Who Wants Motor Vehicles Cluttering Up the Driveway Anyway? It JustForces Cyclists Onto the Grass!

On 21/08/2016 22:42, 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?

Not yet but everyone must always look at the bottom line.

Indeed.

Or, more accurately, the bottom lines.

If the cost of maintaining access to a vehicle (any vehicle) were the
killer, no-one would keep a vehicle of any sort.

But it isn't.

Without the overhead cost of insurance and financing the vehicle, it makes cents to rent.

The amount of money poor people waste on motor vehicles is absolutely insane. Taxis and rentals can do a lot of good clearing cars out of driveways, garages and off the street.

I dare say that for a particular sub-set of the population, you may be
right.

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?

Not yet but everyone must always look at the bottom line.

Indeed.

Or, more accurately, the bottom lines.

If the cost of maintaining access to a vehicle (any vehicle) were the
killer, no-one would keep a vehicle of any sort.

A few jobs actually _do_ require that you be able to be somewhere on short notice. The pump house calls you at 3 am and says the ship has been loaded "and the pilot is already on board." You can protest the 6 am estimated completion time they gave you ("how did you idiots screw _that_ up?") but that won't help you get some draft readings.

Moreover, many have a sentimental attachment to their vehicle that makes slightly more sense than, say, being fond of an old Commodore 64 or failed economic federation. As long as you drive less than a few hundred miles a year you can insure a "classic" vehicle for $100/yr in some states.

But it isn't.

Without the overhead cost of insurance and financing the vehicle, it makes cents to rent.

The amount of money poor people waste on motor vehicles is absolutely insane. Taxis and rentals can do a lot of good clearing cars out of driveways, garages and off the street.

I dare say that for a particular sub-set of the population, you may be
right.

It's the majority in any democracy, where, as Tocqueville pointed out, "the poor rule."

That's why the donkey party is the oldest major political party on the planet, and the only major political party in the U.S. for at least a couple of decades.