On 21/08/2016 05:39, Bret Cahill wrote:

Commuters buy and insure motor vehicles and with such a yuge capital/overhead cost they feel compelled to throw good money after bad by driving all the time.
But why buy when it's cheaper to rent for the occasional motor trip and cycle the rest of the time?

And why buy a nice house in a decent suburb when it's cheaper to rent a
flea-pit in a high-crime inner-city area with druggies both sides and a
high probability of you and your family becoming victims?

Oh... no answer to that one?

It must be Completely Different [TM].

And why pay tens of thousands for a fitted kitchen with high-end
appliances, storage units and food preparation areas when it's cheaper
to buy take-aways and chew at them between drags at your cigarettes?

Or to that one.

This will free up a lot of road space for cyclists:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/uber-auto...70.html?ref=gs

It will not catch on, any more than zip-bikes would. When it comes to
car-share (with the constant attendant risk of a vehicle not being
available when and where you need it) only trendies intent on
conspicuous piousness are interested. Normal people aren't.

Vehicles have to be available all the time, every day. That is so
whether the vehicle is a £100,000 luxury car or a £200 bicycle.
Immediacy of use (without bneeding the permission of others for each
journey) is a key feature of the utility required.

Most people with normal 9 to 5 jobs and weekend activities generally have hours or days to plan a trip.
When you need something quick, i.e., a lime or onion, cycle to the corner market.
One additional advantage is motorists can select the vehicle that matches the trip.

Do you ever actually hire (rent) cars?