-Going to work, teleworking from home, taking care of one's children, shopping, and leisure activities all characterize a way of life. Individual trips are very specific parts of these ways of life. This video aims at explaining why human mobilities are part of their ways of life and what they can say regarding these ways of life. Here we will keep in mind these two parameters after detailing the way of life and mobility notions. In the literature, a person's way of life is defined as all their ways of living and consumption habits. It is analyzed, inter alia, by the time use theory. The latter analyzes the regularities and continuities of time uses inside and outside the home in order to specify inequalities based on the measurement of the time dedicated to the different activities. For instance, it is a way to discuss the advent of the leisure society as a result of the trend decline of the working time in contemporary societies. Or even the impact of income, nationality, household composition on the allocation of time for paid work, domestic work, free time or physiological time. By considering the history of mobilities and ways of life, we have analyzed the daily time use of the workers from Île-de-France. We noticed that the traveling time accounts for 7% of the total time. Is it marginal? A person's travels are a particular activity because they determine activities outside the home. However, they are analyzed like any social activity. They are the consequence of a personal choice which varies according to the needs. They are also the consequence of a social production through institutional and social standards, through transport policies and those influencing activity distribution over the territories. Thus, traveling is a social practice. So, its analysis is not reduced to the analysis of travels between origins and destinations. Mobility refers to this social practice which is mandatory to build a person's daily life. It is defined by all the travels of a person over a given period of time, usually over a day. We then talk about daily mobility. Daily mobility is part of the daily activity schedule that people create to organize their activities and diaries. The analysis of activity schedules is a way to consider the ways of life but only if they are correctly related to economic, social and cognitive resources of the persons and their familial, institutional and professional constraints. In this respect, mobility is a balance of arbitrations between resources and constraints on an individual and social level. In empirical terms, mobility is approached by symptomatic indicators of arbitrations made per day and per person. Thus, the number of travels, the number of kilometers traveled in a day, the time devoted to travel, the average traveling speed, the transport modes used to travel, and the monetary costs associated with this mobility. Each French inhabitant travels an average of 15 000 km each year. International travels accounts for 40% of these travels as well as travels in France over 100 km from their home. On these slots, leisure and holiday mobilities prevail, just like car travels which account for over 60% of the traveled distances. 59.7% of the traveled distances are related to local mobility dedicated to regular activities with distances less than 100 km from home with a return in the evening. Car travels account there for 83% of the traveled distances during weekdays and over 90% on weekends. The importance of cars in the daily local mobility can be explained by the geographic structure of circulations in which origin and destination types with non-existent alternatives to car prevail. The excellence slots of public transports, in other words city centers and exchanges with their suburbs, only represent 21.5% of local mobility. A French inhabitant aged over 6 makes an average of 3.1 travels per day, travels 24.8 km, and travels for 55 minutes at the average speed of 25 km/h. The monetary budget represents about 15% per month. Still on average per day and per person, 27% of daily travels are linked to work, 10% are linked to studies, 19% to shopping, and 17% to leisure. The mobility of French inhabitants is very varied in terms of motivations and strongly relies on the demographic structure of the population, work organization and economic circumstances. When analyzed in terms of daily traveled distance, travels for work account for more than half of the total kilometers traveled on a given day. Travels for work are the longest in terms of distance and time dedicated to mobility, just like car travels which appear to be the most numerous and the longest. Their overrepresentation in terms of kilometric percentage, 83%, compared to the travel percentage, 65%, shows it. In kilometric terms, we can say that cars are almost the main way of life in France. These few figures can characterize the state of daily mobility in terms of societal dimensions, but they also hide very different daily mobility patterns according to major key factors such as the individual's profile, i.e. their age, status as a worker or pensioner, or such as the type of household, i.e. single person or a couple, with or without children. Secondly, the economic capital, i.e. the income, the cultural, physical, cognitive capital of the individual. Thirdly, the relative location of the home to the place of work, consumption, leisure and health. The last key factor is the access to transport modes. Let us look more in details at the first three key factors. Globally, when individuals get older, their mobility increases in terms of numbers of travels, traveled distances and travel time. Mobility reaches a plateau before 50 or so and slowly decreases until an old age. Above 75 years old, individuals travel over distances that are 4 times as short, they travel half as much as individuals aged from 26 to 45 who are the most mobile. An analysis via the income shows an increase in mobility parallel to that of the monthly income per consumption unit, thus the income taking into account the number of household individuals. All mobility indicators increase according to the income. However, indicator variations are irregular. Between low-income and high-income families, the number of travels per person does not vary as much as the share of cars and the daily traveled distances which vary as much as 100%. Thus, we can say that no matter the income, certain activities are mandatory such as working, studying, shopping to buy food. All these activities are defined as mandatory activities and mobilities that cannot be reduced in the case of low-income families. They have less numerous activities that are twice as close to their home and they use their car half as much. Regarding the relative location of the home, facts are largely established since the 1980s in France. A worker living in the suburbs of Île-de-France travels three times more kilometers each day compared to a worker living in the center of Paris considering the same income and household type. The capital region is an exception in France. There are fewer travels and the distances are shorter with time budgets that are 30% higher than in any other urban area. Of course, the exceptional size and density of the capital region have an influence as well as its corollary, an exceptional public transport network in terms of density. Together they create this exception. But this exception is only related to Paris and its suburbs where public transports are heavily used, as well as walking. There has also been a boom of two-wheeled motor vehicles over the last years because of traffic jams and parking restrictive policies. Everywhere else, cars represent the majority or strongly prevail even in the Île-de-France rings. Does the daily access time to work structure the workers' way of life? It certainly does. This is also the reason why the distension of time and distances between the workers' living place and workplace is so much analyzed. It has indeed been shown that when the access time to a worker's workplace is doubled, from 30 to 60 minutes, it is associated, for the farthest, with a lower presence at home, minus 7% of the daily time, with a constant time for activities outside the house. The additional time dedicated to traveling would thus exclusively impact the time spent at home in a negative way. This is not entirely accurate. Indeed, a much greater access time to the workplace also changes the time spent for the different daily activities. It is indeed associated with a greater presence on the fixed workplace and with a reduction of the times spent for other activities such as shopping or professional meetings. In short, the greater the access time to the workplace, the simpler and more concentrated are the schedules for activities outside the house on the time spent by workers at work. The adjustments of the workers in Île-de-France according to the access time to their workplace go beyond those introduced earlier. The longer a worker's access time to their workplace on a given day, the higher the probability that they will stay at work longer but also the higher the probability of not working on a weekday, a specialization of the working days, the higher the probability for the spouse to work part-time. These statements can be verified for any social category. More generally, they are also verified for London workers whose time usages are similar to that of workers in Île-de-France. As a conclusion, remember that mobility is not a sum of travels. It is a constructed social practice which more or less differentiates people. People build their daily activity schedule, mobility and activities, through arbitrations according to their physical, familial, economic, and cognitive resources from different institutional and territorial constraints. The workers' way of life depends on their capacity and autonomy to perform these arbitrations and these spatio-temporal adjustments to build their activity schedule. Finally, automobiles are indeed omnipresent in France for an increasing part of the population, Paris and its suburbs are an exception in France but not in view of other metropolises worldwide.
