throwaw2934238

Yes that would be me! I would spend the money just to get a few extra hours of free time per week, that I save from not riding public transport, and being able to make fewer shopping trips, for the guarantee of being able to get into nature and where I want to go on the weekends.

Try again on a sunday afternoon on one of the first beautiful spring days, see how many cars you can find then. Zero around here

Even if public transport goes out into nature, it's going to be a tiny fraction of the places that you can reach with a car. To reach nature in the same extent with public transport as with a car, is impossible. The few nature spots that are connected by public transport around here are completely overcrowded on any weekend with nice weather, and the trip itself takes more than twice the time of driving, making day trips not even feasible anymore.

Even just getting around in inside the city, driving takes on average half the time of public transport. Shopping is much more convenient. It IS impossible to have public transport that delivers the same usefulness, speed and flexibility.

Exactly my situation, I rent an apartment in the city with street parking, for me this would be the perfect solution, why not, I don't need any more range, the flexibility is much more important.

I want one of these cars, I live in an apartment in a city with street parking. There is no way I can install solar panels, and there is no space for it anywhere.

People who live in big cities and ride crowded public transport every day to work, do not want to spend their free time on the weekend riding crowded public transport in the city.

The cars are used to get away from crowds and from the city, to have some privacy and comfort and go out into nature.

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.

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.

I also think these cars would be great, and have a lot of peoples needs covered, me for example. I don't understand this sentiment in the debate of electric cars, how all of them need to cover the most extreme edge case of long mileage users, and if they don't, the whole idea should be scrapped. Why? Let's build a few different cars with different ranges to suit peoples different needs, what's the problem with that, I don't understand why there is such a black and white reasoning around this.

I live in a big city and use car sharing, and I don't think it works great at all. The fundamental problem with it, and the thing that is always overlooked in the calculations of how much time private cars are unused, is that everyone wants the cars at the same time. Mornings + afternoons (commute times) and weekends. Also highly depending on the weather, which means even planning a day ahead is very hard. If it's sunday afternoon and the weather is nice, good luck finding a free car in the car sharing.

Public transport still doesn't cover all the use cases of a car, such as hauling things and going out into nature. Which is something everyone needs to do.