|
|
|
|
|
|
by ProfessorLayton
1049 days ago
|
|
|
This shifted from owning to riding. As a rider, I agree, most of the Ubers I've taken have been just fine, though not particularly clean, but fine nonetheless. Still, the cars are in far worse condition than a similarly aged car, and not something I'd personally accept as an owner for a few bucks. Again it's not just puke, but the tons of wear and tear that happens during ride sharing. Uber churns through 96% of their drivers per year, so it's clearly not a no-brainer for the vast majority of them [1]. Self driving cars may help uber and its ilk lower their fleet costs if and when they get them, but a relatively insignificant portion of people will be willing to loan out their personal vehicle to them. [1] https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/how-uber-makes-mo.... |
|
|
No, it's just sampling.
> and not something I'd personally accept as an owner for a few bucks.
Fine, that's you. But it's not a few bucks, it's probably going to add up to thousands of dollars if you do it regularly.
> Uber churns through 96% of their drivers per year
That has nothing to do with car condition and everything to do with people changing income sources.
> but a relatively insignificant portion of people will be willing to loan out their personal vehicle
You have no basis for saying it will be relatively insignificant. People tend to be incentivized by money, that's the whole basis of microeconomics. If people can make back a decent portion of the cost of their car by renting it out when they're not using it, of course it's going to become a significant proportion of people.
I don't see how you can argue against something that's such a no-brainer. You seem to have the luxury of allowing a fear of small amounts of wear-and-tear to override any monetary concerns; but for many people, the additional income is going to take priority because they need the money end-of-story.