Whipcar - is it green?

galapogos33

I like the look of a new site called Whipcar which lets you earn extra money by renting your car to neighbours. Sounds like a good scheme for a little extra income, but they pitch it as being "green" - I don't really understand how it is, can anyone explain?

Sure, if fewer people own cars and rent from their neighbours then there's generally less car ownership. That's a good thing, green-wise. But I imagine this won't encourage fewer people to own cars, but will just allow non-car-owners to drive more.

rogerblack

If you have to pre-book a car, you're probably rather less likely to use it than if you can simply use it as a matter of right at any time.

zeupater

Hi

Many(/Most?) insurance policies don't even cover you if you are driving for any form of monetary gain ... ie charging someone for a lift or driving a personal car whilst on business ... I'd be pretty sure that I'd have concerns if this wasn't checked & addressed up front ....

HTH
Z

Ben84

galapogos33 wrote: »

I like the look of a new site called Whipcar which lets you earn extra money by renting your car to neighbours. Sounds like a good scheme for a little extra income, but they pitch it as being "green" - I don't really understand how it is, can anyone explain?

Sure, if fewer people own cars and rent from their neighbours then there's generally less car ownership. That's a good thing, green-wise. But I imagine this won't encourage fewer people to own cars, but will just allow non-car-owners to drive more.

I guess the idea is that less cars will need to be made, maintained and less space used by them.

Generally however, if you want to be green, taking some kind of public transport seems to be the better option than driving.

The anti car sentiment isn't always fair though. Cars can be fairly efficient and compare well to other options - but only if you have multiple passengers. Most their energy use is used to move the car itself, not the passengers, so the energy difference between one person or five people in the car is very small. Still, I think public transport is the best option as it runs no matter how many people are on it, so for green issues, it makes sense to try and use it before other options so that we make the most of the energy it uses.

EricMears

Ben84 wrote: »

Still, I think public transport is the best option as it runs no matter how many people are on it

It surely wouldn't be very 'green' to run a bus if nobody wanted to join that trip ?

Limey

Rent my car to my neighbours?! :eek: Good grief are you MAD! It would have dents in it in no time the way they drive & park. :rotfl:

zeupater

EricMears wrote: »

It surely wouldn't be very 'green' to run a bus if nobody wanted to join that trip ?

My thoughts exactly .... outside the major cities Dr Beeching ensured that even where the railway lines remained, many of the stations & halts disappeared .... try using a train around here and you need a car to get to the local town station even though that a mere 60 years ago there was likely one in a nearby village .... a bus, yes you see them ... a spectacular two or three a day in some places !! - doubt that they save much CO2 though because they're simply providing a service which can't possibly be commercially viable and only exists due to subsidy .... if there's two or three passengers on the bus when you see one then it's considered busy and mostly you usually just see the driver ....

If I lived in London I'd use public transport, but because I don't I simply find it to be somewhere between amusing & frustrating that those in power who are responsible for transport policy are in based London and therefore simply don't understand that public transport isn't even an option for most of the rest of the country ...

HTH
Z

EricMears

Limey wrote: »

Rent my car to my neighbours?! :eek: Good grief are you MAD! It would have dents in it in no time the way they drive & park. :rotfl:

Actually, that might work to your advantage. Most commercial car-hire companies inspect cars before & after the rental period and (I suspect) make a lot of money out of charging rip-off prices to repair any damage noted afterwards but not before.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Actually, that might work to your advantage. Most commercial car-hire companies inspect cars before & after the rental period and (I suspect) make a lot of money out of charging rip-off prices to repair any damage noted afterwards but not before.

That's ringing an old bell, somewhere. Wasn't there a large(ish) company that got lots of complaints because they would claim (on return) that the car couldn't be examined because nobody was available for a couple of hours or so - then customers would find large surcharges on their credit card bills for 'damage and repairs'.

Mart.

Ben84

zeupater wrote: »

My thoughts exactly .... outside the major cities Dr Beeching ensured that even where the railway lines remained, many of the stations & halts disappeared .... try using a train around here and you need a car to get to the local town station even though that a mere 60 years ago there was likely one in a nearby village .... a bus, yes you see them ... a spectacular two or three a day in some places !! - doubt that they save much CO2 though because they're simply providing a service which can't possibly be commercially viable and only exists due to subsidy .... if there's two or three passengers on the bus when you see one then it's considered busy and mostly you usually just see the driver ....

If I lived in London I'd use public transport, but because I don't I simply find it to be somewhere between amusing & frustrating that those in power who are responsible for transport policy are in based London and therefore simply don't understand that public transport isn't even an option for most of the rest of the country ...

HTH
Z

I think public transport is essential and support the subsidies. The problem is that there aren't enough subsidies to provide a service that people want to use instead of a car, meaning only the people who must use it in many areas do and that it never becomes popular. I suspect in many cases, a few years of high subsidies and good services would help launch the services and make them more cost effective eventually when they have enough regular users.

Anyway, my point about the bus/train is that it typically runs, regardless if it's full or empty. So, when someone takes the bus or train they're adding very little more pollution and fuel consumption that would have been produced anyway. Pollution and fuel consumption aren't personalised issues, they're global issues and I'm thinking more total outcome rather than just assigning specific fractions to specific people and journeys.

Basically, where energy use is a fixed event that happens regardless how many people use the product of it, it makes sense environmentally at least to try and do the most we can with it.

Ben84

EricMears wrote: »

It surely wouldn't be very 'green' to run a bus if nobody wanted to join that trip ?

Bus use varies, but when trying to encourage people to use it and not have a car, those unpopular journeys and routes do count for a lot more than they appear to do at first. Mainly, it's important not to view each passenger trip as an isolated event and see more the behaviours behind how people travel.

The key point I think is people are typically either a public transport user or a car user. Once you've invested in a car, it makes the most economical sense to use it for all (or nearly all) journeys. Most people who own cars aren't going to give them up until they're confident that public transport will meet all their needs without too much adjusting their plans around it. Meanwhile, people who don't yet own cars will be less tempted to buy a car when public transport is flexible enough for them to change their plans without significant problems with trip times.

The current trend (at least where I live) to stop routes and times may at first shift more people on to each bus, but long term it just shifts people in to cars. Even I'm relenting and tempted to get a car now, and I'm pretty against the idea for environmental reasons. But, who wants to be stuck at home feeling green when they actually need to go to work and want a social life?

Anyway, places I've been with lots of buses also tend to have lots of passengers, despite of course some routes and times having more than others. It's not a coincidence. The more times and routes, I'm sure over time, the more people will use them and the average passenger numbers per route will go up. Some places also have small buses and large ones on the same route, changing from small ones to double decker ones for the rush hour. There are options.