Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft says nearly 250K of its passengers ditched a personal car in 2017

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–438 of 438 posts

Re: Lyft says nearly 250K of its passengers ditched a personal car in 2017

#431

Post by thirdsun »

ghaff wrote: post #21
starik36 wrote: post #11

I think the biggest impact is going to be felt with current generations of 18 year olds. My kid (about to be 18) has no interest in getting a driver's license and neither are any of his friends. He's happy to be taking Uber and Lyft anywhere he goes. And between the cost of the vehicle and insurance, it's cheaper for me as well. When I was 16, I couldn't wait to get a car.

I didn't drive a lot (or own a car) until I graduated from school. But I do have trouble wrapping my head around not getting a driver's license past a certain point--whether they get one while in school or not. Even had Uber/Lyft existed at the time, I literally couldn't have done my first job (I regularly had to drive hours to a job site) and I would have been at least reliant on other people at other jobs. Vacation…

Don't forget that getting a driver's license is very expensive in some parts of the world, like Europe. Here it easily requires 1000,00 € and more, as well as a significant time investment for mandatory training, lessons and tests.

While I don't recommend skipping the driver's license despite these circumstances, I can understand that it's a legitimate option for a teenager that doesn't plan to drive.

Re: Lyft says nearly 250K of its passengers ditched a personal car in 2017

#432

Post by jpetso »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #385
hycaria wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consuming less never enters the equation, does it ?

You try consuming less after you have a kid.

Also considering the other sub-thread, it does appear that having kids will incentivize consuming more. There are gaping needs that are most easily solved with big cars, big houses, etc., and I don't think it's necessarily productive to chastise anyone for not going out of your way to avoid these choices.

For people who are considering having kids in the future and care about consuming less, consider that the largest positive ecological impact you can probably make is to have fewer kids. It's important to consider this before deciding on kids, because once they're around, the house is stacked against you in terms of switching to (or retaining) low-consumption habits.

Re: Lyft says nearly 250K of its passengers ditched a personal car in 2017

#433

Post by jpetso »

ebragg09 wrote: post #407
xapata wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? I use ZipCar for long weekends frequently.

well, because it has a max 180 mile per day limit with per-mile costs above that. So if you're staying overnight, that's one thing, but doing a 2 hour, go kayaking, 2 hours back type drive doesn't work.

Pointing out that it makes sense to calculate the actual dollar amount of the per-mile cost. I haven't done 2-hour round trips, but I've done 1.5-hour and was surprised how inconsequential the markup turned out to be.

This was several years ago and in Canada, so conclusions may differ.

Re: Lyft says nearly 250K of its passengers ditched a personal car in 2017

#434

Post by jpetso »

ghostly_s wrote: post #251
Improvotter wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cause we're all giving numbers here. Let me give you my numbers for my bike. I rent my bike and got a train subscription. I pay about 50 EUR a year for my bike and 100 EUR a year for my train subscription. I have a car, but I'm not the one paying insurance on it anymore (passed on to other family member). The car was 5000 EUR used (Volkswagen Polo) which was bought 7-8 years ago and it was a 5 year old car back then.…

100 EUR per year for a train pass? Wow. I pay $100 USD per month for a CTA pass in Chicago...and that's about the best transit situation you'll find in the US.

Also mind that in many places in Europe, public transit is more heavily subsidized by taxes. If you consider how low taxes are in most states of the US, you probably have some extra money at hand to use for trains (or whatever else), partially making up for the higher cost.

Re: Lyft says nearly 250K of its passengers ditched a personal car in 2017

#435

Post by hycaria »

pxlpshr wrote: post #420
hycaria wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stay downtown then. If being carless was so important, that was the way to pursue it.

You speak with so much conviction about living in a shoe box with 3 dogs!

Huh ? I'm not sure I understand. I live in a small place, I don't have pets. I enjoy life very much though.

Re: Lyft says nearly 250K of its passengers ditched a personal car in 2017

#436

Post by hycaria »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #385
hycaria wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consuming less never enters the equation, does it ?

You try consuming less after you have a kid.

I always hear this. Yet some families manage to travel or sail the world with a few belongings. It's just social pressure, not vital need.

Re: Lyft says nearly 250K of its passengers ditched a personal car in 2017

#437

Post by ebragg09 »

xapata wrote: post #430
ebragg09 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, because it has a max 180 mile per day limit with per-mile costs above that. So if you're staying overnight, that's one thing, but doing a 2 hour, go kayaking, 2 hours back type drive doesn't work.

2 hours each way for a day-trip?! I'm always shocked that people suggest that much driving as a proportion of the total trip time.

Eh, 2 hours, hike for 10 hours, 2 hours - you can do that all while it's still light quite easily in the summer time, and 10 hours of hiking is a damn good day :)

Re: Lyft says nearly 250K of its passengers ditched a personal car in 2017

#438

Post by milesokeefe »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #422
gaius wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pays very very little in insurance for it considering he's a 22 year old male As an aside, in the UK it is illegal for an insurance company to consider gender when calculating the premium.

Well that just seems cruel and arbitrary.

Cruel to the insurance company?
Post reply on HN