[OJFord]

> Cost-per-use by itself is fairly meaningless, costs needs to be compared against value-per-use.

That implies the only alternative is not doing things? You can just order a taxi?

I think for many car users the total 'cost per use' of their car exceeds the average taxi fare they'd pay for those journeys.

Nevermind considering public transportation.

[robocat]

> You can just order a taxi?

A trip to my parents and back is ~$180 by Uber - I go more than once a week so that would be way more than $10k per year.

And an Uber doesn’t come with a tow ball: I often use a trailer out there or back (I mentioned firewood, but also dump runs and moving stuff from/to storage).

The Uber has a variable wait-time, and is not useful if I have to go anywhere urgently, and an Uber often values my wasted time at $0. Note when I live in large cities I do choose to use either Uber or car, depending on costs versus gains.

An Uber is no use to take my disabled Mum anywhere.

I think it is condescending to suggest whacky alternatives to most people (public transport, taxis, bikes, etcetera). Most people have weighed up the alternatives and made an expensive choice because of the value provided. The majority of people are not wasting money and buying status symbols.

> Nevermind considering public transportation.

Bloody hell, that is a moronically inane comment. I can catch a bus to my parents. There is one bus a day - it arrives there in the evening at 5:30PM, at it leaves from my parents at 7:30AM, and there is a nice long walk at the end, which is fun in a storm. Oh, the bus only runs on weekdays, not the weekends. I don’t get to choose where my parents live. Public transport is never urgent, good luck if my parents need my help suddenly. I can’t transport anything I can’t carry, and it wastes hours of time each way (indirect, slow, annoying).

Public transport has its uses (I do use Christchurch buses), but it simply doesn’t support many uses (a load of firewood), and it takes a lot of time, plus extra risks (the bus at my parents didn’t turn up the other day - I don’t know why).

Did I mention a car has plenty of other uses? My parents are just one of many similarly valuable uses. I do own a very cheap small-engine second-hand car, not a status symbol. Did I mention a car is available at night, when public transport has stopped running?

Edit: PS: this weekend there are 100km/h winds, and driving cold rain. Walking and waiting at busstops can be very very unpleasant in many cities. Perhaps you have access to a metro, but most people don’t.

Edit 2: I hope you are not an engineer. I feel that in my comment that you answered, I said why I use a laptop with Illustrator, and you replied telling me I could use an etch-a-sketch and my mobile phone camera.

[OJFord]

> A trip to my parents and back is ~$180 by Uber - I go more than once a week so that would be way more than $10k per year.

So you do the 'cost per use' calculation, and probably you find that car ownership is a better deal than a taxi? Nobody's saying it's a way of showing a purchase is always wrong!

> And an Uber doesn’t come with a tow ball: I often use a trailer out there or back (I mentioned firewood, but also dump runs and moving stuff from/to storage).

Obviously you compare like for like. Probably no taxi tows, but you could hire a car for the weekend.

If you're doing this every week and with other uses I expect owning a car is still the best option, I just don't know why you're trying so hard to miss the point.

[robocat]

It feels like you are pushing a political agenda. It seems to me that you are not responding in good faith.

> tows, but you could hire a car for the weekend.

I already commented “hiring a car instead, which is ridiculously more expensive and extremely inconvenient (at least where I live).”.

I gave examples where hiring a car doesn’t make sense (urgency, emergency, optionality). There is no local car hire, so getting to and from a car hire would cost me significant time.

I think your point is that sometimes people just go with the easiest option, without thinking of “cheaper” alternatives. I own a car, but I can’t use it at present, so I am currently forced to use alternatives. I can categorically state that the costs of other options are extremely high for my situation. The real costs are not financial, they are the things I can’t easily do because the alternative options usually have constraints that suck.

Edit: Hiring a car to do a load of wood makes no financial sense: I would be better off just buying wood instead. Moving wood with my own car makes financial sense because the marginal cost of using my car is low, and the wood and it’s transport mostly only costs my time. Converting my time to wood makes sense in my context for some friends and family.

> So you do the 'cost per use' calculation

No. My original comment is that looking at costs alone is silly. The value you get also matters - in my case the high value of things that my own car gives me that alternatives do not give me (or alternatives could, at a stupidly high financial/time/other cost).

The example I gave is the ability to rush out to my parents or help my friends after midnight, which has a very high optionality value to me. Uber is expensive, incurs delays, and causes my precious time to be wasted. Perhaps you could suggest I hire a car for 365 days to cover that /sarcasm.

I just don’t understand your condescending tone. I think it is obvious that many people use cars because the value they get far outweighs the costs, and many people have looked at the alternatives and found they don’t stack up for them. I am one of those people. Why persist on suggesting alternatives to me.

Essentially I think the original article is a really flawed way of looking at things. I use my T-shirt for 16 hours a day, so I should pay thousands for the perfect T-shirt?

[OJFord]

> I use my T-shirt for 16 hours a day, so I should pay thousands for the perfect T-shirt?

Not if it (as it won't) doesn't make it correspondingly better, but I think it is a good example, because yes, if you're anything like me we probably shouldn't balk at the price of basic clothes so much given their utility.

I think the times I've most successfully applied this line of thinking was to cutlery, and to bedding.

[robocat]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility

[ghaff]

>That implies the only alternative is not doing things?

The option is often not to do things. Leave aside the fact that I live in a semi-rural area. Even if I lived closer into the city, there are a bunch of outdoor activities (hiking/kayaking/etc.) that I do which require a car. Could I rent? In some cases with the caveat that the vehicle may not have an appropriate rack to transport a boat for example. And I probably can't just wake up Saturday morning and decide to go somewhere.

My observation is that people do indeed tend not to do activities that have a lot of friction for them. And it goes both ways. I'm very selective about making the effort to go into the city for evening activities.

[OJFord]

I don't understand why this is so controversial - you compare the cost of the owned car to the cost of alternative way of doing whatever weird and wonderful requirements exist - if there's literally no other way then call it infinite.

I don't think anybody and certainly not I ever said 'a standard taxi or bus will do for everybody in all circumstances'.

To me it's a helpful comparison to make (even though I'm not very good at obeying its advice) because I have the need so little that however exorbitant a taxi or hire car might seem at the time, it beats year-round insurance, tax, depreciation, etc. hands down.

(I obey it in the sense that I don't own a vehicle, just not in justifying taxis as readily as I ought.)