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: 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.