Owning a vehicle is a luxury.

[maxman]

So I have a leaking gas tank and a problem with the evap sensor (or some component in that system) as well as a driver's side window switch that needs repair.

I pop it into the shop and get a quote.
Waaaaaaay more than I was expecting (what was I expecting anyway??)

I can't drive around with a leaking gas tank and the evap problem should be fixed too.
The driver's side window switch affects my drive thru food intake so that one has to be fixed ASAP.

Owing a car is a pain in the rump. I mean look at the trouble I have. Way more than I can afford, I can't buy any more frags, pens or shaving gear. I might even have to part with some of my treasured goods (that I don't use anymore anyway) to make up part of the cost.

Wait a minute. Hold up here. Put this on pause.

Am I really complaining about owning a car?

I am incredibly fortunate that I could afford to purchase a car in the first place.
Paying the cost to keep it running is part of it.

I only complained about the cost of these repairs once to my friend who gave me a stern look and with much disdain said:
"Check your head. Owning a car is a luxury. That is such a first world problem. "

He's right. Yes I did complain. But you know what? I'm lucky. Darn lucky to have the ability to own a car, put gas in it and do the necessary repairs (yay credit cards!)

We actually own 2 cars. A minivan for my wife to pile kids and groceries in and a little cheap car for me to drive.

He's right. It totally is a "first world problem"

[maxman]

ahhhh dang it. I posted to the wrong forum. Can this get moved?
I'll PM a steward.
Silly me.

[Vivasanti]

2 cars
1 kid

most expensive things i own.

[Rob72]

Its been attributed to Leonid Brezhnev, "America is the only country in the world where the "poor" drive to protest their poverty in their own automobiles...":001_smile

[jkingrph]

Over the years I have spent more on vehicles than on the house. Currently all are paid for, house , car and truck. I usually spend more annually on vehicle maintance and repair than on the house.

Down here where I live and the way I am currently working a vehicle is a necessity not a luxury.

[Gingerbread]

I hate driving. I just live too far away from things to ride my bicycle every day.

[Bejaar]

I agree. There is a difference between a necessity and a luxury. Lugging around groceries and the family in one of these is definitely a necessity (facetious tone):
http://www.f650pickups.com/whitexuv.jpg

Anyhow, I just recently begun riding the old bicycle to work to try and cut down and gas costs and extra repair expenditures. There are solutions out there, but sometimes it requires sacrifice. Actually, I need the extra exercise. To each his own.

[ShaveThis]

Oh wrong forum. That explains it.
I was reading the whole thing waiting for the shaving part.:lol:

[M80]

In 1980 the Third World accounted for only 18 percent of global vehicle ownership; by 2020, about half of the world's projected 1.3 billion cars, trucks and buses - along with several hundred million motorbikes and scooters - will clog the streets and alleys of poorer countries.

The World Health Organization considers traffic to be one of the worst health hazards facing the urban poor, and predicts that road accidents by 2020 will be the third leading cause of death.

Around three-quarters of all traffic accidents now occur in the Third World.


Not just a first world problem. not at all.

[Legion]

I crashed my car a few months ago, and then found out my insurance was not it order. Long story short, all my money went to fixing the other peoples car and I have been on public transport or my bicycle since then. It could be worse though. The public transport where I live is not so bad, and it is not like it snows in winter. SWMBO still has her car for when we both need to go somewhere.

Although it is sometimes inconvenient, most people in cities can get by without a car.

[jd_1138]

Repairs and maintenance are a lot cheaper than a car payment. Just think -- sure it might cost $500-$1000 or so every year in repair and maintenance costs, but that beats paying $4000 a year in car payments. If you change the oil regularly, auto tranny fluid, tune up, belts and hoses, filters, etc., a car can last 300,000 kilometers on the original block and head.

[tattewell]

2 cars 4 motorcycles...

only 1 driver.

I would ask what the car is with all these problems, but thats a whole different topic...

[Edcculus]

One of my dreams is living and working in a city where I don't have to own a car.

[jd_1138]

One of my dreams is living and working in a city where I don't have to own a car.

Oil co's helped to kill off street cars. Up until like the 1940's, most cities had electric street cars. If you needed to get to work in downtown, you hopped on a trolley and rode it to downtown. Sure, you may have had to arrive there 20 minutes early, but it beats messing with buying and maintaining and parking a car.

[COHunter]

Oil co's helped to kill off street cars. Up until like the 1940's, most cities had electric street cars. If you needed to get to work in downtown, you hopped on a trolley and rode it to downtown. Sure, you may have had to arrive there 20 minutes early, but it beats messing with buying and maintaining and parking a car.

Oil companies didn't force people after WWII to move out of cities and into the suburban areas where a commute in a vehicle to get to work in an urban area became a necessary part of the day. People did that. People want individual freedom and part of that feeling is being in control of your very own vehicle for transportation, not some nefarious plan by a phantom "evil" corporation.

[fortcon]

Oil companies didn't force people after WWII to move out of cities and into the suburban areas where a commute in a vehicle to get to work in an urban area became a necessary part of the day. People did that. People want individual freedom and part of that feeling is being in control of your very own vehicle for transportation, not some nefarious plan by a phantom "evil" corporation.

I agree. People had the opportunity to take control of their transportation, and who can blame them for wanting to? My little pickup can be a pain, but I'll never complain because I can go where I want, when I want (if I can afford gas), and that's pretty awesome. But, as Uncle Ben said, "with great power comes great responsibility." Those of us that own vehicles have the privilege and responsibility to own them. That means knowing you'll pay an arm and a leg (and your first-born) for gas, paying mechanics exorbitant amounts to fix your machine. Don't like it? Drive less, do your own vehicle maintenance. I agree with the starter of the post, what a first-world problem.

[jwcarlson]

One of my dreams is living and working in a city where I don't have to own a car.

Y u c k.

You won't have any competition from me!

Re: Cars... learn to do some of the work yourself. It's not rocket science, it's good knowledge, and it will save you a ton of money in the long run.

[Doc4]

Re: Cars... learn to do some of the work yourself. It's not rocket science ...


... well ...

http://safetycompass.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/jetsons_car.jpg

[jd_1138]

Oil companies didn't force people after WWII to move out of cities and into the suburban areas where a commute in a vehicle to get to work in an urban area became a necessary part of the day. People did that. People want individual freedom and part of that feeling is being in control of your very own vehicle for transportation, not some nefarious plan by a phantom "evil" corporation.

The trollies did go out to the suburbs of that era. And the oil co's did do some shady things to help put an end to that. Sure, today's suburbs are larger and further away, but who's to say that the trolley lines wouldn't have grown too. It's not just that people moved out of the range of trollies. The suburbs were in the range of the trollies at that time. It would take a full length book to fully discuss urban planning and trollies and such. And of course every city was different. But it would not be accurate to simply blame it on people moving out to the suburbs, But that probably did play somewhat of a role in the trolly's demise -- the ever increasing distance between where people live and work. Complex issue. A forum post or two can't fully discuss it.

[tchudson]

Definitely a luxury. I put my Tacoma on it's side a couple of weeks ago and have been griping about how, as it's over 10 years old, the insurance company might total it, even though it's completely drivable. Thankfully, they didn't total it - I love my truck and it's paid for. We're fortunate enough to have another vehicle to use AND to have the insurance to cover the repairs minus the deductible.

(Woohoo! 1000 posts!)

[COHunter]

The trollies did go out to the suburbs of that era. And the oil co's did do some shady things to help put an end to that. Sure, today's suburbs are larger and further away, but who's to say that the trolley lines wouldn't have grown too. It's not just that people moved out of the range of trollies. The suburbs were in the range of the trollies at that time. It would take a full length book to fully discuss urban planning and trollies and such. And of course every city was different. But it would not be accurate to simply blame it on people moving out to the suburbs, But that probably did play somewhat of a role in the trolly's demise -- the ever increasing distance between where people live and work. Complex issue. A forum post or two can't fully discuss it.

I see where you're trying to make your point, and true, even today for example where I live I could use mass transit of some kind. I won't because it's a lot less convenient and I'm subject to someone else's schedule. I also know that I'm far from alone in that respect. It's like saying large box retailers are the ones responsible for putting the smaller businesses out. It's not. It's people and the decisions they make that do. It's also too simplistic and unsupported that the oil companies put the poor trollies out of business. It's not a good vs. evil proposition, I could argue that the trollies are forcing me to shed the freedom drive to work and therefore they're "shady" and will do whatever it takes to make sure I conform to their corporate ways and use electric powered meat wagons provided by their friends at the coal mine....

[scottish steve]

Good public transport is the hallmark of a civilised society. When you've got clean, fast trams arriving every 8 minutes or a 3 minute subway service, it's a pleasure to get around unencumbered by a car. Rural areas are more difficult, but applying market forces to something as fundamental as this is missing the point.
I only hope Cohunter was being ironic.

[COHunter]

Good public transport is the hallmark of a civilised society. When you've got clean, fast trams arriving every 8 minutes or a 3 minute subway service, it's a pleasure to get around unencumbered by a car. Rural areas are more difficult, but applying market forces to something as fundamental as this is missing the point.
I only hope Cohunter was being ironic.

Hate to dash your hope. Not being ironic and I would disagree that public transport is the "hallmark" of a civilized society seems a bit lofty of a post for transportation. I'm not saying having mass transit is a bad thing, and if you want to use it, then you pay for it. (market driven supply and demand) I just don't agree with stripping individual freedom and leave people no alternative to public transportation (or anything else for that matter). Market forces drive almost every facet of society since people make up that market, unless that is prohibited by some other source i.e. government interference.

[scottish steve]

How can a good public transport system "strip individual freedom"? Who suggested banning cars?
In my opinion this should have nothing to do with market forces.
Do you believe that "government" automatically means "interference"?
If so, get a better government!

[Go West Young Man]

Standards of living are always relative - I think in most of the US having a car IS a necessity, not a luxury.

[maxman]

Interesting views here. I guess I didn't think of all the possible angles. Well that's not surprising, I rarely do anymore.
I just found it interesting that I was complaining about something that I should have been grateful for.

I can get away without my car, but it would be inconvenient to do so.
Thus I consider myself lucky.

[jd_1138]

How can a good public transport system "strip individual freedom"? Who suggested banning cars?
In my opinion this should have nothing to do with market forces.
Do you believe that "government" automatically means "interference"?
If so, get a better government!

I agree. A decent public transport system doesn't kill off cars or individual freedom. It may in fact make commuting in a car even better, because there'd be less cars on the road if more people had access to better mass transit systems.

[Doc4]

Some things we just can't do by "market forces". (Well, we could but it'd be a friggin' mess ... you know what I mean.)

Every great civiliseation in history has undertaken Public Works for the good of all the citizenry. A good public transportation system can and should be just such an undertaking in the modern world.

[M80]

This thread needs more monorail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSoa1b-yBUY

[COHunter]

Just to clarify a couple of points that seem to have grown legs.
Government interference- I didn't say that government=automatic interference. Just used it as an example. In many cases (like CA) the government is interfering with a mass transit sytem that is enormously expensive and doesn't have a majority of public acceptance but they're going ahead with it anyway.

Secondly the freedoms comment, I neglected to say the freedom to choose whether or not to pay for a service such as mass transit. My argument is that mass transit along with most everything else besides national defense should be managed by private enterprise and not by any sort of governmental agency.

I'm just arguing the free market side of the mass transit concept is all, if you want to use it then you can pay for it, rather than the more socialist side of it that everyone should contribute regardless of use.

[jwcarlson]

I'm just arguing the free market side of the mass transit concept is all, if you want to use it then you can pay for it, rather than the more socialist side of it that everyone should contribute regardless of use.

Ding ding. If I'm helping pay for public transportation that's less money that I have to pay for a car. Driving me to use certain products via government interference. Which is stripping me of the liberty to choose on my own or "freedom".

Now, not dragging this into the abyss, but we simply accept so much government interference in our lives our tolerance is built up. Government means interference by it's very existence. We all just vary in our tolerance of said interference.

[Illadelphia]

I think we often forget our freedom here. We are allowed to stand in front of banks and protest. If this was the middle east, we'd be jailed or worse. Life isn't easy, but nothing beats being free.

[Doc4]

Ding ding. If I'm helping pay for public transportation that's less money that I have to pay for a car. Driving me to use certain products via government interference. Which is stripping me of the liberty to choose on my own or "freedom".

Now, not dragging this into the abyss, but we simply accept so much government interference in our lives our tolerance is built up. Government means interference by it's very existence. We all just vary in our tolerance of said interference.

A friend of mine many years ago went to the Arizona/Nevada area to do some camping & hiking. He told me that the local hikers all looked at him funny, and finally in talking to one found out why ... "you can always tell a Canadian hiker, because he wears shorts on cold days." The point being, the locals were used to hot weather and a slightly cool day (say, low 80s) was "pants and jacket" weather ... but Canadians being used to cold weather ... no, really cold ... would see anything over mid-60s as a tropical heatwave.

It may seem to guys like jwcarlson that you Americans have government regulation shoved waaaay too far down your throats, but ... compared to another free democracy like Canada (I hesitate to speak for the rest of the western democracies, but I suspect it's the same) ... you guys sure seem to have a lot LESS regulation than the rest of us.

(This post is intended neither to support nor to condemn any particular level of government activity either intrusive or minimalist ... simply to remark upon the different perspectives in different parts of the free world.)