Environmentalism and parenting

[pegkerr]

I have friended the bikepirates community. It's been interesting: this is (I gather) a rather younger group--I feel like quite the old fart, being in my forties and all. I joined to pick up information about this bicycling thang, but there is an attitude vibe there, too, which can be a bit rough to take.

For example, someone made a post here advertising a new community, carfreepirates. Which is cool. One of the commenters, however, said something that sticks in my craw:

FYI - there used to be a non_drivers community, but it dissappeared for mysterious reasons.

I've joined up, since I'm car free and sometimes I need a little morale boost, since no one *with* a car, really gets it, even though they also don't understand how I can stay in such good shape and I'm not stressed out and road raged all the time.

I replied:

I HAVE to have a car since I have kids to transport, and there is no bus to where I need to go. I could hardly balance both of them (and their karate sparring gear) on my handlebars.

But I ride my bicycle to work.

For what it's worth, I wasn't the only person to challenge the original commenter. I feel as though I'm doing my part by starting to bicycle. But I've seen this before, this smug dismissal of my selfishness for driving a big car (I have an old jeep with 140,000+ miles). We all hear environmentalists railing against people who drive SUVs. Yes, I guess I'm defensive about it. And yet, really, with two kids that I'm taking four times a week to karate class (with huge duffel bags stuffed with sparring equipment) what else can I do?

I want to reduce my environmental footprint. But please consider: when you're a parent, and you have to get kids to activities and back and forth from day care, bussing usually doesn't work. And bicycling is not an option either.

Bottom line: Please don't assume I'm selfish because I drive a car. I drive a car because I'm a parent.

But I'm also an environmentalist because I'm a parent.

Edited to add: Today is a classic example. I drove today. Why? Because of the snow (argh)? No. Because Delia has a doctor's appointment. I have to leave work, drive to her school to pick her up, drive her to the doctor, and then get her home. This trip would be absolutely impossible by either mass transit or bicycle.

And *snerk* Someone has replied to the original poster (who headed the post with the tagline "Every car a murder, every bike a love affair"): "How do you think all those bike parts get to the shops? It's not magic, that's for sure."

Comments

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I entirely agree that where you live and with the committments you have you need a car, and also that it's very cool that you can cycle to work, and their attitude is irritating.

However, I want to take issue with the cars are inevitable consequences of kids thing.

Cars are inevitable consequences of suburbs.

I have never driven and am a parent -- but I have made choices about where to live and work that take not having a car into account. And Z goes off on the bus with his sh'nai and his kit quite happily. There is a bus, because I chose to live where there is. I can't cycle or drive or even walk very far, so I need there to be.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Mmm hmm.

I do live within the city limits, btw, not a suburb. My commute to the heart of downtown is five miles.

But the bus system (which I have used extensively, including when Fiona was a baby and then a toddler) is very frustrating. Basically, in order to go anywhere, you have to go downtown first, and then back out. There are not nearly enough cross-town routes.

[naomikritzer]

I will vouch for Peg living in an honest-to-God densely populated city neighborhood. Ed jokes that we live in the suburbs, by which he means outside of downtown itself. (He grew up near Boston, where the core city is much more densely populated than any part of Minneapolis.

I was thinking a bit today -- while driving -- about the choices I make, and when I drive and why, and what choices I would have been forced to make if I couldn't drive. We've talked about going down to one car, because Ed can take the light rail to work, and frequently does. The train stops literally right outside his building; it's very convenient. Some days, however, he has to go to off-site meetings, and they simply assume that everyone has a car and can arrange to drive over. In a society where cars were less of a given, that would not be the assumption; the office would provide a van, or loaner cars, or a teleconferencing room, or something. We may go down to one car anyway, and plan on him calling a taxi occasionally to get to where he needs to go; the amount we won't be spending on a second car, insurance, gas, etc., will buy a heck of a lot of taxi rides. But it's funny the way employers will just assume you can get places, even if the job description does not say "must have own car" anywhere in it.