SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An article over at Motherboard covers the growing inequities in the US resulting from the cultivation of individualized transport options.
Carsharing, ridesharing, ride-hailing, public transit, and cycling—"all of those things are needed to replace personal cars," said [Robin Chase, co-founder of Zipcar].
It's a nice idea, but to actually kill car ownership, we're first going to need to have some very uncomfortable conversations about class and equity in the United States. Public transit used to be the great equalizer, but affordable private rides have become the new favorite of the middle class. When richer people give their money to private ride-hailing or carsharing companies, public transit loses money—and that's not good for cities, societies, or the environment.
[...] This dependence on ride-hailing is having the adverse effect of increasing traffic congestion, which in turn makes bus service slower and more frustrating. Besides, until cities change dramatically—i.e. more parks, fewer parking lots, less sprawl, better accommodations for active and public transit—decreased rates of car ownership likely won't benefit the environment if we're still travelling the same distances in cars.
Those living in countries that still have good or remnants of good mass transit will have different insights. It is unlikely that without good, reliable, vast public transit networks, there will be social and economic equity, assuming that is a goal. While public transit can suck, especially in the US, it is sometimes necessary to take one for the team and vote with your wallet. Unfortunately the situation is often framed as a false dilemma, that there can only be private cars or only mass transit, but not both coexisting and used for different ends at different times by the same people.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:07AM (26 children)
Only retarded people think uber and similar are car-sharing. It isn't sharing if you have to pay for it. The corporations have a lot of people fooled by this. The corporations want you to call it sharing because sharing is warm and fuzzy and only grinches don't share.
"But that's just a saying. Don't be so picky" I hear you say. But remember, those that choose the words also choose the story. Why else would corporations want to call it "sharing"? Right up there with co-opting "like" and "friend", it is a sneaky way to control the narrative and fool the idiots in city halls across the world.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:14AM (21 children)
Unless you just want to say "Uber/Lyft", it's unfortunately the easy way to label these new services, because we simply don't have a word for them yet. They're not cabs, because they're directly competing with the traditional cab companies, and most Americans don't seem to know what a "black car" service is, plus these are hailed by smartphone app instead of calling on the phone and making an appointment like in the old days.
Come up with a better descriptor that differentiates them from cabs (because, after all, many times when we discuss them we're talking about their differences with cabs), and maybe people will happily adopt your new term.
The other thing that really is different about them is that one driver can work for both, at the same time (but not on the same ride of course); they'll have phones for each, and pick up a hail on either one. Also, drivers don't have to work shifts, can pick up hails while commuting home from work, etc. Most drivers probably do do this as a full-time job, but there are plenty who don't, and it's really a side gig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:21AM (1 child)
It's called a ride-hailing app, or just ride-hailing. It isn't "ride sharing" any more than Walmart is "product sharing".
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @02:45AM
A man was walking down the sidewalk to his workplace. It was a good day for Nickson, as evidenced by his beaming smile. On Nickson's way to work, a woman casually strolled past him.
Crash! Slam! Bang! These sounds could be heard coming from inside a certain house, and they seemed to continue endlessly. If one were to look inside said house, it would appear as though a tornado went through it; tables and chairs were knocked over; there were broken windows; glass cups were shattered all over the floor; there were large holes in the walls, as if objects flew through them; and, in general, every aspect of the house was in disarray. A man could be seen assuming the fetal position in a dark corner, sobbing. That man was Nickson.
Nickson, once a kind, cheerful man, was now a mere shell of what he once was. A grave injustice was done to him, transforming his life forevermore. If things continued as they were, only depression, anger, and suicide awaited. Would Nickson give up so easily?
No. Nickson would never give up. Nickson would never allow evil to prevail. Nickson would struggle against injustice. The man slowly rose up, his face displaying the ferocity of a god of war. Nickson was going to strike back.
With only a bit of effort, Nickson identified his target. He learned about the target's schedule, their family, and their habits. Using this information, Nickson devised a grand plan that would allow him to exact his revenge. "Justice will prevail!" Nickson shouted. It was time to execute his scheme.
Captured. The target, along with members of their family that met certain criteria, was captured and imprisosoned within Nickson's house. Tightly bound to metal bars, they could do nothing but stare in horror at the man whose eyes seemed to be made of fire. Beaten. Pain. Screaming. Violated. Pain. Screaming. Mutilated. Pain. Screaming. Silence.
The next day, Nickson walked out of his house in triumph. The man had returned to his former self now that the wrongs committed against him were made right. Indeed, no woman would enter Nickson's presence without acknowledging his superiority ever again.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:21AM (8 children)
It's right there in the headline: Ride-Hailing.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:29AM (4 children)
That's fine if all you read is the headline. Here's what's in the summary... "carsharing", "ridesharing", "carsharing companies". The more you read, the more you learn.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday February 14 2018, @02:18AM (3 children)
Then for pete sake read ALL THE WAY to the end of the sentence, where you would find that part had nothing to do with ride-hailing, but actually did have a lot to do with car sharing serviced. http://www.zipcar.com/ [zipcar.com]
There are about a dozen of these shared car services.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 14 2018, @03:52AM (1 child)
IIUC, Zipcar is not a "car sharing" service. Rather it's a "car rental" service that specializes in short-term rentals and allows pick up wherever the car has been left by the previous renter.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:08PM
There is no definition of share which requires no contribution from all sharing partners.
You seem to be confusing the word Gift or Slavery with the word sharing.
The actual method of contribution doesn't enter in to it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:40AM
Doh! Do you think car rental companies are sharing their cars or renting their cars?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday February 14 2018, @03:57AM (2 children)
The problem with this term is that, just looking at the two words ("ride" + "hailing"), it doesn't really uniquely describe Uber/Lyft. To get a traditional cab, you have to "hail" it, by standing on the curb and raising your arm, and it stops and gives you a ride, hence, "ride-hailing".
Maybe we'll get lucky and Uber will go out of business (and Travis will go bankrupt), some other better company (or two) will get started as a new competitor to Lyft, and then "Uber" will become a word like "Kleenex" to describe these services.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday February 14 2018, @04:18AM
It's, uh, virtual ride-hailing. Over the cloud. With an AI pricing algorithm.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @01:41PM
What’s the problem? “Hail” just means “signal.” You send a signal from your phone to the service so the car knows to pick you up. Traditional taxis have done this for decades via the phone numbers printed all over them using radio dispatchers.
The only difference — quite literally — is the “with a computer” suffix in the patent application.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:29AM (8 children)
How about "private taxi services". But, 'taxi' implies you're paying money, so it doesn't sound as warm and fuzzy and 'ride sharing'.
Same with those 'car share' services where you find a 'car share' car on the side of the street and drive it away. How about calling them 'car hire'. That's basically what they are, but with a much finer grained billing service. But, then 'hire' implies you're paying money, again, not so warm and fuzzy.
These terms came about from clever marketing campaigns. And through natural selection, the least offensive, least 'corporate' sounding terms succeeded.
"I tried to think of the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood. Something that could never, ever possibly destroy us..." Mr CarShare.
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Wednesday February 14 2018, @02:19AM (6 children)
Your pointless insistence that anything you pay for is not sharing must be really irritating to your flat mates.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Funny) by pipedwho on Wednesday February 14 2018, @04:10AM
Wait, you're not that kid in pre-school that always insisted you really do share things with other kids? He always 'shared' his crayons (for an upfront fee of 5c per crayon per day). And it's true, he let the other kids play with the shitty broken matchbox car from the toy box, but for the low fee of 20c per car he was happy to share some of those other shiny cars he'd hoarded earlier!
I suppose you're right, technically every transaction is 'sharing', "I'm sharing my money with the supplier of the service."
I'm currently sharing my house with my house sharer. I pay them money periodically, and they let me keep sharing it with them.
I also pay for internet connection sharing. I don't mean with just the other people in the house, I mean with all the other people using my ISP (and technically everybody else on the internet).
Tomorrow, I'll even pay to share the train with a few hundred other people. "Public transport" my arse, lets call that ride sharing too. Technically, there's way more 'sharing' going on between train passengers than in a car of 2 people. Unless your Uber driver also has the flu. And technically I even get to 'pay' for that later too.
Since my snarky reply ended up in the top level of the thread below due to some fat fingering of the mouse, I thought I'd repost it here where it belongs in the interest of thread sharing and all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @04:22AM
My flat mates are cats, and I share quite a bit with them. And they never pay me a nickel. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong? Do tell, Frojack.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @06:09AM
The entire point is exactly that - anything you pay for is not sharing. The number of reporters, politicians, and regular people that haven't figured it out is staggering. And kinda sad because uber isn't some nice sharing company. Uber is a mean multinational corporation that will out fox, out maneuver, and out lawyer amateur municipal politicians and wreck where you live.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday February 14 2018, @06:33AM (2 children)
That's not what he said. But anything you pay for on an use basis is not sharing. If several people together buy a car and each of them may use it as it fits, that is sharing. If one buys a car and then let's everyone use the car against payment, that is car rental. And if you pay someone else to drive you in his car, that is taxi.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:03PM (1 child)
So how is that different than several people contributing to a club, that buys cars, and lets users drive them as if they were their own, paying gas, and maintenance based on usage?
Sharing isnt you getting something free. That's called a gift.
Sharing means sharing benefits AND contributions.
Freeloading millennials just can't seem to understand this.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:09AM
So how is that different
What exactly are you referring to with "that"?
Then the cars would be shared, but the maintenance and the gas would not.
Nowhere did I claim it is. Where in "If several people together buy a car" do you see "getting a car for free"? I think you urgently need to work on your reading comprehension.
Yes. Note that sharing the contributions is exactly the opposite of everyone paying per his own use.
I don't see how what "freeloading millennials" can or cannot understand is in any way relevant for the correct definition of the word "sharing".
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @02:49AM
Private taxi service implies that they're being regulated as such. Uber and Lyft need to die in a fire. Uber in particular blatantly violates the law by treating employees as independent contractors and pays substantially below minimum wage while taking a loss to put taxi companies out of business. It's a shitty business model and needs to be put an end to as soon as possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @02:10PM
They are illegal taxi companies. The normal taxi companies have started adopting apps and online scheduling. The only different between them and Uber/Lyft is scale, following their local laws (which hinders their scaling abilities), and being far less corrupt (they used to be just as corrupt, which is why all the taxi laws were created in the first place). You should call Uber/Lyft as taxis as they have no functional difference.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:59AM (1 child)
Quite simply, Uber and Lyft call themselves ride sharing in hopes of pulling the wool over regulator's eyes. They are very much yet another cab service except they want to call the drivers contractors and they don't want to deal with medallions, commercial insurance, or other regulatory measures. But it swims like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Wednesday February 14 2018, @04:49AM
Agreed.
It's like when some clever spark in the government here changed all the local 'SPEED CAMERA AHEAD' signs to say 'SAFETY CAMERA AHEAD' (and updated the Motor Traffic Act to match). Clever little 'marketing' trick to distract from the real reason those cameras are there. And they always seem to be at sites with artificially low speed limits.
I applaud the guy that went around with 'REVENUE' stickers in the same colour and font and changed the local camera signs to read 'REVENUE CAMERA AHEAD'.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:05AM (1 child)
Boy, the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA sure went after sharing.... what a bunch of grinches!
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @12:47PM
What exactly are the Boy Scouts of America sharing? No. Don't tell me, I don't want to know.