4 ms·

I don't think there's anything wrong with making money. Consider the average personal car is only in use 5% of the time. People are paying an enormous amount to

by imgabe 7y ago

I don't think there's anything wrong with making money. Consider the average personal car is only in use 5% of the time. People are paying an enormous amount to own, house, and maintain a car that they are barely using. If they could instead just pay for the 5% of when they are using it and have it go off and be used by other people the rest of the time, it would probably ending being less expensive overall. There would also be fewer cars around. Yeah, maybe the GM president once told people to own cars. Maybe that was the right thing at the time. Now circumstances have changed and something else makes more sense. Updating your views to account for new information is not a bad thing.

snarf21 7y ago
It would be less expensive but that isn't why we own cars. It would also be less expensive to buy cheap fuel efficient cars. We buy these cars because we are buying flexibility and time. Even public transportation can take lots of extra time if you aren't in the center of dense service. With my car, I don't have to wait for an Uber, I don't have to plan, I can just go whenever and wherever I want. It also doesn't get exponentially more expensive if I want to go somewhere 1+ hours away. Obviously if you never leave a three block radius, a car would be pretty silly. I'm just trying to say car ownership isn't generally about cost.
- imgabe 7y ago
  Jeez, it seems every time in these threads there's someone who comes in like "Hey I live 40 miles from the nearest paved road, I need my own car!!!" Nobody is saying it's going to be illegal to own your own personal car or anything. Sure, if you want to live in the middle of nowhere then you'll probably need your own transportation. For a lot of people it's not going to be as necessary to bother owning your own car when you can call one whenever you need it and it will be there in 5 minutes. If you can get 90% of the flexibility and time for 10% of the cost that is going to make sense for a lot of people. Not owning a car at all is a much larger difference in savings than owning one that gets 30mpg rather than 20mpg.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    I think you're missing the point. For the last 70 years American politics has promoted a set of policies that have made cities hard or impossible to navigate without cars. You don't have to be "40 miles from the nearest paved road" to experience this. Now a lot of the same people that promoted and lobbied for these ideas are trying to sell a "quick fix" in the form of car sharing and other recurring revenue models. There is no quick fix. The US needs a lot of public infrastructure investment before not owning a car is viable for the majority of people. Uber is not affordable compared to buying a $500 used car from Craigslist if you commute every day and does not solve the problem of navigating big box store "shopping centres" as a pedestrian.
    - imgabe 7y ago
      We don't know yet what the cost of something like Uber is going to be if the car can drive itself. I don't know what city you live in, but where I live the city is pretty difficult to navigate with a car. This is because of all the other cars clogging up the road. And besides, the entire point here is that you still have access to a car. You are not facing the problem of navigating a car based infrastructure without a car. The entire idea is that there are cars available on-demand! I guess we could do nothing and hope that at some point governments figure out to build public transportation in a reasonable time frame for a reasonable amount of money, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that. There is zero reason we can't simultaneously work on more efficiently using the infrastructure we already have.
      - AlexandrB 7y ago
        > I guess we could do nothing and hope that at some point governments figure out to build public transportation in a reasonable time frame for a reasonable amount of money... Non-US governments already have. This isn't incompetence, it's intentional policy. > This is because of all the other cars clogging up the road. Ride sharing has only made this problem worse[1]. Is there any evidence that even more ride sharing will improve the situation? The basic problem is that everyone needs to get into or out of a few central locations at around the same time (typically 9am/5pm). Solving this requires moving people more efficiently (as in more people/m^2 of roadway) than cars, even ride sharing cars, would allow. [1] https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/report-ride-sharing-increases-not-reduces-traffic/528659/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/report-ride-sharing-inc...
_visgean 7y ago
would the car last as long as it lasts when you use it 5% of the time? From what I have heard its common to replace company fleets after 5 years or so...
kaibee 7y ago
> Consider the average personal car is only in use 5% of the time. People are paying an enormous amount to own, house, and maintain a car that they are barely using. This statistic is silly. It's like the "you only use 10% of your brain!!1" meme. I don't disagree with the overall premise and there's definitely cases where it makes sense (especially in cities), but there's a real trade-off being made.
FussyZeus 7y ago
> Consider the average personal car is only in use 5% of the time. I only use my toilets a small fraction of the day as well, would you suggest we crowdsource them for greater efficiency too? Also this statistic presumes that cars work better with higher utilization and that's muddy at best. Sure, greater utilization is more efficient but it also means the cars go through parts much faster, require more oil, more fuel obviously. And of course the ride share companies aren't paying to maintain the cars that they are running into the ground.
- imgabe 7y ago
  You notice that when you go out in public there are shared toilets everyone uses and you don't have to lug your own toilet with you everywhere you go, right?
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    And they're also disgusting, poorly maintained, and full of drug addicts.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> Consider the average personal car is only in use 5% of the time. Freedom to choose has value. Convenience has value. I keep my cleats in the car, so that I can just pick which day I want to play ultimate frisbee on the spur of the moment. I don't have to decide in advance and pack something. That freedom to make up my mind on the spur of the moment is worth something. I can be at home, and decide I need something from the grocery store, and just go get it. I don't have to order a car and wait for it to arrive. Once I'm done at the store, I don't have to order another car for the trip back. That "it's ready right now" convenience is worth something. (Yeah, I know, in a decent urban world, the grocery store would be within walking distance. I don't live in that ideal urban world.)
- imgabe 7y ago
  And if you really want the have a car payment and insurance payment and deal with parking and everything else so that you have a 2000lb box to store your cleats in and can avoid waiting five minutes for a car share, I won't stop you from doing that. I doubt anyone else is going to either. The point is a lot of people are going to decide that maybe they can plan a little in advance on when they want to play ultimate frisbee if it helps them avoid the myriad hassles and expenses of owning a car and that's probably going to be good.

by imgabe 7y ago

snarf21 7y ago

It would be less expensive but that isn't why we own cars. It would also be less expensive to buy cheap fuel efficient cars. We buy these cars because we are buying flexibility and time. Even public transportation can take lots of extra time if you aren't in the center of dense service. With my car, I don't have to wait for an Uber, I don't have to plan, I can just go whenever and wherever I want. It also doesn't get exponentially more expensive if I want to go somewhere 1+ hours away. Obviously if you never leave a three block radius, a car would be pretty silly. I'm just trying to say car ownership isn't generally about cost.

imgabe 7y ago
Jeez, it seems every time in these threads there's someone who comes in like "Hey I live 40 miles from the nearest paved road, I need my own car!!!" Nobody is saying it's going to be illegal to own your own personal car or anything. Sure, if you want to live in the middle of nowhere then you'll probably need your own transportation. For a lot of people it's not going to be as necessary to bother owning your own car when you can call one whenever you need it and it will be there in 5 minutes. If you can get 90% of the flexibility and time for 10% of the cost that is going to make sense for a lot of people. Not owning a car at all is a much larger difference in savings than owning one that gets 30mpg rather than 20mpg.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  I think you're missing the point. For the last 70 years American politics has promoted a set of policies that have made cities hard or impossible to navigate without cars. You don't have to be "40 miles from the nearest paved road" to experience this. Now a lot of the same people that promoted and lobbied for these ideas are trying to sell a "quick fix" in the form of car sharing and other recurring revenue models. There is no quick fix. The US needs a lot of public infrastructure investment before not owning a car is viable for the majority of people. Uber is not affordable compared to buying a $500 used car from Craigslist if you commute every day and does not solve the problem of navigating big box store "shopping centres" as a pedestrian.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    We don't know yet what the cost of something like Uber is going to be if the car can drive itself. I don't know what city you live in, but where I live the city is pretty difficult to navigate with a car. This is because of all the other cars clogging up the road. And besides, the entire point here is that you still have access to a car. You are not facing the problem of navigating a car based infrastructure without a car. The entire idea is that there are cars available on-demand! I guess we could do nothing and hope that at some point governments figure out to build public transportation in a reasonable time frame for a reasonable amount of money, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that. There is zero reason we can't simultaneously work on more efficiently using the infrastructure we already have.
    - AlexandrB 7y ago
      > I guess we could do nothing and hope that at some point governments figure out to build public transportation in a reasonable time frame for a reasonable amount of money... Non-US governments already have. This isn't incompetence, it's intentional policy. > This is because of all the other cars clogging up the road. Ride sharing has only made this problem worse[1]. Is there any evidence that even more ride sharing will improve the situation? The basic problem is that everyone needs to get into or out of a few central locations at around the same time (typically 9am/5pm). Solving this requires moving people more efficiently (as in more people/m^2 of roadway) than cars, even ride sharing cars, would allow. [1] https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/report-ride-sharing-increases-not-reduces-traffic/528659/ https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/report-ride-sharing-inc...

_visgean 7y ago

would the car last as long as it lasts when you use it 5% of the time? From what I have heard its common to replace company fleets after 5 years or so...

kaibee 7y ago

> Consider the average personal car is only in use 5% of the time. People are paying an enormous amount to own, house, and maintain a car that they are barely using. This statistic is silly. It's like the "you only use 10% of your brain!!1" meme. I don't disagree with the overall premise and there's definitely cases where it makes sense (especially in cities), but there's a real trade-off being made.

FussyZeus 7y ago

> Consider the average personal car is only in use 5% of the time. I only use my toilets a small fraction of the day as well, would you suggest we crowdsource them for greater efficiency too? Also this statistic presumes that cars work better with higher utilization and that's muddy at best. Sure, greater utilization is more efficient but it also means the cars go through parts much faster, require more oil, more fuel obviously. And of course the ride share companies aren't paying to maintain the cars that they are running into the ground.

imgabe 7y ago
You notice that when you go out in public there are shared toilets everyone uses and you don't have to lug your own toilet with you everywhere you go, right?
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  And they're also disgusting, poorly maintained, and full of drug addicts.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> Consider the average personal car is only in use 5% of the time. Freedom to choose has value. Convenience has value. I keep my cleats in the car, so that I can just pick which day I want to play ultimate frisbee on the spur of the moment. I don't have to decide in advance and pack something. That freedom to make up my mind on the spur of the moment is worth something. I can be at home, and decide I need something from the grocery store, and just go get it. I don't have to order a car and wait for it to arrive. Once I'm done at the store, I don't have to order another car for the trip back. That "it's ready right now" convenience is worth something. (Yeah, I know, in a decent urban world, the grocery store would be within walking distance. I don't live in that ideal urban world.)

imgabe 7y ago
And if you really want the have a car payment and insurance payment and deal with parking and everything else so that you have a 2000lb box to store your cleats in and can avoid waiting five minutes for a car share, I won't stop you from doing that. I doubt anyone else is going to either. The point is a lot of people are going to decide that maybe they can plan a little in advance on when they want to play ultimate frisbee if it helps them avoid the myriad hassles and expenses of owning a car and that's probably going to be good.