[majewsky]

Correct. Therefore, the winning combination for city dwellers is public transit + carsharing. Public transit operators are catching on to this: In my city, there is a tie-in offer where a subscription to public transit gives you a rebate with a partnered carsharing provider.

[throwaw2934238]

Like I already wrote in another comment, I think car sharing absolutely does not work at all, because everyone wants the cars at the same time. It's really difficult to find a car when you want it, for example on a sunday afternoon when the weather is nice. And it's totally unreliable, sorry bad luck no swimming for you today, a whole beautiful day wasted in your apartment. It's almost impossible hard to find a scooter share to go to work during commute times. It's only reliable on odd times where noone wants it.

Owning a car still gives you a lot of freedom and flexibility to do what you want, when you want it. Which is not covered by car sharing at all.

I would gladly own a cheaper car only to do a weekly shopping trip and a weekly nature trip, something like 25km per week. Seems ridiculous to own a car for that short distances, but it gives a LOT of quality of life and I would gladly pay for it instead of using car sharing.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Owning a car still gives you a lot of freedom and flexibility to do what you want, when you want it. Which is not covered by car sharing at all.

I live in a big city (London). Owning a car for me would be frankly insane. Where would I put it? If I was communing again, could not possibly take it in to work, there would be nowhere to put it at that end either, when I finally got through the traffic.

It is both much more practical and cheaper to use bicycle or bus and metro rail for commuting; taxi, minicab, or uber for other urban journeys; and car rental for weekends away.

I get that cases may vary. it's different further out from the city. But the idea that car = freedom, always, is very silly. I owned car here once, and it was liberating to get rid of it.

It seems that you have problems with your shared transport in your area, it sucks but maybe the better solution is better shared transport, not more private cars?

[bayindirh]

> I live in a big city (London). Owning a car for me would be frankly insane. Where would I put it? If I was communing again, could not possibly take it in to work, there would be nowhere to put it at that end either, when I finally got through the traffic.

I live in a big city. Not owning a car for me would be frankly insane. How would I get to work? It'd take ~2 hours with public transport only.

It is both much more practical and safer to use a car rather than a bicylce (too dangerous) or bus (cannot reach where I go) and metro rail (Have to walk an hour for nearest station) for commuting; taxi, minicab, or uber for other urban journeys; and car rental for weekends away (all are too expensive in the long run).

I get that cases may vary. it's different in other cities. But the idea that car = burden, always, is very silly. I was unable to go where I want/need to go quickly until I got a car, and it was liberating.

There, fixed it for my case. :)

Of course, YMMV. :)

[SideburnsOfDoom]

The public transport in your city sucks, sorry about that. Maybe fix that, not daft distractions like solar panels on cars.

[bayindirh]

Eh, the comment thread we're talking under starts with a comment [0] by me, supporting public transport rather than thse cars with an implicit sentence stating that my city's public transport sucks.

That's a nice full circle. :)

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26474545

[mavhc]

If they want cars at the same time each day, that's what mass transport covers.

Problem is people don't pay the real cost of their car, it's subsidised by free pollution

[throwaw2934238]

No it doesn't, because the destination is not a densely populated place. People go in wheel and spoke formation in their cars out from the city into nature.