I'd be interested to see statistics from more rural areas where there isn't any robust (or, in some cases, any) public transit. In urban areas, where living without a car is a possibility, I don't doubt that the low income population doesn't drive. In more rural areas I suspect it's the opposite.

Public transportation is not cheap and/or available in many places in the world. Look at all the cheap beater cars (even in the US), those aren't going driverless anytime soon.

Your can downvote me for days but that won't make your statements correct. In the 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey, driving was a minority share of trips for people in the bottom income quintile. Walking, biking, transit, riding as passengers in cars, and "other" are 50% more popular than driving.

Jokes on you. My account cannot downvote people yet.

See, that's the thing with Hacker News. A lot of people here think Silicon Valley is the center of the world and everywhere is just like us, when the fact, we are living in a little bubble and a lot of the US operates very differently.

It doesn't matter how big the empty part of the United States is. The Bay Area is as populous as Sweden and therefore big enough to do things its own way. It may in fact be true that the poor person in Pecos County, Texas, drives around in his own car, it is also an irrelevant fact on a population-weighted basis.

So when you said "It's a myth that poor people drive."

You really mean "It's a myth that poor people drive in heavily populated cities.", in that case, you would be correct lol.

This is getting downvoted because it sounds pretty flippant from a US point of view, but it's actually perfectly accurate for most of the world. In much of Africa, you're middle class if you have a bicycle, and only the rich own cars. Motorcycles are wildly popular in much of Asia for the same reason: they're a lot more affordable than cars, not just to own but to operate as well.