Interesting one, this one.
There IS far too much "trivial" car use - i.e. journeys for the sake of it because you have a car, where you could make do without that journey or at least with a much shorter journey if you didn't have that car.
However, there are things for which cars are essential. We could not, for example, manage our woods without a motorised vehicle (and quite a heavy one at that). We have to lug equipment back and forth from the house to the woods e.g. generators, large brush-cutters plus the petrol for them, chainsaws and so on. We do leave some things e.g. the tractor, in the barn, but we can't leave very portable equipment there because of scrotes who try and break in and steal stuff. We cannot transport this equipment by bicycle, it is just too heavy, and it would not be possible to stack it safely.
I dissagree with that.
All this heavy equipment is just machinary which does the work that a team of workers can do. How did the Romans manage?
The machinary is just there to make our lives more convenient and easier. But we lived for a long time before we had these machines. Instead of buying or hiring equipment, you could hire a workforce. My guess is that you are doing what you think works best for you. There are alternatives and they are possible.
Carrying Nordic Walking poles?
I can carry more weight than I can lift in one go, on my trailer. I reckon I could handle a good number of Nordic Walking poles.
Sure, I can see the benefits of cars.
But please don't go thinking that difficult or time consuming equates to impossible or undesirable.
We can live without cars. But they
are usefull and can make our lives better, so in seriousness, I wouldn't want to abolish them altogether.
Where there's a will, there just might be a way.
