[mtrower]

> any interesting places to go to were to far away to even reach conveniently by bike.

Isn't this just a result of the country being more spread out in general? For this reason, cars are obviously useful. And because people have them... well, yes, it becomes circular. I think bikes are a pretty common thing to own in the U.S., though. Adults mostly use them for recreation, but minors definitely use them to get around. What part of the U.S. were you in? This is probably a large factor.

> as a very independent youth i considered this experience an interesting lesson on what it means to be dependent, but most certainly growing up there would have been different. i have seen other youth struggling with the sudden change when they turned 18 and were expected to act like independent adults instead of the dependent youth they were until then.

Generally in the U.S. you get your license as soon as possible (around 16), and work out whatever situation you can for a vehicle. It's true that we seem to be developing a dependency problem in the U.S., pushing maturity further and further out, but I don't think cars are the issue. Maybe in large cities; I can't really speak to the situation in those.

[em-bee]

Isn't this just a result of the country being more spread out in general?

yes, but why is that? because people chose it that way and cars supported it. yes, it is circular. it could have developed differently, only high density urban centers where you don't need cars and large swaths of empty in between. these urban centers exist. eg. new york, dc and a few others that i am not familiar with, but contrast with san diego and los angeles and many others which are spread out for no good reason.

suburbia is the name of the disease that is responsible for this problem.

bikes are a pretty common thing to own in the U.S., though. Adults mostly use them for recreation, but minors definitely use them to get around.

sure, kids bike around in the neighborhood to visit their friends, but that also counts as recreational use. they are not using them to go to school, or to the movies or for errands, because they can't. the distances are to far.

the area i am talking about was one of those bedroom communities outside of D.C. probably the worst example. there was literally nothing of interest there, except maybe forests, but i didn't know about those because i didn't have access to a map. my friend there didn't get a car until he was able to save up for one by himself. his parents weren't poor. but they weren't rich either, so he had to pay for himself. which didn't happen until he was 18.

cars absolutely are the issue because not every youth can afford them, and even if they can, getting the freedom to move around at 16 is a far cry from 10year olds who have access to public transport

[mtrower]

> yes, but why is that? because people chose it that way and cars supported it.

The country is a hell of a lot older than the automobile, and much development occurred before it. It's spread out in general because we had a lot of land compared to the number of people who were rapidly settling it.

> it could have developed differently, only high density urban centers where you don't need cars and large swaths of empty in between.

Not everyone wants to live in an urban center. I would be chronically depressed in such an environment.

> new york, dc and a few others that i am not familiar with, but contrast with san diego and los angeles

These are all huge cities --- metropolises --- (okay, DC is a bit of a weird one) and while they have large populations, I cannot consider them representative of the U.S. overall.

> the area i am talking about was one of those bedroom communities outside of D.C. probably the worst example.

Absolutely; this is not representative of the U.S.

> they are not using them to go to school, or to the movies or for errands, because they can't

Because they don't want to. This used to be different. Some decades past, it was not unusual to bike a few miles (say, less than 10) to get where you wanted to go. It was also not considered unreasonable to walk a few miles to school everyday, often over terrain that I see people in this thread calling "unwalkable". Society changed.

When I didn't have a license for several years, I biked everywhere. My maximum range for a day trip was about 35 miles. I don't do that anymore; it's just far more convenient to do that sort of thing in a car, especially, you know, when there's a foot of snow on the ground. But the way I see it, you do what you have to do.

> cars absolutely are the issue because not every youth can afford them

Yes, but in general, that means you borrow your parents' car, and save for something cheap. Something you repair and maintain yourself if you need to. Used auto prices got kind of crazy since the pandemic, but my experience growing up with decidedly non-wealthy families, is that people found a way.

One thing that is a real issue financially, is the insane premiums on mandatory auto insurance in some areas, notably New York state.

[em-bee]

we had a lot of land compared to the number of people who were rapidly settling it

that, and many people came to america to start a new life away from the oppressive landlords in europe. many were also poor, meaning that they had to provide for themselves, which is easier if you have land to grow your own food. so quite naturally people favored to be away from the cities.

but modern suburbs are not that. i can understand living in the city where the jobs are or out in the country where you grow your own food. suburbs have neither of that.

i grew up in cities and on farms growing crops and herding cows. when i lived in american suburbs i found those depressing. i have been to a few places, and while DC bedroom communities may be the worst, suburbs elsewhere were not much better. it doesn't help that in movies you see much of the same. so if those suburbs are not representative, then what is?

[mtrower]

> It doesn't help that in movies you see much of the same. so if those suburbs are not representative, then what is?

Well, I do think that Hollywood is biased towards certain demographics.

> but modern suburbs are not that. i can understand living in the city where the jobs are or out in the country where you grow your own food. suburbs have neither of that.

Many people want the city job with the space to raise kids; without the claustrophobia of the big city. Midwestern suburbs achieve that, but suburb means different things to different areas. My suburbs are not the suburbs of the coasts. Still, I would think the general logic would apply, but having not lived in such places, it is not really my place to judge. Maybe they really should just die out and be replaced.

Personally, I hate suburbs almost as much as the city; I belong in the country.

I guess, if I were to say one thing for certain: the country is large. Sweeping statements about it can be difficult to make with accuracy.