this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
566 points (99.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

11842 readers
910 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tlekiteki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 58 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Ridesharing is an improvement on some of the problems of privately owned cars. Its more equitable and accessible. It saves the necessity of giant parking lots.

Public transit is even better!

[–] thisfro@slrpnk.net 78 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ridesharing, yes. Not uber taxi with exploitation

[–] huppakee@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Free ride sharing (eg hitchhiking) is better than cheap ride sharing (eg blabla car) which is better then expensive ride sharing (eg a taxi) which - but all are better than there only beingprivately owned cars that are exclusively privately used.

[–] thisfro@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 days ago

Or, you know, public transport ;)

But yeah, it's true. I use carsharing if I feally need a car and public transport/biking most of the time.

[–] JayleneSlide@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

If you can plan a bit ahead, ridesharing/transportation is one of the most popular services in US timebanks.

Disclosure: I am a founding board member of a timebank that uses hOurworld software.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 38 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yes, in principle. However, uber have a well known history of skirting labour laws, skirting taxi laws and doing so to undermine competition and then jack up prices. Risesharing is better than owning a car, but monopolies in how that works are not good for anyone except uber.

[–] tlekiteki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

My high school econ teacher pointed out that New York used to have a fixed number of taxi licenses.This made competition illegal and kept the price up.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Everywhere. That’s not a nyc problem.

Ubers success is largely from breaking this customer unfriendliness. I use uber because the app is more convenient and effective than finding a taxi and trying to tell them where to go. Uber is less expensive, I can track the route if I disagree with it, and I have the opportunity to give feedback. At least as importantly, uber is far more common than taxis were. From a customer perspective, it’s a pretty good deal.

However they bent a lot of laws to get there, and exploit their drivers. Limited taxi medallions were originally in place to establish standards for customer service mandate service to underserved areas, on the one hand and to support reasonable wages on the other, although likely got captured by the industry. Every “gig economy” business is bending employee/contractor law and most are likely dependent on violating minimum wages, benefits and worker protection laws, what little we have of that.

Downtown I can get an uber in minutes, while there were never enough taxis. Here in the suburbs it takes a long time to get an uber, but medallions always required there be taxis on duty (I actually don’t know if taxis are still in business here). I imagine coverage is even worse in less populated or les desirable parts of the country, and that’s one of the things we lost with taxis

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago

I don't know about NYC specifically, but that's pretty common. Not only were there a set amount, there are set fees and minimum standards and requirements for people with disabilities and police checks for drivers etc.

Uber circumvented a lot of those rules. The taxi industry was due for an update and vested interests were preventing that. However, we've exchanged one monopoly for another. And now, instead of lots of small business owners, we have one large business andots of wage slaves and surge pricing.

[–] LemmiChanga@programming.dev 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Fediverse rideshare? Maybe. Not sure how the liabilities would fall.

[–] capybara@lemm.ee 3 points 4 days ago

Define ridesharing. I think of e.g. sharing a ride to work or school and not people working, often full-time, with sharing rides