Hacker News Reader

Comment by samstave | Hacker News Reader

It may increase the "total miles traveled" but doesn't it also increase occupancy density in the cars, thus reducing the fuel/pollution consumption?

I'm tired of shitty data coming out of Uber and Lyft: I want to know about fuel consumption and the impact on auto insurance rates/accident frequency.

Given the known population of drivers, what is their average insurance rate, fuel consumption etc vs the general pop whom are driving their own cars/fuel/insurance?

I recall I had a heavy month on city car share where I spent $800 in one month for that service. Fuck that. I cancelled my account after that.

There is extraordinarily valuable data these companies (and insurance companies) have they don't share. The fact that they hoard this data to protect their profits should be criminal as this data should be a Utility...

View on HN

> It may increase the "total miles traveled" but doesn't it also increase occupancy density in the cars

If it did then it wouldn't increase total VMT. Again there are "deadhead" miles in those cars without any passengers at all, a fifth of those trips wouldn't have happened in the first place, and two fifths would have used alternatives that don't contribute to VMT. (According to the study.)

The fifth of those trips that don't happen sounds bad to me. Does this mean that, for example, people are not going to get groceries because they can't carry all of that on a bicycle or a bus?

From the article, "Ride-hailing users have higher personal vehicle ownership rates than those who use “transit only”: 52% versus 46%." This point seems like a non-point. First, that's not a very big gap. Also, Do richer people pollute less or congest less than poorer people? I don't think so, so having the car in the garage is better than having it on the road, and no different than not having it at all.

Probably more like people wouldn’t go out to a cross-town bar or restaurant if they couldn’t take a taxi or lyft/uber to get there. For example, if mass transit is prohibitive (two buses at 1 am) and they don’t want to drive drunk.

Easy access to quick transportation is a general economic benefit for everyone. That’s not support for uber or lyft specifically, but if people can easily get around town, they’re more likely to make extra trips to bars, restaurants, shows, etc. where they may have otherwise considered just staying home.

Nobody in Los Angeles is ever taking a taxi.

The reality, in LA, is that if you're not going via Uber/Lyft, you're driving drunk. Not going is not even on the table. This is FOMO capital of the world.

Define FOMO?

Fear of missing out?

> Does this mean that, for example, people are not going to get groceries

Unlikely. Most trips are to bars, parties and restaurants.

The point about car ownership is really just refuting the belief that ridesharing leads to an immediate decrease in car ownership. Overall the study tries to focus on VMT as the more important metric, since you could sell your car and switch to ridesharing and still end up with greater VMT.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com