Everytime I see a post about public transportation and how cars are useless, say in Rome or Madrid or Paris or London I cannot understand the logic. OK Many people prefer Public transport for cost and probably the biggest issue (FEAR) of driving in a foreign country.

Everytime I am in Paris and ask directions I am immediately given METRO directions.

I have to tell you my wife and I (She always drives and I navigate) Have rented a car in Rio, Sao Paolo, Paris, Madrid all of Spain in Fact, Rome and the rest of Italy, Naples, New York and Countless other big cities.

I propose another point of view, although being at these destinations is certainly more important than the car, the car will provide incredible off the map experiences and freedom that you will never find in a bus.

In one day we saw the hills of tuscany, Pisa and arrived in Naples, had I not had the car Pisa would have been skipped. We visited my wives paese which my car was almost too wide to drive the road.

I could recount about a hundred events like this, we get lost each and every trip but in doing so we find amazing things.

OK if you cant afford a car fine, travel with or without a backpack, travel is the key. But please all those posters who insist on cars being a waste of time I garantee you, you have never tried it.

Are you suggesting people to rent a car to when visiting London or Paris?

And you said you rented a car to visit sites in New York City? How much do you think parking would cost for a day if you visit 2-3 parts of the city?

Be real.

We live in Europe and have used a car to drive to and from Paris and around Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, France, etc.
BUT, despite having made dozens and dozens of trips to Paris, I cannot think of a SINGLE instance in which a car was necesary to us once we had arrived. Nor do I see the need for a visitor to have a car in London. Fear of driving has nothing to do with it (after driving around the Place Louise in Brussels every day during rush hour, Paris or London streets hold no terrors)--it was simply not necessary to get anywhere we needed or wanted to go within those cities itself.

I cannot understand YOUR logic of equating a car for use IN major capital cities like London, Paris or Rome, with their vast networks of mass transit, with driving around the hills of Tuscany or smaller towns like Pisa, places that aren't served as well by mass transit.

We're taking our car with us on our fall vacation to the Austrian Tirol, Italian lakes region and eastern Bavaria. It makes sense to have a car for that itinerary. But it would NOT make sense to have a car if our travel destinations were Paris or Vienna and we had no plans to sightsee at less populated areas en route.

Lastly, I recall few posters, if any, saying cars were ALWAYS a waste of time. Who are you referring to?

oneillchris,

There are an equal number of serendipitous, off-the-map experiences interacting with the locals on the trains & buses and getting lost on foot as you recount for driving around town. Personally, I don't think having "done" a whole lot of towns in a single day counts as a reason to drive . . .

The decision whether to rent a car or take public transportation is a personal one, relating to habit, preference, fitness, luggage, schedule, number of travelers, & expectations. Trying to make that decision for another person is folly; judging someone for his/her decision is arrogance.

s

<< We visited my wives paese....>>

ALL your wives were from the same paese?

<<Many people prefer Public transport for cost and probably the biggest issue (FEAR) of driving in a foreign country.>>

True for me. I also enjoy the contact with local people that I get when I use public transportation, and in some ways find it more interesting than being isolated and sitting still in a car for long periods. Traveling by public transportation is also a slower way to travel, requiring some planning and choices, so I may stay longer in a town that I'm visiting, instead of madly rushing around covering many places and much distance in a day by car. But there are some places that are barely accessible, if at all, by public transportation, and that's why I sometimes take small group walking tours for a week, or when visiting certain places in Sicily and Basilicata, I got rides from local people--either people I was meeting and visiting or people I might hire to give me a ride.

In all frankness, oneillchris, I think you haven't been reading very carefully. Very rarely do I see anyone suggest here that a car is NOT the best way to enjoy the charms of Tuscany or Provence. Over and over again, people mention that it is not a wise idea to have a car if you are staying within a major city. You don't seem to dispute that so far as I can tell. The usual advice is for tourists to arrange their schedule so they are without a car in Rome or Paris, then pick one up to explore the countryside. Why? Because parking is a nightmare in most major European cities. You can't drive up to your door and park, you may spend hours and lots of money looking for a garage or parking place, and if you don't know the city, navigation will be very difficult on a daily basis. Who wants to drive from their hotel in the 16th to the Louvre, or from their Spanish Steps hotel to the Vatican. This is simply foolishness when public transportation is so cheap, easy, and readily available.

Now would you care to find us some of these many posts you are seemingly talking about where people suggest a car is a waste of time in Tuscany?

I agree, in the cities a car is not necessary. We always rent them when we depart a city. I agree I love to drive and my husband navigates and we do indeed get lost and those experiences have been some of our best and I do believe I get to see parts of the country I otherwise wouldn't see.
There are also places to see that I feel a car is a must. But only for those that are adventurous and don't want to stick to a main attraction sight seeing tour. If it's only main attractions and sights a person is wanting to see then a tour or bus and train travel is fine. But for me. Give me a car...let me drive and let me get a little lost from time to time.

I am totally at a loss - WHAT threads are you reading?. I can think of almost NONE where cars are called a "waste of time" for visiting the countryside in Italy, France, the UK, etc. For most of those places a car is by far the easiest way to go. In fact there are many threads where we try to convince nervous first timers that driving on the "wrong side of the road" in Ireland/UK is not a life threatening experience.

However, in London, Paris, Rome and other major cities, a car is 1) often costs more to park than to rent 2) slower to get to most sites and 3) usually much less convenient than public transport (especially when renting apartments which almost never come w/ parking)

Hi, oneillchris. Driving the hills of Tuscany is not the same of having a car while you are sightseeing in Rome. The hills of Tuscany are not in Rome. Yes, the hills of Tuscany are great by car. Travelling from city to city can be great by car. But for someone staying in Rome for 4 days, a car is not a plus.

I could list many advantages of using local public transport over driving a car. One of them is that you will learn a lot more about a place by using public transport. The inside of a car looks exactly the same whether you're driving around Sicily, Paris, London or the Scottish Highlands. Travelling on a bus, train or boat gives more chance to see the scenery, meet local people, learn the local language and sample local food and drink. If you want to really explore the countryside, the best way is on foot.

Hi One,

>Everytime I am in Paris and ask directions I am immediately given METRO directions.<

Maybe the locals know something you don't.

I do suggest that on your next visit to Venice you use public transportation to get around the city, instead of a car.

This is not that I am afraid to drive in Venice (Atlanta traffic is much worse), but I find public transit to be more convenient.

Ira - you are too funny...touche. I'm not sure I understand this feeble attempt at an argument either. There are certain places where having a car is an advantage, & necessary, & others where it is a mistake to have one, pure & simple. Sounds to me like the original poster is just trying to 'stir the pot'.

I just got off the phone a few days ago with a friend headed for both Paris and Rome and he has absolutely convinced himself that he HAS to have a car in both of those cities.

I mentioned the parking and traffic issues, as well as the "Metro is everywhere" number for Paris..all to no avail.

However, I think if someone WANTS a car in those places, and others, it is fine with me. Apparently, like my friend, they have decided that the parking and traffic "issues" are secondary to the flexibility.

As to the being afraid of driving argument...I suspect you could easily make the same one in reverse: that people who insist on renting a car in Europe are afraid to take public transport, or worse, of whom they might actually have to share some space with while doing so.

This is a very curious position. I'm not sure what oneillchris is suggesting, because the talk about how great a car is in the countryside is combined with complaints that when asking for directions within Paris, someone gives metro directions. So maybe he does think a car is a great idea within Paris. But it isn't.

If you want driving directions within a city, why wouldn't you ask for them and say you want driving directions instead of comlaining that people assume you are doing the logical and best thing and using public transportation?

There are other points aside from the cost of parking and general hassles of driving in a city which haven't been mentioned. What you are doing to the local roads, environment, and contributions to traffic jams within a city which has an effect on local residents who may need to be driving (as well as taxis, deliveries, etc.). I live in a city that is fairly easy to drive around, but still has parking shortages and narrow streets (Washington DC), as any major city does. It is extremely obnoxious and annoying at how many tourists drive around this city contributing to the congestion and traffic problems, and wearing of the streets, etc.--and because they don't live here, they often drive terribly, blocking traffic and creating problems. They don't know where they are going, weave in and out, drive too slowly, break traffic laws, double park, etc.

So, aside from the other issues, it is just inconsiderate for tourists to be driving cars around cities when it is completely unnecesary.

I have learned more about people on public transportation (and in grocery stores).

Unfortunately, traffic-wise, I live near Washington, DC, as well, and firlmy believe if we actually HAD a truly comprehensive public transport system here there would be fewer folks driving.

The so-called "capital of the world" where you still cannot take a train into the heart of the city from the major international airport (no, folks, we are NOT talking about BWI which is, like it or not, closer to Baltimore than to DC).

I wish I THOUGHT that some of those people driving here and adding to the congestion WERE from out of town but with rush hour extending beyond 7:30PM we know they aren't....sigh!

Hi Chris,

Just to clarify, have you also used the public transportation in Rio, Sao Paolo, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Naples, New York, and countless other big cities? And are you saying that driving a car in each of these cities is a better way to get around than the metro or bus system? If that's the case you're trying to make, I don't think many people will agree with you, including the locals in each of those cities.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Obviously a car is better for exploring the countryside/mountains/whatever but are you trying to dispute the fact that a car is not necessary in Paris? The metro network is excellent, there are buses, you can walk. Why would you need a car in Paris? It's more trouble than it's worth trying to find a place to park it and it's causing unnecessary congestion and pollution. If you mean the car is useful for excursions out of Paris, well that's different. But when people say you don't need a car in big cities, I assume they mean for city breaks, when you stay in the city itself.

Oneillchris has an untenable position. Of COURSE it is better to see the environs and countryside using a car. Of COURSE it is silly to have a car in ANY large metropolitan area. Please tell me how driving to the Colosseum or to the Eiffel Tower in a private vehicle is a good thing. As for Pisa, of course, see it by car, although we did take the train from Florence in order to see it--wasn't very difficult. That part of our trip we were training, having driven in Germany.
Cars are not a waste of time--who said so.

While I wouldn't say cars are useless, they aren't necessary depending upon where you live. I have lived for the past 20 years without a car and it is liberating. No sitting in traffic for hours - no spending money on gasoline - no traffic tickets - no insurance - so much less stress. And when I travel to Europe, Mexico, South America - I make a point of using public transport as much as possible. Not so much for economic reasons but for less hassels - I'm on vacation.

Last year in the Italian Riviera - my friend rented a car which turned out to be very helpful - the train was a tad slow but hey, it's Italy. I found zipping around in a metal/glass bubble to be a bit distancing - the environs always seemed a bit unreal - our pace always seemed a bit harried due to the convenience of a car.

Will I rent a car when finally visiting Tuscany, etc - most likely (though I bet that chunk of metal will be sitting idle, collecting dust more than being driven)