I am 26 and I lived in Rome for 24 years.

Every day I sat on a bus to go to school, I walked everywhere I could. I LOVED IT! Especially because I didn't care about beign stuck in traffic, and even if the bus was stuck I could care less since I always had a book with me (I must say that I am never in a hurry to get anywhere).

Now I live in Indianapolis IN, and I have to drive a car everyday to go to work, because there is no bus going where I need to go. I still walk a lot, but I wish I could go back and be again the "Thatcher's definition of a failure" that I use to be.

I heartily agree, though it doesn't emphasise the aspect of private transport that biofuels, hybrids or even electric cars won't solve: it's such as waste of space. Looking at my own home city at rush hour and noting that the trolley-buses are bumper to bumper and full of people, I shudder to think what it would be like if all those commuters were driving to work. The roads would have to be at least ten times as wide to cope, and there'd be no room left for a city.

The public transportation system in Japan is great! But even though tons of people use the train system there, not as many used the bus system. We lived in a mid-size town our house being on the outskirts of the town. Most days I either rode my bike (15 min) or walked (40 min) to work. The comments from the people in our neighborhood were funny. When we first moved there and started walking to work many people asked if our car was broken or if we didn't have a car! They where shocked when we told them we prefer to walk, they just couldn't believe people would choose to walk over riding in a car! And yes, we are over 26 years old!

I live in Phoenix and am sad to report that Margaret Thatcher's sentiment is alive and well here.

I take the bus to work a couple of times a week here and people in my office can't believe it. I've been asked if I got a DUI, if there's something wrong with my car and many other questions. When I tell them that I choose to ride the bus for environmental reasons, people here think I am nuts.

For a young, growing city, Phoenix has a great opportunity to do things right, but sadly the city does not have the political leadership to get things moving in the right direction.

I think that sentiment is correct. The real problem is not the car but the driver. Cars are a problem because they are excessively overused. It's like alcohol (or just about anything else) - used in moderation it can be beneficial; used in excess it can have severely perverse negative consequences. The car is not the problem; the problem is irresponsible people who don't understand the concept of moderation. Having said that, I still hope for much greener cars to start being sold soon. And I am 34 and don't have a driver's licence (don't know how to drive), but I do own a car (or better said, my wife owns the car since she drives it.)

It's is a shame really, the car is such a status symbol. I get s**t for riding my bicycle everywhere :(

I feel as if I get the last laugh though. While they have to deal with the cost of finance repayments, rego, insurance, and the ever rising price of petrol, I can sit back and not worry about those things.

This is listed as a misquotation here:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

I'm 47 & ride the bus nearly everyday, & I don't care what Loelia Ponsonby thinks.

Cars are a problem because they are excessively overused.

Cars are used about 4% of the time. They sit around not being used 96% of the time.

THAT'S the problem.

Well, I live in Seattle, but I do NEED a car. You see, I'm a computer technician and I need the car for my job. While I KNOW that technically, I don't need a car if I live and work in Seattle, I need one because I work nearly 18 miles south of Seattle and the "commute" to work is nearly two hours.

So I don't subscribe to this "It's the driver's fault" drivel. It's the automakers fault for not designing fuel-efficient, environmentally correct vehicles. If the only choices you have for a car are that "gas-guzzler#1 sedan and global warming causing SUV, then what else can you do besides becoming an advocate for making better cars.

I need one because I work nearly 18 miles south of Seattle and the "commute" to work is nearly two hours.

Because, of course, there are no houses 18 miles south of Seattle.

To Gerald: The reason that you feel you NEED a car is because you are addicted to the car. Let's face it - if we had never had cars, you would not now be in a position of having a job that is located 2 hours drive from your home. You would have made sure that you could get to work using alternative forms of transport, such as bus, train or bicycle.

It is quite crazy that people should now think it is OK to waste 4 hours of their life every day to get to work. You don't get your time again, you know - if you've wasted 4 hours a day stuck in a car then that 4 hours is gone forever. And I have to say that I am absolutely amazed that it takes 2 hours to travel 18 miles - by itself that is a condemnation of the mess society has got itself into.

And why not use a bicycle? You could certainly cycle 18 miles in much less than 2 hours, keeping yourself fit into the bargain as well as reducing carbon emissions and congestion.

"Well, I live in Seattle, but I do NEED a car. You see, I'm a computer technician and I need the car for my job. While I KNOW that technically, I don't need a car if I live and work in Seattle, I need one because I work nearly 18 miles south of Seattle and the "commute" to work is nearly two hours.

So I don't subscribe to this "It's the driver's fault" drivel. It's the automakers fault for not designing fuel-efficient, environmentally correct vehicles. If the only choices you have for a car are that "gas-guzzler#1 sedan and global warming causing SUV, then what else can you do besides becoming an advocate for making better cars."

Use the train then with the bike as well.

It's too bad most women are so obsessed with the wealth, power, and status of their mates. This forces men to work toward growing unsustainable enterprises so that they can afford signifiers (cars, houses, gems, etc) to attract and retain mates. In reality most men would be happiest lounging in their unwashed underwear and fishing.

Women of the world wake up! You are coercing men into ruining the planet!

Sorry to the Phoenecian - it's way to late for that "young growing city" ... Phoenix is so sprawling that it'll take 100 years to fix the problem - if people put their minds to it, which I ain't counting on!

Blame Game.

Drive less, drive efficiently. When everyone is on the same page, we can move forward.

Sigh...I don't even know if I have the energy to respond to this effectively.

All I can say is that people who advocate use of mass transit for all without thinking twice are those that assume every place on the earth has reliable and affordable systems in place.

Not all nations and cities are built the same. There are places where we must drive to work, to get food, to get to the hospital.

Those of you that believe that our society would be better off if cars had never been invented are being supremely naive. Whether you choose to accept it or not, being able to travel and reach places we may otherwise never have visited in our lifetime has allowed us to communicate, learn and advance rapidly.

I enjoy mass transit myself and love taking the bus to work or to nearby cities. I also love riding my bike. But I don't expect others to give up what they do simply because I think I'm right. I would never take the kind of tone that some people here do with those that depend on cars.

You have no idea what kind of socioeconomic situation that person is in. You have no idea what kind of level of fitness they are in, and if they are capable of riding 18 miles on a bike. You have no idea what kind of market they are in and whether there are jobs in their field close to home.

In short, stop being ***holes to people that don't do the same as you. Simply because you are overly idealistic and on a high horse doesn't mean that your one-size-fits-all solution of not driving at all will work for everyone.

"It's too bad most women are so obsessed with the wealth, power, and status of their mates. This forces men to work toward growing unsustainable enterprises so that they can afford signifiers (cars, houses, gems, etc) to attract and retain mates."

Just because a significant feature of personal ads placed by women are demands for proof of houses, cars, and jobs doesn't mean they think these things are important. After all once you've proved you've got the goods many women will ask you to give some of them up to improve the survival of their offspring.

So even though you might have to HAVE a car there is no rule that says that you have to DRIVE it. So guys, get on that bike; it will improve your profile and make those reproductive parts go numb. You'll win either way.

All I can say is that people who advocate use of mass transit for all without thinking twice are those that assume every place on the earth has reliable and affordable systems in place.

No one is responsible for people making their own bad choices about where to live. Saying one "needs" a car or that one "can't live near" work is merely an expression of taste, not necessity or impossibility. Trotting out strawmen like 18 mile bike commutes and 1,000 pound people who can't walk is ridiculous.

The human race survived quite well for its entire history up to the 100 or so years of the existence of automobiles. It's patently absurd to assert that somehow we need cars.

brennan, brennan, brennan,

Boy does someone have some issues to deal with or what! First off, if by "most" women you are referring to the media enforced stereotype then you should maybe turn off your TV and actually meet some real people. I'm not saying those women don't exist, they do, along with men who are cut from the same cloth. But I, and all the women in my circle of friends are not 'obsessed' with status grabbing or 'coercing' our man into 'working toward growing unsustainable enterprises'. Women are not bad for the environment! Maybe it is really you who are obsessed with obtaining a high-maintenance women but don't have the ambition to get out of your 'unwashed underwear'? Just a thought...

"No one is responsible for people making their own bad choices about where to live. Saying one "needs" a car or that one "can't live near" work is merely an expression of taste, not necessity or impossibility."

Your credibility flew out the window as soon as you sat down to type the first sentence.

Is that what you would tell someone who grew up in a poor part of town in a low income family and is struggling to make ends meet?

I bet you wouldn't even make it through the first sentence without getting punched in the face.

You're an idiot and probably grew up having everything handed to you. I doubt you even have any idea what it is to want so badly to move somewhere you would LOVE to live, but don't have the means to.

I seriously cannot believe some people on TreeHugger. You would *think* half the people here have a brain and can think rationally, but most of what I see is senseless ranting.

No wonder the general public doesn't trust environmentally conscious people. It's because of idiots like yourselves that only think in extremes and give the rest of us trying to make a difference a bad rap.

Is that what you would tell someone who grew up in a poor part of town in a low income family and is struggling to make ends meet?

And how does being poor entitle them to consume non-renewable resources and output pollution more than anyone else?

You're an idiot

Thank you for that incredibly insightful comment. I'm sure everyone here will immediately change their worldview and go out an buy a Hummer H3. Fantastic argument.

"punched in the face"
"you're an idiot"
"grew up having everything handed to you"
"the general public doesn't trust environmentally conscious people"
"idiots like yourselves (sic)"
"only think in extremes"

Bravo. There wasn't a single actual argument in that whole thing -- just teenage-level outbursts.

Would you now please prove how it is impossible to live near a workplace for a specifc person? Before you do so, please review the meaning of the word "impossible."

Sinec you've already failed to make a rational comment the first time around, my prediction is that you're simply frustrated by the fact that you can't prove such a thing.

"And how does being poor entitle them to consume non-renewable resources and output pollution more than anyone else?"

Careful, buddy. You're basically saying here that poor peoples' lives and livelihoods are less important than eliminating their usage of resources and output of pollution. Are we willing to work to make this world a better, cleaner place, by building coalitions with EVERYONE, and working together so that we can get to a place where we can all be comfortable enough to have that choice? Or will you simply complain about it, and secretly wish for mass sterilization?
That's clearly an extreme generalization. But I feel like there's some truth in it. Not everyone has the ability to relocate to a more sustainable community: People eat at McDonalds because they can afford it, and people drive to work because they can't afford the housing costs of living in the high-cost areas where the jobs are.
Our job, as the more fortunate members of society, is to work to give those people those choices.

Would you now please prove how it is impossible to live near a workplace for a specifc person? Before you do so, please review the meaning of the word "impossible."

No Problem my friend. I didn't write it but I work for a company in an area that does not pay me sufficiantly to live close. The closest affordable housing is 40 miles away. I am forced by this to commute. And no I do not own a Hummer. I drive an old Mini van which can fit my family. I can only aford one car and Mi has no Public transit to speak of. It is after all the Motor City, you must have a motor here.
Thus I am leaving the state for better conditions out West. and I hope a better Job.

Careful, buddy.

You're not my buddy, sonny.

You're basically saying here that poor peoples' lives and livelihoods are less important than eliminating their usage of resources and output of pollution. Are we willing to work to make this world a better, cleaner place, by building coalitions with EVERYONE, and working together so that we can get to a place where we can all be comfortable enough to have that choice?

I'm saying that trying to get one's self out of poverty is not an excuse to make the environmental problem worse.

Or will you simply complain about it, and secretly wish for mass sterilization?

Oh that's very clever. That's *exactly* what I want. Can we start with you?

No Problem my friend. I didn't write it but I work for a company in an area that does not pay me sufficiantly to live close. The closest affordable housing is 40 miles away. I am forced by this to commute. And no I do not own a Hummer. I drive an old Mini van which can fit my family. I can only aford one car and Mi has no Public transit to speak of. It is after all the Motor City, you must have a motor here. Thus I am leaving the state for better conditions out West. and I hope a better Job.

Like I thought - you don't understand what the word "impossible" means. I guarantee me if you told me where the company is, I could find a place for you to live that you could afford. The problem always lies with what one considers "appropriate" housing. When people say "affordable," they almost always mean "affordable for a big house with a big yard and safe schools and yada yada."

i agree with the first poster... indianapolis has a horrible public transportation system. I work for an apartment complex and live there too, so i can walk to work. but other than this scenario, it is very hard for people living here to go without cars