Wow...I know for US citizens, any idea that can somehow be linked to "socialism" is considered caused by the devil, but it's somehow even weirder when it's discussed like this. Jezus fucking Christ...you guys really believe that someone is coming to take your precious car away, right?
If so: you're freaking nuts. This idea isn't a scaremongering idea of a villain but an idea that might or might not work, depending on your situation.
Okay, I'm going to stop you there, as it's the wrong conclusion. Perhaps try re-reading your article as it's meant to be read, rather than going pretty much insane (and spreading that madness onto gbatempers who take that "too long; didn't read" literally). Granted: I believe the writers (or organisation) isn't entirely objective, but even so...
Let's see...let's skip over the sensational titles and to the first actual quotes:
"We believe that the world is at the beginning of a shift away from car ownership to Transportation-as-a-Service, or TaaS. Lyft is at the forefront of this massive societal change," they told investors. "Car ownership has ... economically burdened consumers. US households spend more on transportation than on any expenditure other than housing. ... On a per household basis, the average annual spend on transportation is over $9,500, with the substantial majority spent on car ownership and operation."
Cars create "inequality," they argue. "The average cost of a new vehicle in the United States has increased to over $33,000, which most American households cannot afford," the IPO says. "We estimate over 300,000 Lyft riders have given up their personal cars because of Lyft."
They may be right.
This basically means that Lyft isn't so much intending to end car ownership, but rather that the car industry itself is doing that. If the price of a vehicle rises above what most American households can afford, then THAT is the root cause of declining car ownership. Lyft is just a company that sees an unfilled need (transportation) and a potential way to fill it.
Okay, I'm going to interrupt myself to ask the obvious question: just HOW do you imagine Lyft will "go stupid on us" ?
Here's the thing: I get the sneaking suspicion that you link this situation to software and forego both all benefits of the latter (should they be applyable) as well as foregoing the difference between both to believe the (potential) disadvantages of software-as-a-service directly transfers over to cars.
Here's the thing: NOTHING OF THIS IS NEW! Little if not none of the gbatempers have private planes or (large) boats. We use them nonetheless. We rely on companies that operate these things for us. The same goes for public transportation: trams, busses, trains...they all operate without the average Joe owning one of them. And of course: cabbies. Taxis have been around pretty much for about as long as there were cars.
Next in line is where things get interesting: uber. From what I can tell, uber isn't so far from where Lyft starts. Maybe it's just that they flip the things around (instead of your car being shared at the moment you want it to, you share your car apart from the moments you need it), or maybe the way it's portrayed is indeed correct: that you permanently lease a car whenever you want. I'll get back to this idea in a second.
1) the fear of things creeping into something else is a stupid argument. I can argue that that apple you're eating is the first step towards mass obesity, or I can admit that one thing has nothing to do with the other.
2) you claim car ownership as being a "necessity of life". That's quite a hyperbole. Here's the truth: many people manage to survive perfectly fine without a car. Not everyone, mind you. But that's the thing: the people in the countryside, who rely on a car that can hardly or not at all be shared are not, and most likely never will be, clients of lyft. But meanwhile, in large cities, things are pretty different. Those ARE potential clients, and as I can personally attest: we can manage without a car perfectly fine (I've always relied on public transportation and a bike for everything...the idea of a car is "a necessity of life" mostly fills me with pity for your narrow mind ). (1)
EDIT: (1): Okay, to be honest, I've got to add that I've had similar discussions with my girlfriend (who used to live in a very small village): she had quite some trouble understanding that I could actually live without a car. Then again: public transportation is a joke in her area, the nearest store is three to four times as far away as mine and her job was also further away.
My father is exactly the opposite of that spectrum, btw: he's so obsessed with the idea that a bike can completely replace cars that he continuously overlooks that this really isn't an option for those who would then spend hours on day-to-day transportation.
* one of the hypes last year was called "bike sharing". Before that, everyone just owned bikes in the cities. They're cheap, get stolen a lot and anywhere where's a public bike shed, bikes seem to magically "grow" with time. It's weird as an outsider, but if your bike got stolen, warning the police is mostly a waste of time. The chances of it being retrieved are next to nil, and a lack of registration meant that disputes were often settled in an individual way (I once saw a friend dragging someone off his bike: it was his own bike that had gotten stolen, given away a couple times and ended up with someone who had no idea it originated with my friend to begin with).
...and then public bikes came along. All over the city, special bike sheds were placed, filled with special bikes (with a tracer on them). For a small fee, you can pick up a bike, drive to your destination and leave it in a similar shed. It was an instant hit. And for good reason. Those bike thieves...they weren't so much trying to be evil: they just wanted quick transportation. And it has advantages: flat tire? Broken chain? Just leave it in the shed. For the money you pay, the firm makes sure that all sheds have bikes available and maintains the bikes that are damaged or broken.
Has it changed bike ownership? Both yes and no. As someone who does everything by bike, I'm seriously considering joining in on the program IN ADDITION to my own bike. That way I always have a backup in case there's something wrong with my bike.
...but a car isn't a bike, right? True. But that formula works there as well. It's not so common as bikes (who are just about EVERYWHERE), but works somewhat the same way. There are parking lots with shareable cars. If you sign in, you can book a car on one of these lots. The distance gets noted, and the price of gas is attributed per that distance (meaning: if you drive a little but fill it up with oil, you might even get some money back at the end of the month). Sure, the car isn't yours, but does that really matter as long as you can drive it?
* Belgium's largest cities (especially Brussels and Antwerp) have major traffic jam issues. This is in large part because most companies are set in these cities whereas many people want to live on the countryside. Result: there is pretty much a CONTINUOUS traffic jam around these cities, and a chronic shortage of parking space. Even on the outskirts of the city (where I currently live), it's not very uncommon to search for a parking spot for over 15 minutes. Now...companies like Lyft won't be able to solve the former (I already told why), but will seriously reduce the latter. And for both cases goes the same: no one considers being stuck in a daily traffic jam "a life any of us want to live or hand to our children or the next generation". It's costly, a waste of time and not in the least bit polluting the environment. Which brings me to my final point that apparently hasn't reached the USA yet...
* those children/next generation you're talking about...they are actively DISMISSING this "way of life" that you're preaching. You might want to google "climate protests", "youth for climate" or - especially - "Greta Thunberg". These ARE challenging the status quo or the "way of the world" as you put it. But unlike what you seem to suggest, they do not see mass car sharing as a problem but rather the solution that is in part caused by said way of the world. The planet simply cannot sustain every human driving cars around to work in polluting jobs while collecting goods from across the globe. These protesters (who actively dismiss schools every thursday for...about 7 weeks now, I think) understand that the mess our society is creating will soon become THEIR mess as well...and they are telling everyone else to stop doing it. It's that attitude that gets people to look for these kinds of alternative ideas (in simple terms: every car that is used by two persons means one that doesn't need to be built to begin with).
Speaking of which...when my nephew (who is around 19-20 now) started his job, they wanted to give him a company car. That's pretty standard (and also part of our traffic jam problem): jobs often hand out company cars as alternative payments because government subsidizes them. My nephew refused because he had good ways to get to the office (he lived only a couple kilometers from his work space). Result: his new job had no idea how to properly compensate for this "it comes with the standard wage package" situation.
If so: you're freaking nuts. This idea isn't a scaremongering idea of a villain but an idea that might or might not work, depending on your situation.
Okay, I'm going to stop you there, as it's the wrong conclusion. Perhaps try re-reading your article as it's meant to be read, rather than going pretty much insane (and spreading that madness onto gbatempers who take that "too long; didn't read" literally). Granted: I believe the writers (or organisation) isn't entirely objective, but even so...
Let's see...let's skip over the sensational titles and to the first actual quotes:
"We believe that the world is at the beginning of a shift away from car ownership to Transportation-as-a-Service, or TaaS. Lyft is at the forefront of this massive societal change," they told investors. "Car ownership has ... economically burdened consumers. US households spend more on transportation than on any expenditure other than housing. ... On a per household basis, the average annual spend on transportation is over $9,500, with the substantial majority spent on car ownership and operation."
Cars create "inequality," they argue. "The average cost of a new vehicle in the United States has increased to over $33,000, which most American households cannot afford," the IPO says. "We estimate over 300,000 Lyft riders have given up their personal cars because of Lyft."
They may be right.
This basically means that Lyft isn't so much intending to end car ownership, but rather that the car industry itself is doing that. If the price of a vehicle rises above what most American households can afford, then THAT is the root cause of declining car ownership. Lyft is just a company that sees an unfilled need (transportation) and a potential way to fill it.
Erm...if you want to use an analogy, you may want to pick one where it actually makes sense. I know hackers can do pretty fancy things, but they cannot and will not backup and patch cars if the distribution services decide to go...
Okay, I'm going to interrupt myself to ask the obvious question: just HOW do you imagine Lyft will "go stupid on us" ?
Here's the thing: I get the sneaking suspicion that you link this situation to software and forego both all benefits of the latter (should they be applyable) as well as foregoing the difference between both to believe the (potential) disadvantages of software-as-a-service directly transfers over to cars.
Here's the thing: NOTHING OF THIS IS NEW! Little if not none of the gbatempers have private planes or (large) boats. We use them nonetheless. We rely on companies that operate these things for us. The same goes for public transportation: trams, busses, trains...they all operate without the average Joe owning one of them. And of course: cabbies. Taxis have been around pretty much for about as long as there were cars.
Next in line is where things get interesting: uber. From what I can tell, uber isn't so far from where Lyft starts. Maybe it's just that they flip the things around (instead of your car being shared at the moment you want it to, you share your car apart from the moments you need it), or maybe the way it's portrayed is indeed correct: that you permanently lease a car whenever you want. I'll get back to this idea in a second.
Two fallacies, there:
1) the fear of things creeping into something else is a stupid argument. I can argue that that apple you're eating is the first step towards mass obesity, or I can admit that one thing has nothing to do with the other.
2) you claim car ownership as being a "necessity of life". That's quite a hyperbole. Here's the truth: many people manage to survive perfectly fine without a car. Not everyone, mind you. But that's the thing: the people in the countryside, who rely on a car that can hardly or not at all be shared are not, and most likely never will be, clients of lyft. But meanwhile, in large cities, things are pretty different. Those ARE potential clients, and as I can personally attest: we can manage without a car perfectly fine (I've always relied on public transportation and a bike for everything...the idea of a car is "a necessity of life" mostly fills me with pity for your narrow mind
). (1)EDIT: (1): Okay, to be honest, I've got to add that I've had similar discussions with my girlfriend (who used to live in a very small village): she had quite some trouble understanding that I could actually live without a car. Then again: public transportation is a joke in her area, the nearest store is three to four times as far away as mine and her job was also further away.
My father is exactly the opposite of that spectrum, btw: he's so obsessed with the idea that a bike can completely replace cars that he continuously overlooks that this really isn't an option for those who would then spend hours on day-to-day transportation.
Lemme tell you a few things about my neighborhood...
* one of the hypes last year was called "bike sharing". Before that, everyone just owned bikes in the cities. They're cheap, get stolen a lot and anywhere where's a public bike shed, bikes seem to magically "grow" with time. It's weird as an outsider, but if your bike got stolen, warning the police is mostly a waste of time. The chances of it being retrieved are next to nil, and a lack of registration meant that disputes were often settled in an individual way (I once saw a friend dragging someone off his bike: it was his own bike that had gotten stolen, given away a couple times and ended up with someone who had no idea it originated with my friend to begin with).
...and then public bikes came along. All over the city, special bike sheds were placed, filled with special bikes (with a tracer on them). For a small fee, you can pick up a bike, drive to your destination and leave it in a similar shed. It was an instant hit. And for good reason. Those bike thieves...they weren't so much trying to be evil: they just wanted quick transportation. And it has advantages: flat tire? Broken chain? Just leave it in the shed. For the money you pay, the firm makes sure that all sheds have bikes available and maintains the bikes that are damaged or broken.
Has it changed bike ownership? Both yes and no. As someone who does everything by bike, I'm seriously considering joining in on the program IN ADDITION to my own bike. That way I always have a backup in case there's something wrong with my bike.
...but a car isn't a bike, right? True. But that formula works there as well. It's not so common as bikes (who are just about EVERYWHERE), but works somewhat the same way. There are parking lots with shareable cars. If you sign in, you can book a car on one of these lots. The distance gets noted, and the price of gas is attributed per that distance (meaning: if you drive a little but fill it up with oil, you might even get some money back at the end of the month). Sure, the car isn't yours, but does that really matter as long as you can drive it?
* Belgium's largest cities (especially Brussels and Antwerp) have major traffic jam issues. This is in large part because most companies are set in these cities whereas many people want to live on the countryside. Result: there is pretty much a CONTINUOUS traffic jam around these cities, and a chronic shortage of parking space. Even on the outskirts of the city (where I currently live), it's not very uncommon to search for a parking spot for over 15 minutes. Now...companies like Lyft won't be able to solve the former (I already told why), but will seriously reduce the latter. And for both cases goes the same: no one considers being stuck in a daily traffic jam "a life any of us want to live or hand to our children or the next generation". It's costly, a waste of time and not in the least bit polluting the environment. Which brings me to my final point that apparently hasn't reached the USA yet...
* those children/next generation you're talking about...they are actively DISMISSING this "way of life" that you're preaching. You might want to google "climate protests", "youth for climate" or - especially - "Greta Thunberg". These ARE challenging the status quo or the "way of the world" as you put it. But unlike what you seem to suggest, they do not see mass car sharing as a problem but rather the solution that is in part caused by said way of the world. The planet simply cannot sustain every human driving cars around to work in polluting jobs while collecting goods from across the globe. These protesters (who actively dismiss schools every thursday for...about 7 weeks now, I think) understand that the mess our society is creating will soon become THEIR mess as well...and they are telling everyone else to stop doing it. It's that attitude that gets people to look for these kinds of alternative ideas (in simple terms: every car that is used by two persons means one that doesn't need to be built to begin with).
Speaking of which...when my nephew (who is around 19-20 now) started his job, they wanted to give him a company car. That's pretty standard (and also part of our traffic jam problem): jobs often hand out company cars as alternative payments because government subsidizes them. My nephew refused because he had good ways to get to the office (he lived only a couple kilometers from his work space). Result: his new job had no idea how to properly compensate for this "it comes with the standard wage package" situation.
Last edited by Taleweaver,
I was gonna say that. lol