Thank you! I read that column on the way home from work - on the bus! I'm 36 and have never had a driver's license, and I've lived in Seattle for 15 years. Do I "mooch" rides? Sure, occasionally. It's mostly from friends who are already headed to Ikea, or Whole Foods, or to Home Depot and ask if I need anything/want to go. They're already going there; I just create a carpool. Occasionally I get a ride taking my dog to the vet - but usually I take her on the bus. Pretty negligible impact.

What bugs me most about the article, though, is the abuse of a metaphor. A non-driver who occasionally "mooches" a ride is not the same as a smoker who never buys a pack of their own. Perhaps if the carless individual constantly borrowed others' cars without filling up the tank that would be an appropriate analogy, but as it stands, it's just lame.

I don't think Knute Berger lives on the Eastside anymore.
Which makes his column sillier and sadder.

I own a 1991 Toyota Camry. I walk to work. I walk downtown a lot. So, I don't drive the car too often. 10 x a month, max?

I wish I owned a bike. But I'm a complete klutz, and I would hurt myself.

I wish Seattle had rapid mass transit.

I've lived in Seattle city limits since 2000 and have never commuted...that is until June 19th when I have to go to Bellevue everyday. I will drive to work, I am sorry, but I am not taking 2-3 busses to get from my house to Bellevue. Am I a bad person? No, I don't think so, I support mass transit and avoiding driving if possible, but I am not willing to spend that many hours on a bus when I can get to work so much quicker driving (not to mention the added benefit of being able to sing in my car - not something I'd want to subject everyone on a bus to have to listen to!).

And while I think Knute Berger is generally out of touch and afraid of change - I think he has a point. People are resistant to change, and even more so when they feel others look at them as inferior. My big problem with the left is there is a subset of enviromentalists that are essentially the left wing equivalent of the Christian Right. They are right, they KNOW it and they don't mind looking down on those who they consider beneath them or using the gov't to force people to change/prevent certain behaviors. Eventhough I agree that driving is bad for the enviroment, I refuse to give in to those lunatics that give the left a bad name.

Dave

I have a car, but I take the bus to work. However, if I'm going to a show at El Corazon, the funhouse, or the crocodile, I have no choice but to drive since the bus doesn't run in a timely manner at 2am.

I wish we had 24 hr mass transit.

I moved to Seattle in 1999 after driving 80k+ miles during 3 years in CA (age 16-19). In 6 years since then I have probably gotten less than 20 rides (all offered, not mooched) within the city, but have arrived everywhere I wanted to be.

As far as leaving my neighborhood for things I need, I've always had everything within walking distance while living in the UD, Wallingford, Capitol Hill, Madison Valley and now Beacon Hill.

Except hardware stores. Are they only in the UD and the Home Depot on 1st? Market Time on 15th has done it every time in the pinches, but always by just barely.

Dave,

The big difference between the religious right and environmentalists (and admittedly, both groups are annoying) is this: Environmentalists talk about science and tangible results. The religious right is in goofasaurus land.

It's one thing to be lectured on the benefits that smart growth and orgnanic farming have on the environment. It's quite another to be told that what you do in your bedroom is anybody else's business.

Got to sing in my car dude! Watch out elitist liberals! 3 tons of steel plus me everywhere I go! La de la la!

But I only sing in my car because I'm worried about my social standing. Because of girls' vaginas and boobs.

Josh,

That is a very good point...nonetheless, I have a visceral reaction to other people telling me how I need to live. Maybe it isn't a fair reaction, but I think it is a natural reaction. If you can and want to live in a city, not own a car and travel everywhere by transit - GREAT, I applaud you...but the reality is for many people, that just doesn't work and that shouldn't be a reflection on the individuals themselves.

I think if everyone lived by the rule "Don't tell me what to do, I won't tell you what to do" we'd be so much better off. I don't really care so much if someone hates me or what I stand for as long as they keep it to themselves.

Dave,

Again...I agree, lectures are annoying.
But what we do to the environment has an effect on other people. So, they kinda have a right to weigh in on our behavior, no?

However, if a fundie is telling you that you can't have sex w the person you're in love with because it's against the fundie's religion, well yeah, the fundie is out of line.

Dave,

If you have a "have a visceral reaction to other people telling [you] how [you] need to live," I suggest that you go live in a society that exists without 1) a state that collects taxes and spends money; 2) families led by parents; 3) religion; or 4) ethnic or tribal affiliations.

My take on Berger's article was "What is his point?" Yes, it's tough to live in our society without a car. Next brilliant profound insight, Mr. Kill-the-Monorail-So-I-can-complain-about lack-of-transit?

But characterizing as "moochers" people who try to live without one was silly and worse as it casts aspersions on people who are sincerely experimenting.

Btw, from a journalism-as-business POV, isn't it odd that the Weekly doesn't have its own blog and that we are discussing one of its articles here on this site -- and making money for the Stranger, not the Weekly.

Ditto David Sucher. Pointless article. Can't believe it's gotten people this up-in-arms.

DOUG (18 months carless)

I lived in Seattle sans auto for about ten years, and would occasionally ask friends for rides. It was almost as much a social excuse to get together as a favor, as I'd usually spring for lunch or dinner in return.

Eventually, The Job required getting a car, which I still seldom use. But I'm generally willing to help out carless friends.

Except if it involves driving to the East side. Hate the East side. Why anyone can't restructure their lives to avoid it is beyond me. :(

Just to chime in here late ... I'd have to take issue with Annie's statement that "it's not hard to live in Seattle without a car" and qualify it by saying that that probably depends on where and how you're living. If you live in an apartment on Capitol Hill and work on Cap. Hill, well, sure, you've got pretty much everything you need there, and busing, etc. is easy enough to do.

But if you don't live within a dozen blocks of your doctor and dentist and bars (as a lot of people don't), and, more significantly, if you own a house, it's a real challenge. There's a lot of upkeep required in owning a home, not all of which requires a vehicle, but much does. It's simply impractical/impossible to try to hop on a bus with armfuls of rebar or two-by-fours or bags of concrete, or to think you can borrow a friend's car every time you need to head to Lowe's.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all pro-public transit (I bus/walk the 24 blocks to work every day), and I agree that far too many people drive who don't need to. But I also think it's presumptuous to say that just because you're able to live easily without a car -- and I'm assuming that's because you live in a place where everything is relatively close and you rarely have to haul anything you can't carry -- everyone else should also be able to.

I've lived in Seattle since 1989 and the bus service has gone downhill since then, while my old abode of Vancouver BC has SkyTrain elevated light rail expanded everywhere, twice the bus service, and exceeded the Kyoto accords at a level that makes the UW look like pikers (and they're ahead of the rest of Seattle).

If I drive, it's cause i can't get there by bus, but I think I'm something like 21st in the WalkIn competition at the UW ... and I'm 46.

oh, and my 1996 Saturn has only 40,000 miles - two-thirds of that from going to and from Burning Man or Santa Barbara ...

Mooching rides is an ideal way to handle the problems of pollution and the ever-increasing cost of gas. More people should do it. If one person in a group of friends owns a car, then those friends should carpool to get to work, run errands, etc.

I don't have heart to read a seattle weekly article, but I'm sure it was stupid. I also think Knute almost hit me last week on 1st. Big guy in a Subaru?

For those of you saying "sure, it's great if you can get by without a car, but it's not easy for everyone," that is completely true, but it's the opposite of what Berger was saying in his article. He was pretty much saying there's something wrong with people who even attempt to live without a car, and they're really just being self-righteous and making life harder for their friends.

Right, Levislade -- I was responding to Annie's and Erica's posts, which talk rather naively about how easy it is to live in Seattle without a car, rather than to the Berger article, which doesn't seem worth my time.

Gotcha.

And you're right, it's not worth your time. It's not worth the bytes it's made up of, or the pixels on your screen.

No one should comment on this article without reading it. Read it. Knute comes off as (admittedly) fat and lazy.

You can say that it's hard to go without a car where you live, but nobody forces you to live there.

This is the email I sent to Knute this morning:

Dear Mr. Berger,
I read your article "Seattle's Bold Bioneers". I found it pointless and trite. Having lived in Seattle 33 years and never owned a car, I learned that I am apparently a 'mooching bionaut' who is really just a hypocrite. But now, I will go out this weekend and buy a car, so that I can enjoy the luxurious convenience of driving everywhere I want while polluting the environment, and hopefully, just maybe, I'll be on the same road as you, and make your commute just a little bit longer. Then you can sit in traffic in smug satisfaction at having taken a giant step in putting a stop to all this carless madness.
Sincerely,
Seattle Bionaut

"You can say that it's hard to go without a car where you live, but nobody forces you to live there."

This is such a painfully ignorant comment that I don't know whether to even bother addressing it. But here goes: Plenty of people do not have the choice (for financial reasons) to live in a place like Capitol Hill. Not everyone can afford to live where everything's within walking or easy busing distance. Implying that the poor family of four living in South Rainier Beach and driving a car is worthy of criticism because they "choose" to live there instead of on Capitol Hill is classist and idiotic.

Superfurry: I think you overestimate the cost of renting on Capitol Hill. I'm paying $350 for a tiny room in a large house I share with 2 others, but I admit that's unusually low. If you're single or a couple - no kids - it's not hard to find a great place on the hill for 500-800. Maybe pricier than elsewhere in town, but after you take into account the cost of car insurance, gas, and maintenance - probably about $200-$300/month on average - the cost of rent is more than offset. And of course I'm much more inclined to give a working class family some slack on their income/lifestyle balance than a fatcat editorial columnist. No excuses there, sorry.

The bottom line is, the more we use cars for getting around - and this goes for all of us, not just sneered-upon hipsters on the Hill - the more we have no choice but to use cars. The Hill is not the only place to live close to a neighborhood grocery store.

Seattle Weakly is racist and anti-semitic. Seattle Weakly is pro car. Stranger writers and readers never drive cars and are better than other people.

Hijacked, you're kind of making my point for me -- I agree that living in an urban center that has great public transportation and in which everything's walkable is perfect for young, unattached folks who don't mind living in tight spaces (as you seem not to). But a lot of people, no, I'll go out on a limb and say most people, hope eventually to own a home, start a family, etc. Sure, there are exceptions and there are people who want nothing more than to buy a condo in downtown or on Cap. Hill and stay childless, but for most people, homeownership is a goal. And it's pretty clear that homeownership is unaffordable in precisely those urban centers that have good public transit or are walkable (Cap. Hill, Fremont, name your neighborhood).

I completely agree that driving less is a good idea for everyone (though I think certain people have fewer choices there than others, depending on where they live), but I think it's a naive oversimplification when Annie says "it's not hard to live in Seattle without a car."

And just to clarify -- I'm not sneering at "hipsters on the Hill," I'm critiquing those who criticize others for driving cars, while not realizing that it's their own personal situation (age, income, relative unattachedness) that makes not driving feasible.

Flying uses as much gas as driving. We must ALL stop using airplanes too. Even one flight a year contributes to global warming.

Giving up you car is not enough. We must all do everything we can to save the planet.

I now want to carry tomatoes with me for the sole purpose of spiking one off of Knute Berger's face if I ever see him in person.

Superfurry: I think we agree more than we disagree. I admit, if I had kids, I'd probably have a car, might be paying off a mortgage, and therefore probably could no longer afford to live on the Hill. But I'd want to make sure to live in a place where I could take the kids out walking around the block to the neighborhood grocery store, a place where they could ride their bikes to a local park & pick up some ice cream on their way home. Any place where kids grow up without the opportunity for these experiences - any place so inhumanly designed as to be unwalkable, as many "affordable" suburbs are - can and should be avoided (or altered back into humanity) by all. When did the expectation for all to live in health, comfort and civility become classist?

I'd like to shoot a load in Berger's eye.

That fucker can kiss my greasy chode.

Yeah, Hijacked, I'm with ya, though I think places you describe as "inhumanly designed" are a lot more widespread than you think. I'm not talking gated communities or suburbs; try driving down Rainier and into the neighborhoods just east of Beacon Hill. You can't get anywhere (park, grocery store, bar, library) without driving. And a lot of the people living there -- most, I'd argue -- aren't living there because they want to be far from all that stuff.

Having the expectation you describe ain't classist -- the assumption Christopher made, that people who don't live in a place where they can walk to everything are doing so by choice, is classist.

Buy this car to drive to work!
Drive to work to pay for this car!

WF,

I am not a libertarian/anarchist. I believe there is a role for government in our society and I have no problem with paying taxes. I do, however, have a severe problem with the gov't or others interfering in my personal decisions though.

Josh,

Yes, people who are concerned with the environment have a right to get the info out there about how driving is bad,etc. But, ultimately, that is it -it should be up to individuals to take the information presented and be left to make their own decisions on whether to drive based upon that info. You may not agree with the end decision, but you had your input and that's really all you can do.

As I believe Dan Savage wrote in an article a while back - people in NY don't take the subway because it's good for them (or the environment), they take it because it's more convenient than driving. Until Seattle gets a transit system that is more convenient than hopping into our cars - most of us will continue to drive and I don't think you can blame us.