Jason Peters continues to meditate on the virtues of walking at Front Porch Republic (re: Walk, Damn It!). This week he writes about what it means to walk in the cold.
And by now this walking has become habitual enough that, if for pressing reasons I do not or cannot walk, I feel that an important part of my day is either missing or has been denied me. I feel, intellectually, the loss of walking the way I would feel, physically, the absence of caffeine, life’s most pleasant addictive substance. Deprived of my walk I am deprived of time to be alone, of time to think, to be reminded that I live in the world regardless of how sedentary and abstract my life might otherwise be—in it rather than over or across it. Without my walk I feel bereft of time and occasion to see the built and natural landscapes at human speed, from man’s eye-view.
But, more fundamentally, I am firm in my resolve to walk the mile and a half because it matters to me that I know both how the cold feels and what it means, neither of which can be known by my walking eight steps into an already warm car, driving a very short distance, and then walking a few dozen steps from my warm car to my (usually) heated building. To know what the cold feels like I must have the chance to be cold, and then the resolve to be cold, for how the cold feels is known by observation, and observation (as John Muir knew well) is impossible without a willing subjection of the self. I must feel the regions of the skin tighten, the mysterious surfaces harden. I must feel the burn of exposed flesh in the stinging wind. I must feel the hardening even of the soles of my boots, which in such weather as this lose their cushion. I must feel the many ways in which life itself becomes hard.
Even with the hardness of the cold, walking or riding a bicycle as basic transportation is still a higher quality experience than driving for me. But it’s a quality that you won’t come to know unless you allow yourself to make a commitment. After you come to know it, getting in a car becomes something to be avoided — a nasty, brutish experience best saved for when you have no other choice.
Apparently there’s another winter storm headed our way. If I drove to work I might be worried about it just as I might be worried about the price of gas, which I have again forgotten.
I may get the chance to ride today. My daughter is competing in a debate tournament at a local high school — about three miles away. The roads are clear this morning. But I’d have no problem walking that distance either.
I reject the idea that my transportation choice — burning calories instead of carbon — is a more moral or ethical choice than someone’s choice to drive a car (although I’m happy to point out the moral failings of how some people operate their cars). I mean no such implication. I’ve written before about changing the world by making quality choices for one’s self (re: Robert Pirsig). Far too many people are stuck in circumstances that make driving a necessity. They are stuck partly by their own choices, but those choices were to a large part constrained by our country’s subsidizing and promoting the automobile as the primary mode of transportation. It’s partly this recognition that prompted the 1-mile Solution (even this simple idea is not possible for some people).
And, finally, there’s no reason to confine walking and riding a bicycle to purposeful movement from point A to point B. Nothing says you can’t get out there and just do it for the simple joy of it — no matter what the weather is doing.
Comments 10
Yup
Posted 06 Feb 2010 at 8:14 pm ¶Andy wrote:
“I reject the idea that my transportation choice — burning calories instead of carbon — is a more moral or ethical choice than someone’s choice to drive a car.”
Kevin’s comment:
I disagree. Here in Toronto, the Medical Officer of Health reports that car pollution kills 440 people each year and injures 1,700 people so seriously that they have to be hospitalized.
Everyone who turns on a car engine is guilty of these deaths and injuries.
It is my belief that participating in causing mass death and injury is morally wrong. And that refusing to participate in killing and injuring people is indeed a more moral or ethical choice.
Official report may be found at:
Posted 07 Feb 2010 at 7:26 am ¶http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pdf/air_pollution_burden.pdf
Kevin… Ethics, to some extent, require the ability to make moral choices. If we all had equal choices re: driving, then I would agree with you 100 percent.
It’s easy for me to make the choice to ride and walk. I moved to within 3/4 of a mile of my office on purpose. But I have a socio-economic position in society that makes that choice possible.
I do, however, think your line of reasoning could be a good way to begin instilling new values. I think we should be pointing out, clearly and regularly, why choosing to drive is a troubling choice. And we need to back that up with the political will to help more people have more choices.
Thanks for the link. That’s very compelling information.
Posted 07 Feb 2010 at 8:59 am ¶I know people who would dearly love to have my car-light lifestyle, but they’re stuck. They bought their houses when our society was largely ignorant of the ramifications of sprawling development… when gas was cheap and it made sense to spend less money for more house and send their kids to better schools. Now the housing market has collapsed, moreso in the burbs than in town. If they could sell them at all, their houses would be worth less than something of half the square footage in the urban core.
We need viable transit. We need creative infrastructure solutions. And we need to reclaim those suburban roads for human beings.
Posted 07 Feb 2010 at 5:58 pm ¶Andy wrote:
“I have a socio-economic position in society that makes that choice possible”
Kevin’s comment:
Sorry, I’m not buying that argument. To quote from The Alliance for Biking and Walking’s 2010 Benchmarking Report:
“…the majority of people who walk to work
earn less than $15,000 per year. More than two-thirds of people who walk to work, on average, earn below $35,000 a year.”
So it doesn’t look as if one needs to be wealthy to walk to work.
Source:
http://www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/site/index.php/site/benchmarkingdownload/
Posted 08 Feb 2010 at 6:29 am ¶Kevin… Much could depend on the demographic map of an area. In Springfield, for example, 57% of the workforce work at hourly-wage jobs that pay between 4% and 29% below the national average. Most of these folks live in the N, NW, and W sections of town. Most of the big employers are in the SE section of town. Commute times, according the the U.S. census, are 25+ minutes for people in the NW section (the poorest). Further, the census shows that roughly 4% of commuters here get to work by foot or bicycle. So while it may be true that most people who walk are economically-challenged, it is not true that most who are so challenged do or can walk to work. And that’s the problem. Many of them don’t have the choice. I have a hard time wagging a moral finger at a guy making minimum wage who lives in a ratty apartment 20 miles from work.
Posted 08 Feb 2010 at 8:27 am ¶what Kerri said. I’m the biggest “city life” proponent, but life sometimes brings compromises and to work with my spouse’s desires we are in the suburbs. Now that I’m here, I like it actually. I enjoy a garden and yard, I enjoy a town lake to swim in and schools within walkable distances and being near the river that freezes and is ice skatable. All things I would not have in the city ( except maybe schools but I’d likely outsource schools ). What I need to make living hear even better is Better public transportation. I am 15 min walk from a commuter rail that takes me into downtown Boston. Hoorray- except tonight I am planning on going to the other side of Boston. I would love to take commuter rail into town- switch for a subway and be where I need to be. However the Commuter Rail runs to take people OUT of boston in the evening thus the inbound train DOES NOT stop at my stop from 2-8pm. So I will need to use a route that will take twice as long ( either long subway into city and then switch to out, or slow bus making semi circle around city.)
Posted 08 Feb 2010 at 10:21 am ¶( oh I forgot to mention the fact that to take the bus or train combo will take me about 90mins. If I were to drive it would take me 20 mins. – no one is going to opt for the car with these differences. I do b/c I hate driving more. )
Posted 08 Feb 2010 at 10:24 am ¶I mean opt for NOT using the car….
will now shut up!!
Posted 08 Feb 2010 at 10:25 am ¶Andy wrote:
“So while it may be true that most people who walk are economically-challenged, it is not true that most who are so challenged do or can walk to work.”
Kevin’s comment:
I don’t consider someone who is so wealthy that they can afford to own and operate a car to be “economically challenged.” Which I presume is a euphemism for “poor.”
And someone who is so wealthy that they can afford to own and operate a car is not poor.
Posted 09 Feb 2010 at 9:25 pm ¶