5 ms·

A lot of this stuff also works even less well when you don't live in a city. Couple of examples... On average, I need a car once or twice a week. Maybe three

A lot of this stuff also works even less well when you don't live in a city. Couple of examples... On average, I need a car once or twice a week. Maybe three out of every four trips something really dinky like a smart car would do the job, whereas on one out of four I need the mid-sized estate car that I actually own. I live in a small village so to hire a car I'd have to get on a bus to the nearest town, then walk to the car hire place to get the car. That probably adds an hour to an hour and a half every time I need an estate car. Am I going to deal with that BS once every two weeks? Hell no. Even if I did, over time would it cost less than simply owning the damn car? Maybe, but it's pretty fricking marginal. I'd save a bit on fuel, no doubt, but economical cars hold their value much better than those that are less economical so the price of the cars (I always buy used) might not be so different. I don't "use" my back garden a lot as a place to hang out, but it's certainly a handy place to leave the motorbike when I don't want to put it away, and also a great place for cutting up wood, MDF, and the like when I'm doing DIY. The space has value that goes way beyond the amount of time that I use it for. I could list plenty of other examples where this is true.

csomar 6y ago
> I live in a small village I think we can agree, this lifestyle is only for people living in the city in downtown or midtown with all amenities nearby.
- 8ytecoder 6y ago
  I lived without a car in a city will amenities nearby and told myself I'll rent a car when I need one. I did that about 10-15 times before I realized if I want to travel or get out of the city it's going to get expensive pretty quickly. I ended up buying one soon after. Having access to a car all of a sudden entirely changed how I spent my weekends. I wasn't dependent on friends. What the OP describes is also very true. When I have to plan ahead and rent a car and deal with taking and dropping it off I avoided it as much as I can. This was with a zipcar membership and a whole bunch of rental cars two blocks from where I lived.
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    Agree 100%. From a financial perspective, it seemed like the "downtime tax" (e.g. paying for a rental while you're not actively using it, but are away from home, and will need it to return home) dominated any savings, if you take more than a token amount of weekend trips (e.g. to see family). Furthermore, the "uncertainty cost" is real. I have to rent a car. Will one be available? Will it be well maintained? Will the check out and check in process go smoothly? Can I get to the car? Etc. Etc. Each one and opportunity for things to go awry and end up in a bad day.
  - csomar 6y ago
    It really depends on the city and your lifestyle/choices. Most people, say, in HongKong don't have a car. The city makes it difficult and expensive to have one but on the other hand they can move easily around. If you live in the US, it's hard to go without a car since everything is planned around people having cars.
    - culturestate 6y ago
      Hong Kong is an odd example of a big, dense city with excellent public transit where access to a car can still be a major quality of life improvement, just because of climate and topography. The government’s resistance to ridesharing is incredibly annoying.
      - kelnos 6y ago
        As someone who absolutely loves the ability to use (the misleadingly-named) ridesharing, I absolutely hate what the legions of fare-seeking Ubers and Lyfts have done to traffic in SF (well, pre-pandemic). My completely-without-evidence theory is that there is some amount by which we can cut the allowed number of rideshare cars on the road at any time, and while wait times to get a vehicle might increase, the overall time will be the same or less because transit time will be reduced with less congestion.
        culturestate 6y ago
puppymaster 6y ago
one could also argue having to use a car once or twice a week means you are using it more than 95% rule. back garden doesn't fit the rule as well since you are using it 100% of the time to park your motorbike. it really comes down to how you interpret the arbitrary 95% stated in the article. I agree with both the article and you. I need to sell that mandolin which I play maybe once a month but the patio sofa is here to stay even if I sit on it once a month because they are really nice to look at every day during golden hours. That's 100% usage for me.
- bartread 6y ago
  As I pointed out to another poster, I'm not using my car at all for more than 95% of the time: it just sits on my driveway. To spend 5% of my waking time using my car I'd need to drive for 48 minutes every day, which I'm not even close to. I think it's unfair to count time when I'm asleep as time when I could possibly be using something (other than my bed!). I think all of this debate points to one thing: the article is written from, and generalising from, a very myopic perspective, and shouldn't in any way be given serious consideration by many people for whom it doesn't and can't apply.
  - Zenbit_UX 6y ago
    Time asleep should be counted towards the 95%, the car still exists and depreciates while your eyes are closed.
    - olyjohn 6y ago
      What's the fascination with deprecation on a car that you own? You don't get anything back at all when you return your rental car, or take transit. When you sell your car you at least get something back, even if it's a fraction of what you paid...
btilly 6y ago
About your car, you're paying for something you need 25% of the time, not 5%. About your backyard, you're using it when you're not actually in it.
- bartread 6y ago
  The car I drive twice a week, I'm using it way less than 5% of the time, so I'm very definitely paying for the 95% of the time it sits unused on my driveway. The garden, yeah, maybe, but I haven't used it in any capacity since last Friday.
loceng 6y ago
Ride sharing and rental companies are competing for profit as well, and ultimately they'll bring costs to be as expensive as they can until turning people into switching to the status quo alternatives. Similarly people thought ebooks would be significantly cheaper, however counterintuitively they're not much cheaper and sometimes more expensive than a physical book because digital books are more convenient for many people.
- cyberdrunk 6y ago
  These two situations are not equivalent. A book author has basically 100% market monopoly on his/her books. He can set a high price and people who want to read the works will still pay. Whereas ride sharing companies interchangeable and are in full competition with each other, which, in a healthy market, should bring the price down to the point where they're all only making a marginal profit. The cost of alternative mode of transportation does not come into equation (well unless it's overall cheaper and better - then it will kill the entire market segment).
tonyarkles 6y ago
> I live in a small village so to hire a car I'd have to get on a bus to the nearest town, then walk to the car hire place to get the car. My province in Canada shuttered the government-owned bus service a few years ago, so that isn’t even an option anymore. There haven’t really been any significant private offerings that have popped up in its place. If you’re in a small town with no car, you’re pretty much screwed!

csomar 6y ago

> I live in a small village I think we can agree, this lifestyle is only for people living in the city in downtown or midtown with all amenities nearby.

8ytecoder 6y ago
I lived without a car in a city will amenities nearby and told myself I'll rent a car when I need one. I did that about 10-15 times before I realized if I want to travel or get out of the city it's going to get expensive pretty quickly. I ended up buying one soon after. Having access to a car all of a sudden entirely changed how I spent my weekends. I wasn't dependent on friends. What the OP describes is also very true. When I have to plan ahead and rent a car and deal with taking and dropping it off I avoided it as much as I can. This was with a zipcar membership and a whole bunch of rental cars two blocks from where I lived.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  Agree 100%. From a financial perspective, it seemed like the "downtime tax" (e.g. paying for a rental while you're not actively using it, but are away from home, and will need it to return home) dominated any savings, if you take more than a token amount of weekend trips (e.g. to see family). Furthermore, the "uncertainty cost" is real. I have to rent a car. Will one be available? Will it be well maintained? Will the check out and check in process go smoothly? Can I get to the car? Etc. Etc. Each one and opportunity for things to go awry and end up in a bad day.
- csomar 6y ago
  It really depends on the city and your lifestyle/choices. Most people, say, in HongKong don't have a car. The city makes it difficult and expensive to have one but on the other hand they can move easily around. If you live in the US, it's hard to go without a car since everything is planned around people having cars.
  - culturestate 6y ago
    Hong Kong is an odd example of a big, dense city with excellent public transit where access to a car can still be a major quality of life improvement, just because of climate and topography. The government’s resistance to ridesharing is incredibly annoying.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      As someone who absolutely loves the ability to use (the misleadingly-named) ridesharing, I absolutely hate what the legions of fare-seeking Ubers and Lyfts have done to traffic in SF (well, pre-pandemic). My completely-without-evidence theory is that there is some amount by which we can cut the allowed number of rideshare cars on the road at any time, and while wait times to get a vehicle might increase, the overall time will be the same or less because transit time will be reduced with less congestion.
      - culturestate 6y ago

puppymaster 6y ago

one could also argue having to use a car once or twice a week means you are using it more than 95% rule. back garden doesn't fit the rule as well since you are using it 100% of the time to park your motorbike. it really comes down to how you interpret the arbitrary 95% stated in the article. I agree with both the article and you. I need to sell that mandolin which I play maybe once a month but the patio sofa is here to stay even if I sit on it once a month because they are really nice to look at every day during golden hours. That's 100% usage for me.

bartread 6y ago
As I pointed out to another poster, I'm not using my car at all for more than 95% of the time: it just sits on my driveway. To spend 5% of my waking time using my car I'd need to drive for 48 minutes every day, which I'm not even close to. I think it's unfair to count time when I'm asleep as time when I could possibly be using something (other than my bed!). I think all of this debate points to one thing: the article is written from, and generalising from, a very myopic perspective, and shouldn't in any way be given serious consideration by many people for whom it doesn't and can't apply.
- Zenbit_UX 6y ago
  Time asleep should be counted towards the 95%, the car still exists and depreciates while your eyes are closed.
  - olyjohn 6y ago
    What's the fascination with deprecation on a car that you own? You don't get anything back at all when you return your rental car, or take transit. When you sell your car you at least get something back, even if it's a fraction of what you paid...

btilly 6y ago

About your car, you're paying for something you need 25% of the time, not 5%. About your backyard, you're using it when you're not actually in it.

bartread 6y ago
The car I drive twice a week, I'm using it way less than 5% of the time, so I'm very definitely paying for the 95% of the time it sits unused on my driveway. The garden, yeah, maybe, but I haven't used it in any capacity since last Friday.

loceng 6y ago

Ride sharing and rental companies are competing for profit as well, and ultimately they'll bring costs to be as expensive as they can until turning people into switching to the status quo alternatives. Similarly people thought ebooks would be significantly cheaper, however counterintuitively they're not much cheaper and sometimes more expensive than a physical book because digital books are more convenient for many people.

cyberdrunk 6y ago
These two situations are not equivalent. A book author has basically 100% market monopoly on his/her books. He can set a high price and people who want to read the works will still pay. Whereas ride sharing companies interchangeable and are in full competition with each other, which, in a healthy market, should bring the price down to the point where they're all only making a marginal profit. The cost of alternative mode of transportation does not come into equation (well unless it's overall cheaper and better - then it will kill the entire market segment).

tonyarkles 6y ago

> I live in a small village so to hire a car I'd have to get on a bus to the nearest town, then walk to the car hire place to get the car. My province in Canada shuttered the government-owned bus service a few years ago, so that isn’t even an option anymore. There haven’t really been any significant private offerings that have popped up in its place. If you’re in a small town with no car, you’re pretty much screwed!