[facepalm]

You have to look for parking, deal with traffic jams (maybe buses have extra lanes, they would in the greatest bus system of the world). You don't have to focus on driving but can read. You don't need to maintain a car.

And so on.

Granted in my city we also have subways. But the question really interests me, because having to rely on a car would be a complete no go for me. So if that is (still) the case for LA, it's not the city for me.

[anigbrowl]

I know all that, because as I explained, I personally prefer using public transport. But other people have different use cases, and for many of them a car is a superior solution. I don't think you have to rely on a car to live in LA, but you're not going to enjoy it if you can't get to grips with the concept that many people do like cars, for both their utilitarian benefits and their very very obvious function as status indicators in a town built around the entertainment industry.

[facepalm]

I can of course imagine reasons why people like cars. I was just surprised by the distinction of poor people using public transport and rich people using their cars.

Actually I consider it a privilege to not need a car. I pay for it with higher rent, I suppose - living closer to the city center, and in a city big enough to have public transport to begin with.

I have no idea what LA is like, does it have things like 8 lane streets? Seem to remember hearing that years ago. That to me would look very outlandish, I don't think I have ever seen an 8 lane road.

Maybe some LAians just can't imagine how different other cities are? Maybe in LA parking space is not scarce, and neither is space on the roads (with 8 lanes). But in other cities it might be different, and the incentives for cars change, not just because of ideology but because of circumstances.

[beachstartup]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert!

[facepalm]

Prejudiced much? Anybody who doesn't drive a SUV is an annoying environmentalist in your world?