How is it to societies benefit if someone doesn't buy a car? It could be if someone drives less, but if they replace a car with a car driven by another person, it seems to be even worse.

That car has to be manufactured. Cars just don't appear out of thin air like the food at your supermarket.

If you don't buy a car you don't need parking space and more likely to use public transport (most beneficial), allows better urban planning. And if everyone buys cars manufacturing is more damaging to the environment

If the same number of car miles are being taken then it is a wash on the manufacturing side, but you are totally correct that car parking is a terrible waste of space. Of course the biggest blight is the roads themselves and car sharing does little to help that. In fact it may be even worse as the drivers have to make the trip between the fares that wouldn’t exist with privately owned and parked vehicles.

> Of course the biggest blight is the roads themselves and car sharing does little to help that

I did not mention car sharing. I can understand taxis but totally don't get people using car sharing, seems like the worst of public transport and cars. You don't own it, who knows who used it and how (in privacy) and you still have to, well, do the driving yourself?

Taxis are better than carsh also because they help offboard people from being used to having to drive so they are more OK using public transport too generally leading to better urban planning

> If the same number of car miles are being taken then it is a wash on the manufacturing side

Not if some cars do 90% of total miles and others do 10% but still have to be manufactured due to higher demand

Car sharing is great. Sometimes you need to go somewhere for a couple hours and hiring a driver becomes very expensive. Or you need to transport something.

And I hate to break it to you but whatever you are imagining happened in these shared cars, the city bus has seen worse. Far worse. And you still get on those so, maybe not a big deal at all.

Idk where you live but all buses I have seen have no expectation of privacy, a bunch of people sitting inside, a driver and usually cameras. If you do... things... you must be insane and also cops meet you at the next stop.

If you live in suburban wasteland with crappy transportation then sure you need a car and I am sorry if you have to share one. But here in the city carsh is pointless. Taxi/bus/rail is for people who can do something better with their time than operate machinery.

It is interesting to me that you think that stops some people, or that an overly adventurous encounter is the worst thing to happen to a seat.

You may also genuinely be near a nicer and better maintained metro. Car sharing tends to be be much cleaner than the buses I've been on and biking about the same speed.

Also, here in the city, what bus is going to take you to your door the one time a year you need to move a piece of furniture? I've got some electronics to recycle - you're going to suggest the bus?

Oh but maybe thats the piece you are missing; car sharing is great because I can use a car the few times a year I need one without a hassle. Its not for just getting around, got feet for that.

In the city public transport gets me within 2-3 minutes of walking to the destination... if you need to minimize "walking" at all costs sure you'd hate transport but if I don't see why you would do that, unless you are disabled

But not in US so yes idk how clean your metro is.

The things you mention are not the reason people prefer cars over transit. I think people prefer cars because of the point-to-point transport, the lack of stops unrelated to them, and the lack of a set schedule. All those apply to both private and shared cars.

By subway there're fewer such unrelated stops. Unless you consider a red traffic light "related to you" :)

Regarding car sharing: The whole the point is that I don’t have to own, maintain and insure it myself. For some people it just doesn’t make sense given how little they drive and car sharing enables them to do that once every blue moon trip without everything else that comes with a car.

Society doesn't have that car taking up space on the side of a public road all day, for one thing. Less parking, narrower roads, smaller parking lots, things are closer together, things are more walkable, we burn less fossil fuel, people get more exercise, people are healthier, people are happier/more productive.

That's how a society set up for mostly taxis could be better. But if we get to include the benefits of walkable societies and redoing all existing infrastructure in our arguments, surely going to mass transit is better still? And, unlike repaving all the roads to be narrower, it's something that can be added on top of existing infrastructure.

Yeah, no argument, I'd love more light rail/streetcars. If people are less dependent on personal cars, they'll be more willing to develop toward that pattern with mass transit/small bike/pedestrian roads/etc.

At the same time, what do you think the taxi is doing in between fares? They drive around and add to congestion, requiring wider roads.

I think the main benefit is that someone who doesn't own a car isn't particularly inclined to fight for more spending on car-dependent infrastructure. They'll probably be more likely to support more public transit, because using a car feels expensive.

Yeah, definitely. Right now most are still in the "can't imagine not having a car, and want to make sure that that car can take them everywhere" state of mind. If more people walked/could walk, maybe we'd prioritize making places actually nice to walk, instead of super uncomfortable, right next to loud speeding cars.

I was looking at our local zoning laws, and it doesn't look like you're allowed to make a non-car-dependent mixed-use development, thanks to density restrictions and parking requirements. Hopefully as sentiment changes, we can change more of those zoning laws.

It seems like basic arithmetic that the "replacement" car is being "shared" by multiple people.

How is it to society's benefit if someone doesn't buy a [MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING MACHINE]? It could be if someone [IMAGES MAGNETIC RESONANCE] less, but if they replace a [MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING MACHINE] with a [MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING MACHINE] [OPERATED] by another person, it seems to be even worse.

Bit of a facetious response and not in the spirit on HN, but you absolutely nailed the choice of noun with MRI machine, lol. Perfect.

I didn't know people needed an MRI twice a day to be able to work, or to use an MRI to enjoy a concert or a dinner out. If people need that many MRIs, maybe everyone should get their own!

Having a car means you travel more. If enough people don't have cars, it strengthens local economies and smaller businesses instead of everyone driving to Walmart at the edge of town.

I can imagine this working fine in a world of families where one person works and the other stays at home, as there's time to walk to the shops once a day for different things, to avoid carrying a week's worth of shopping by hand.

In a world where both have to have full-time jobs, it's harder to see how this would work. And I grew up in a time where we still had a local butcher and baker (candlesticks were sadly out of fashion), and the way we did it was a) live really close to them, and b) not get everything for the week on the same shop.

It doesn't have to be specialist shops like butchers and bakers. I have three grocery stores within a 10-minute walk that all manage to sell everything I need, from shampoo to fresh produce.

Buying a week's worth of groceries of any kind is very weird to me. The only place where I have ever bought that much is at Costco, and only because they force you to buy in huge quantities (except for electronics and standard sized individual bottles of wine and liquor). I cancelled my membership when I realized how much of a hassle it is to spend my weekend time going out there and waiting in long checkout lines vs just stopping by my local grocery store on the way back from work twice a week.

Taxis are generally more efficient vehicles for town driving; e.g. a Prius. When people own their own car they have to make it work for everything they need it for, so it might be a diesel or petrol car, or larger, or anything else. Replacing that multi-use car with a Prius that's running on electric for half the journey is a good idea.

I would argue it’s not regression, that it’s normalization. ZIRP is on pause and things need to be profitable right now, I don’t see this as a bad thing in any way.

If the business model doesn’t work, it shouldn’t have money thrown at it.