Some have responded to the claim that the use of a car is necessary in suburbia -- if one really wanted to, one could get by on public transportation or a bike. Here in the South Bay, the use of either is very convenient if one is travelling long distances. Even trips over short distances can be time-consuming, since buses are not very frequent. Environmentalists might claim, "The time spent on alternative modes of transportation is worth it?" After all, it's good for environmental reasons, or as a form of witness to a car-independent lifestyle. Would these people be so callous as to say, "The poor need to make do with what they have," or, "No one is entitlted to the use of a car"? Certainly that are Republicans who have no qualms over saying these things.

But should not the time be spent on other more worth pursuits, leisure or religion? The car is a convenience, but it is a convenience that is made necessary by the fact that our living arrangements are so inconvenient, and often our family and friends are spread all over a region, not within the city limits. Are those who argue against the necessity of a car not claiming, in effect, that the poor have no "right" to leisure, or the pursuit of a more humane way of life?