas. City centers are turning into car-free zones. Being simply a pedestriann isn't see as a backwards thing. Cycling is taken much more seriously and things like safety regulations and road-side checks are a Thing.

This extensive list of skills is exactly why cycling is a lifestyle choice/hobby, not an effective method of transportation.

Car ownership isn't much better.

Lyft/Uber? I tap a button, get in the car, then appear at my destination.

I don't have to spend mental cycles on accidents, vehicle failures, weather, navigation, insurance, licensing, fuel, equipment, tiredness, sobriety, clothing, locks, road laws, time of day, road debris, other road users, parking, safety of my vehicle when I'm not around, maintenance, vehicle condition and cleanliness, transportation politics, etc.

Instead, I can live my life. It's actually quite liberating.

> This extensive list of skills is exactly why cycling is > a lifestyle choice/hobby, not an effective method of > transportation. > > Car ownership isn't much better.

But that's it, isn't it? There's an investment in time/energy you have to make. Is the investment worth it for you?

> Instead, I can live my life. It's actually quite liberating.

For me, being car-free is very liberating. There's just more pluses to using a bike for my primary transportation.

> This extensive list of skills is exactly why cycling is a lifestyle choice/hobby, not an effective method of transportation. > Car ownership isn't much better.

I suspect the list for car ownership would look much longer, actually. It's just that the skills necessary for car ownership are taught much more effectively because of the prevalence of driving in our society.

Where have you lived that cycling is not an effective method of transportation? All of your arguments can be exactly adapted for Uber/Lyft, and even if I were to do that it doesn't mean ride sharing is an ineffective method of transportation.

I assure you in MOST of the rest of the world cycling is a very effective method of transportation.

Don't know where the parent is from but I live in a largish Canadian city. Using a bike for primary travel is not viable except for short leisure/weekend errands. I even live in the part of town where biking would be the most viable.

Why is it not viable?

In northern Ohio bicycling all year is becoming more practical as there is less snow lately. Parts of Canada may have a lot more snow and severe cold.

The weather would be the main one.

1) the city isn't built for biking. It's long distances between where people work and their homes. Not many live downtown like other large cities. 2) you can only do it for six months of the year. The other six are too cold.

Do I understand you correctly that you _only_ get around via Uber/Lyft? That seems expensive or at the least, very boring because you don't get out much.

Really, I think the minimum knowledge needed to use a bike for transportation is quite small. Walk into a local bike shop, list your needs/abilities, pay money, and start riding a bike. When you stop, use the u-lock they gave you to lock up the frame. Every week, put some air in the tire and recharge your lights. If something breaks, take it back to the shop.

>Do I understand you correctly that you _only_ get around via Uber/Lyft?

Back in Europe at least, I know several of people who use taxis for all their getting around -- with the occasional subway ride thrown in.

And those are people that get around a lot, though that's mostly true for above a certain income source and usually on creative professions (directors, composers, journalists, etc. -- kind of like people whose work doesn't necessitate commuting every day to some office, and who couldn't afford a 24/7 personal chauffeur, but could still pay for 2-5 taxi rides per day).

Uber/Lyft, aircraft, and walking for short distances, yes. I realize now that I live in very walkable areas, so I have a little more variety available than people in the suburbs.

That said, this post was intended to encourage people to think about the future of transportation, not saying that everyone should immediately switch to Lyft/Uber.

Car/bike ownership will certainly make sense for some people for quite some time, even after we have fully autonomous vehicles. But I maintain that cycling is more recreation than an effective method of everyday transportation, and it is frustrating to see the biking contingent pushing it as a transportation option to encourage public expenditure on their recreational needs.

> This extensive list of skills is exactly why cycling is a lifestyle choice/hobby, not an effective method of transportation.

I take it you've never been to Denmark. I don't think I know of anyone who doesn't own one or more, young or old.

The only means of transportation that is more effective is public transportation here.

In the UK we have cycling proficiency tests available at most schools, which teach you a lot of the basics.

That's awesome, and I'm glad to hear it. For me, it was first taught in after-school clubs (bicycle club!). I can't thank the local bike shop enough for pointing me in the right direction.

As an adult, I joined a lot of social circles that centered around having fun, and riding bikes. I also got into things like Critical Mass, and the local bike messenger racing scene. It felt like we were all helping each other to survive out there. A lot has changed in 10 years, and I'm very grateful for that. Just having a public bike sharing program present and very easy to access has really changed people's perceptions.

When I was a kid in the USA (Torrance, CA which is in Los Angeles County) the police came to our elementary school once a year for a bicycle information day, where they'd talk about bike safety rules and even had a little rolling road to test your brakes on. Most of my friends rode their bikes to school. So it doesn't seem completely unheard of.

The parent poster was saying bikes are less likely to get stolen in LA because nobody knows how to ride--I don't think that's true at all. Most people who steal bikes just want to sell it for money. I heard SF had a huge bike theft problem and was working to reduce stolen bikes in the second-hand market instead of attacking thefts directly. They also added a stolen bike registry to make recovery more seamless. Maybe LA has something similar and that's reducing thefts? I still see evidence of bike thefts in LA (parts of bikes or empty chains locked to things).

More to your point, Los Angeles has free bike safety courses for varying levels all over town. They start with "learn to ride," "interested in riding a bike for daily trips, but are concerned about safety," and "confident city cycling." I think they also give out free safety equipment like helmets, lights, and reflectors.

Seriously.

Before I lived in LA, I lived in Boston. I still have the rather nice pair of wire cutters that were left behind rather hastily when I came back to get my bicycle at the stand after being in a shop for about 3 minutes. Now that is a city with a bicycle theft problem.

But military histories quite often comment how most of the GI's had much better mechanical skills that their British counterparts, and how baseball pitching was instrumental in their superior grenade use. (Cricket bowling just doesn't teach quite the right skills there.)

Despite being one of the most homogeneous species on the planet, everybody is different. I agree it was rather cruel of the local council to stick a magic roundabout right outside Heathrow's car hire[1], to add to the driving on the wrong side/manual transmission nightmare, but at least it let's people know what they're in for.

[1] http://goo.gl/Dk3mXw

> I agree it was rather cruel of the local council to stick a magic roundabout right outside Heathrow's car hire[1]

The inverted pentagram shape (facing east) of that thing was made on purpose, right? It seems, somebody on the city council just wanted to summon a massive demon :)

The whole M25 is a cruel, demonic joke.

A two-stage roundabout??? This gives me an entirely new level of respect for the general insanity of humankind!

Do I view this sat pic correctly and see that those are nested roundabouts ?

Is that a thing ? Is this the only example of such a thing, or do they exist elsewhere ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout#Magic_roundabout first one, some additional info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon)

If you've never ridden a bicycle before, you _have_ to learn how to ride, else you can injure yourself.

I learned how to ride in my early teen years, on a bike that was too high for me. That resulted in an injury that I still have to this day.

Just for clarifacation: I live in Northern Europe, but am American.

The manual transmissions? Part of this is the lack of requirement for driver training to teach folks. The other bit of this is that most folks don't have access to manual transmissions. A great deal of cars don't even offer the option. I was fortunate enough to learn to drive one years ago, but not all are. This is really simple lack of availability.

Ancedote: My spouse and I own a (older) 4 door sedan. It has a manual transmission. Now, the brand isn't sold in the states, but many similarly sized vehicles are. In the US, this class of vehicle isn't generally available with a manual transmission - if it is available at all. Usually, the only cars with the options are the smallest cars, trucks, or luxury vehicles.

You must live in a different part of LA than I did. I spent a summer bike-commuting from Santa Monica along Wilshire Blvd to UCLA. It sucked. The cars were mostly going 50, the right lane was dangerous because of the 405 on-ramp and off-ramp, and the sidewalk was a slalom course of lamp posts.

The only real alternate route was to wind through Brentwood and around the VA cemetery. It was long, slow, and had its own hazard: there was a plant by the cemetery that made little spiky seeds that would deflate tires.

The Big Blue Bus was decent, but somehow longtime Angelenos in the early 2000s didn't believe that people who owned cars belonged on the bus.

I suspect the breakdown is not only between younger and longtime residents, but also between those who have or don't have a family (i.e., children) at home. My perception and experience is that parents need vehicles of a more permanent nature and drive far more frequently/extensively than non-parents.

What's really insane to me is that all the walkable cities are out East and get run over by a glacier for half the year. If there's anywhere where walking and biking and taking transit should be preferred it's LA. It's beautiful almost year round.

San fran is a supremely walkable city.

...except for the hills and, depending on your point of view, lurking vagrants/robbers/poopers. Some of us prefer our walks without the aroma of fresh human feces.

None of that in Portola and the Excelsior. Ingleside, too. I've also found Bernal Heights quite pleasant.

I wouldn't call it "supremely" walkable but yeah it is walkable.

My friend got cancer so I lent her my car and haven't been driving for a few months now, I grew up here in LA so its always been seen as a disaster to not have a car. but even to get to music gigs it hasn't been a problem. I do use uber for some things but because I live close to a metro station its easy to get to downtown and then take any of the lines to get up to general areas, then if I need to get to a more remote place I uber over from the station. The combination of Uber/Lyft and the stations enables me to get anywhere I need to go in LA without a car, even late night recording sessions in Hollywood, I live in a good location so its not costly to use Uber for the times when I have to be out later than the train runs.

If I may ask, how does Uber/Lift work for musicians who play larger instruments? I'm a double bassist. For now, playing music is pretty much my main use of a car.

Can you request a bigger car?

Have been here for 7 years and also see the split between transplants and those that grew up here and are just used to horrendous commutes.

I drive though and wish I didn't. The start to my day has been far less stressful when taking a train, bus, or carpooling. I've kept my car around because the nature of working in LA means that you might go from working one mile from home to somewhere all the way across the city. People say 'live closer to work' but it's kind of hard when you have an area you like living in at a (relatively) affordable price.

This ties in with the families/homeowners. Work moves, or closes down, and you might end up having to drive where it goes or where you can get a job. It's hard to live centrally and public transit is still in its infancy here.

The subway is getting expanded, though I feel the hub and spoke pattern doesn't help us as a city, and the stations are too widely spread apart to make it worthwhile to walk to. The buses...well, it would take me an hour, with one change, to make it 2.5 miles to where my work currently is. That's if it comes on time (which it never does). There aren't dedicated bus lanes, and people would protest if they cut down a lane on some of the major streets to make it so.

Biking is an option but I'm not really into the risk over reward with that at this time. Too many people I know have been doored or hit by cars (at least one a hit and run). Police don't enforce traffic laws and that makes it less safe for cars, bikes, and pedestrians.

Lyft/Uber have been a godsend though. Whether carpooling to other places in the city, and sometimes to work (my coworkers all leave at different times so it's hard to do regularly), and especially for safe nights out, everyone in my age group (mid-20s to 30s) heavily use the apps. I only use Lyft due to having some moral opposition to Uber, plus their drivers always seem better and not just former taxi drivers (who were shit when they were taxi drivers). I used to take taxis prior to the apps but always had trouble with them showing up at scheduled times and knowing where to actually go.

So, for now, I'll drive to work and feel a little guilty. I'll take Lyft and the subway when necessary. Still a sharp nope to the buses.

I live in nyc and owning a car is totally worth it. Today I drove to costco and sams club for some shopping. Tomorrow I'll drive to the jfk airport to pick up family. The freedom and convenience I get from it makes owning a car great. Even in NYC. Sure, I can go without a car but frankly it is a pain in the ass to go to costco or to the airport without. Convenience is my highest priority and owning a car is very convenient.

Tomorrow I'll drive to the jfk airport to pick up family. The freedom and convenience I get from it makes owning a car great

You especially like it because most cities (including NYC w/ street parking in most boroughs) subsidize the cost of parking: http://www.accessmagazine.org/articles/spring-2016/cutting-t.... The cost of free parking is high.

Why the downvotes, folks? Don't judge, s/he's allowed to enjoy the automobile lifestyle.

There is a third group of people to which I belong: Don't use car for normal work life but use it for weekend adventures.

I'm a bike commuter during the week but on weekends I drive more than 100 miles one way. Doing this with Uber or zipcar was cost prohibitive but I did consider it and even try it.

Any recommendations for neighborhoods where living car free is easy/enjoyable?

West LA has a great bike trail system and you never need to go out of a 1-3 mile radius for anything. Venice, Santa Monica, culver city, Mar vista etc

you're completely reaching without any data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com