Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Cellphones Transportation

Nearly One-third of Consumers Would Give Up Their Car Before Their Smartphone (computerworld.com) 242

Lucas123 writes: A survey of 1,200 general consumers in four major countries by global tech design firm Frog found that 30% of respondents would give up their car before their smartphone. The online survey, which included the U.S., China, Denmark, and Germany, found that 37% of car owners would like to give up their car outright or felt they could get by without it by using an alternative form of transportation. "I think the people of my generation saw driving a vehicle as a rite of passage to adulthood. That was your freedom. I think the generation now views going from point A to point B as just occupying time that they could be doing something else," said Andrew Poliak of QNX Software Systems. At the same time, another survey revealed that even engineers continue to be wary of fully autonomous vehicles, including their vulnerability to hacks and exploits. The survey of IEEE members found they are not comfortable having autonomous vehicles pick up/drop off their children.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nearly One-third of Consumers Would Give Up Their Car Before Their Smartphone

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @02:20AM (#50771193)

    Smartphones are severely underpriced...

    • Not really. $600-$800 phone every 2 years plus the contract which can easily cost you $800-$1200 a year. You can afford to buy a cheap used car if you cancelled your phone for a few years.

      • by afc_wimbledon ( 1052878 ) on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @08:03AM (#50772097)

        Not really. $600-$800 phone every 2 years plus the contract which can easily cost you $800-$1200 a year. You can afford to buy a cheap used car if you cancelled your phone for a few years.

        Comparing a new premium phone with a cheap used car is like comparing apples with.... oh, wait!

  • by rsborg ( 111459 ) on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @02:21AM (#50771197) Homepage

    ...they can get a ride just with their smartphone.

    Plus they can always bum a ride off their friends (oh, lets be honest, more likely their parents - more and more 18+ live with their parents due to insane rents and general inflation combined with a poor job market).

  • by ruir ( 2709173 ) on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @02:23AM (#50771207)
    Driving is not only wasting time, but squandering money. If you live in a area well served with affordable public transportation, you save thousands by the year. And actually is one less shackle enslaving you. If you can afford to at least go without a car until you have children, you will save thousands. Depending on the country, the kind of car you drive, the downpayment, the maintenance and the depreciation, the taxes, a car might translate very well into an expense of 300-1,000 Euros per month.
    • by ruir ( 2709173 )
      forgot to mention taxes (which are there, and parking in city areas)
      • forgot to mention taxes (which are there, and parking in city areas)

        So are you planning on living in a tent in the woods to avoid all costs of living except for your smartphone?

        Smartphones are just another consumption device, and you'd be more precise comparing it to Televisions than autos.

        Having both, there is about zero crossover between the two.

    • In the US, there are almost no areas well served with affordable public transportation. If you can do without, that's great. But generally the $1000 cars that you have to fix yourself every weekend can save a ton of time and money and get you to a wider variety of jobs.

      • by ruir ( 2709173 )
        I live in Europe 4km from my job, and the tube just right by the door...a luxury, granted, even here. As you kindly point out, the problem is not buying an (old) car. It is easy to do the math taxes and insurance, and I do not live in the most expensive of the countries (in Euros) - 100 per month - gas, work and leisure around 150. Car usage, make it 100-200 (I paid it upfront, so no interest). Lets dilute the parts needed, maybe 50 per month. So as a rough estimate, going around by car costs me 350-400 per
        • 4 kilometres? That's a very easy cycling distance... no need to even get sweaty if you just pootle along at say 10 mph...
        • 4k from your job?! You have no understanding of how America has a much lower population density. I live 50km from my job and I am not an outlier. There is no way public transportation will be efficient enough with areas of low population density.

          I could live in a city, deal with crime, noisy neighbors, expensive rent. Or I can own a nice home out in the suberbs or rural area and live better.

          • by dave420 ( 699308 )
            That's quite the false dilemma. There are plenty of cities with pretty low crime, quiet streets, and affordable rent. You not living in one or knowing about them doesn't stop them existing!
            • Like where? And do they have jobs for engineers? Of course not.

              Sure, there's a bunch of small cities around with low rents and low crime, but there's no work for professionals there. Or, if there is any work, the pay rate is ridiculously low ("we don't need to pay you much because the cost of living is so low!"), and it's the only company there, so if that job doesn't work out, you'll be spending thousands of dollars to relocate. Living in a tech hub avoids this problem.

        • by oic0 ( 1864384 )
          Even old crappy cars wont have much wear and tear at 8km a day. I drive a 2000 Tacoma with 200,000 miles on it and have spent less than $200 on parts since I bought it at 30,000 miles. Maybe $50 a year on oil and filters. If I had a commute as short as yours I would spend far less.
    • by Jiro ( 131519 ) on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @03:10AM (#50771313)

      Using a car isn't wasting time; using public transportation is wasting time. The public transportation goes from a specific location to another specific location (so it takes time to walk to and from those locations), and costs even more time when you transfer or wait for the next bus or train. It also might not go in a straight line and probably stops at many places along the way which you would not do in a car.

      Also, even places with otherwise good public transportation tend to only cover almost all of the times when you'd need it. Covering *all* of the times when you'd need it means having the public transportation run routes at times and places when the ridership is very low; governments hate doing this because it's a money sink, so you still need a car for that last 5% or 10% of the uses.

      • Using a car isn't wasting time

        Yeah it is. While using a car, you can't get anything done. In order to not be antisocial and risk running into people, you have to concentrate on driving. You literally can't get anything else done.

        using public transportation is wasting time.

        A bit, but not as much, and besides, you're assuming incorrectly that it's necessarily faster to drive. My morning commute is walk 10 minutes to the station, wait for the train (I usually arrive about 2 minutes prior to the scheduled depar

        • by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @05:46AM (#50771693) Homepage

          "Public transport goes almost everywhere I need,"

          Then you obviously don't need to go anywhere outside of the city or somewhere that isn't served by national rail. I also live in London and I'd be fecked without my car because I have friends and relatives who live in small towns up north which by car takes 2 hours and by public transport would take literally half a day. And then theres just having days out in the car with the baby. Good luck doing that on a train or bus and retaining your sanity.

          • Then you obviously don't need to go anywhere outside of the city or somewhere that isn't served by national rail.

            See this part:

            Public transport goes ALMOST everywhere I need.

            The bit that says "ALMOST".

            I never claimed public transport went everywhere, but it goes ALMOST everywhere I need to. When it doesn't, as I already mentioned in my post, I can rent a car.

            I also live in London and I'd be fecked without my car because I have friends and relatives who live in small towns up north which by car takes 2 hour

        • Yeah it is. While using a car, you can't get anything done. In order to not be antisocial and risk running into people, you have to concentrate on driving. You literally can't get anything else done.

          While using public transport, I can't get anything done. It subtracts so much time from my day that you're totally and completely wrong. When I lived in Santa Cruz and was taking the bus to work, it took at least twice as long as driving. When I lived in SF, the Muni took five times as long as driving to work, including parking. When I lived in Austin, I was able to afford an apartment within walking distance of work. Public transportation is broken in most of the world, but especially in the USA. I hear it

          • While using public transport, I can't get anything done.

            Why not? I see lots of people reading books or working on laptops.

            Anyway it sounds like public transport in places you've lived kinda sucks, or the cities aren't really dense enough to benefit fully. Once the population density gets high enough, driving simply isn't an option as the roads can't cope with the volume of traffic.

            I hear it works in NY, if you can avoid being soaked with urine.

            I have no explanation as to why NY is as popular as it seems to

            • I have no explanation as to why NY is as popular as it seems to be.

              I can give you two possible reasons: 1) it's just about the only place in the US where public transit works really well (as long as you stay in Manhattan), and 2) there's a LOT of single women there, and they aren't fat.

              There's also countless places to eat and a lot to do generally, both inside and outside the city, all without needing a car. AFAICT, it's really unique that way in the US.

      • Entirely depends on location. I live in an outer London suburb and can be at my workplace by train in 50 minutes door to door. That's a 20 minute train journey (factoring in a couple of minutes wait-time on the platform), plus 15 minutes walk at either end. The equivalent car journey, which I've done a handful of times (though I don't currently own a car) is around 110 minutes in the morning peak, given London congestion and the need to walk from the nearest (expensive) public car parking to my office.

        I've

        • That's what taxi and car-hire firms are for.

          If someone doesn't have his licence yet, what car should he use for the tens of hours of supervised driving practice that many jurisdictions require before he becomes eligible for the services of "car-hire firms"?

          • He... should... go to a driving instructor.

            The way it works in the UK at least (and many other European countries), most people who learn to drive do so via lessons from a paid instructor (this isn't a legal requirement in the UK, but it is widely acknowledged as the best way to learn). The instructor will provide the car for both the lessons and the practical test (there's also a written test that must be passed before you can take the practical test). There are specific insurance packages for professional

        • Fine. You have picked the worst possible scenario for driving. Rush hour in a huge European city.

          In nearly every other scenario, driving is going to be the shorter time option, unless your departure and destination point happen to be right next to a mass transit location (and driving is till going to be shorter at no-rush hour times).

          • Large cities have large populations. Just over 90% of the UK population lives in urban areas, with almost 15% in London. Other European and Asian countries are following similar trends, at various paces. Most people travel to work in the rush hour.

            What I selected might be a worst case scenario, but it is a common worst case scenario. If anything, the US is more of a fringe-case, because so many of its cities are so poorly supported by public transport.

      • I read a book when I use public transport, so the time isn't wasted. I can't read a book while I am driving and no, an audio book is not an adequate replacement.

      • by houghi ( 78078 )

        It depends on the situation. The car is efficient with availability. It is right there. However when I want to drive to work, public transport wins for me.

        Instead of 2 hours in the car, it is one hour with public transport and I calculate from my desk at home to my desk at work. So not regarding money, I gain 2 hours per day. Also my work pays 100% of the public transport I take. Not uncommon in Belgium.

        OTOH when I want to do shopping at the weekend; public transport will cost two times as much as using the

      • by dave420 ( 699308 )

        I walk about 20 meters from my front door to the tram, and then about 300 meters the other end to get to the office. The journey takes ~30 minutes.

        I don't have a car and don't need one. Public transport is amazing when done well. I feel sorry for you not knowing what it's like to at least have the option of not using a car.

      • by MacTO ( 1161105 )

        Notice that the original post said "well served" and "affordable" public transportation. I realize that isn't the case in a lot of cities. It certainly isn't the case for the city that I live in. On the other hand, many major urban centres have transit that fits both categories. By the time you factor in the costs of owning a vehicle, that squandering of money may very well be squandering time as well (i.e. you have to work more to pay more). Depending upon where you live and work, you may even be squa

      • Taking advantage of existing infrastructure is efficient. You write code to take full use of C++ stl classes and C stdlib. Only when these routine things well proven, debugged, optimized and tuned code would not serve your purposes you write your own container or stream io. Adapting your life to use public transportation will even out. Time "wasted" in the bus shelter waiting for a bus will wash out sitting in grid locked traffic. Sitting in your car on alternate Tuesdays between 9AM and 11 AM to hold on to
      • Using a car isn't wasting time; using public transportation is wasting time.

        You have that exactly right

        As an example - the bus schedule from my work to home means I either take off work a half hour early, or wait at the stop for 45 minutes. Then it takes a circuitous route on campus and through town, then shopping centers.

        So in comparison for my two mile home to work trip leaving at 5:00 p.m.:

        Bus ride = 1 hour 45 minutes

        Walking home = 40 minutes

        Drive home = 10 minutes

        So I can take off the 45 minute wait in the morning for the bus, and come up with around 3 hours a day of

      • Using a car isn't wasting time; using public transportation is wasting time. The public transportation goes from a specific location to another specific location (so it takes time to walk to and from those locations), and costs even more time when you transfer or wait for the next bus or train. It also might not go in a straight line and probably stops at many places along the way which you would not do in a car.

        Perhaps, but at least I can do productive things while riding the bus (thanks to my smartphone). Now if only I could afford to ride the bus (a monthly bus pass costs $200, or I can continue to spend $50 per month on gas).

    • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

      I actually find public transport to be expensive (far above the combined costs of owning and using a car), highly inconvenient (unless you happen to live near the busstop, always want to go near a busstop and everything runs on time; which is almost never) and -most importantly- physically and mentally draining; it's not enjoyable to be packed like a sardine in a can in a subway or train. Traffic jams aren't fun either, but atleast I have some room to move.

      • "Traffic jams aren't fun either, but at least I have some room to move."

        traffic jams? Nah... just filter past them on my e-bike...

      • I actually find public transport to be expensive (far above the combined costs of owning and using a car), highly inconvenient (unless you happen to live near the busstop, always want to go near a busstop and everything runs on time; which is almost never) and -most importantly- physically and mentally draining; it's not enjoyable to be packed like a sardine in a can in a subway or train. Traffic jams aren't fun either, but atleast I have some room to move.

        Let me guess, you're in America? I am too, and I can't believe the cost of public transport here. I'm fortunate that where I live it's much more convenient than driving, but several times more expensive. I've actually considered enrolling in the local university because they give out free bus passes to full-time students, and tuition would actually cost me about the same as buying the bus pass alone.

    • Driving is not only wasting time, but squandering money.

      *Commuting* is a waste of time....driving, for many people, is a passionate hobby.

      When I get tired of surfing the 'Net late at night, I go driving. The roads are fairly open since there's no dull worker-drones commuting, allowing you to go for a relaxing cruise, hit some twisties on the hills, or shred your tires drifting (although the noise from the latter tends to attract police attention).

      I suspect the bulk of the respondents simply have no idea and no experience with how to actually enjoy an au

      • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        I suspect the bulk of the respondents simply have no idea and no experience with how to actually enjoy an automobile.

        At just over 300hp my 2 seater Z car restoration, with suspension tuned to my body weight is exactly what you are talking about. I'm building another one now - great fun, much more fun than a phone on the twisty back roads. No traction on the phone, it just slides, the car however handles like a go-kart. ;)

    • by Alioth ( 221270 )

      This is a big "if". I live in an area well served by public transport - the frequency is good, but due to geography it is very slow. The bus meanders around every tiny village, and although there is a bus stop 50m from my house, the nearest it gets to my work place is about 10 minutes walk away. It would take me an hour to go the 12.5 miles to work by bus plus the walk at the end.

      If the weather's nice I ride my bike to work. It's 12.5 hilly miles each way. I'm not Lance Armstrong, I never even wear lycra, b

    • Driving is not only wasting time, but squandering money. If you live in a area well served with affordable public transportation, you save thousands by the year. And actually is one less shackle enslaving you. If you can afford to at least go without a car until you have children, you will save thousands. Depending on the country, the kind of car you drive, the downpayment, the maintenance and the depreciation, the taxes, a car might translate very well into an expense of 300-1,000 Euros per month.

      Let me try:

      Having a smartphone is not only a waste of time, but squandering money. If you live in an area well-served by... well, anything actually, you save thousands by the year. And the smartphone is actually one less shackle enslaving you. If you can afford to go without a smartphone until you have children you will save thousands. Depending on the country, the kind of smartphone, the purchase price, the monthly data bill, the OOB charges, the apps you purchase, a phone can very easily translate into

    • by Hasaf ( 3744357 )

      I got rid of my car several years ago. If I need to get somewhere I can ride my bicycle. for long distances I am going to fly anyways. For the few times I need to go somewhere I need a car for I can rent one. I think I have rented a car three times this year.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Well, it's more complicated than $$$car >> $$$transit. You have to factor in your time as well, and this is where mobile devices alter the equation dramatically. Whereas people (at least non-readers at least) used to view time spent on the train or bus as wasted, they can now be playing a game or catching up on social media.

      On the flip side is the unproductive nature of time spent plugged into a mobile device -- social media especially. It's not that socializing on facebook or gaming is completely w

    • Unfortunately my are has lousy funded public transportation. I drive 25 minutes to get to my job one way because I moved out of the city. When I did live in the city and the drive was 15 minutes, to take public transportation would have taken 1 hour and 15 minutes, including walking a mile to make a connection. I live in the second largest city in this state too so to find better would mean moving a long way.

      It would have been faster when I lived in the city to bike the 10 miles to work rather than take
    • Driving is not only wasting time, but squandering money.

      Spending all your time glued to that smartphone is a fine way to use time wisely. Seeing some of my friend's phone bills is enlightening as well.

      It's different priorities. The Generation That Never Looked Up waste plenty of time and money on their little addiction.

    • Does zero service at night, on Saturday evenings, on Sundays, or on major holidays (source: fwcitilink.com) count as "well served"? During April through October, I work around this on a bicycle, but mornings above 0C/32F are ending soon.

    • "If you live in a area well served with affordable public transportation"

      Who does this apply to? NYC, maybe Chicago?

    • Relatively few outdoors places in Colorado and California are accessible by public transportation. I couldnt afford a car while in school. But I could it gave great freedom.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @02:28AM (#50771219)

    Id ditch the phone, the car is my freedom plus I have UHF and VHF radio in the car for communication. Unlike phones you can use a radio while you drive where I am (Australia).

  • by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @02:44AM (#50771249)

    While we're on the subject of unrealistic counterfactuals... If each American had to choose between keeping their cellphone or their gun, how many would choose which?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @03:48AM (#50771413)

      With a gun I can get a lot of phones, so this one is easy.

    • by rsborg ( 111459 )

      While we're on the subject of unrealistic counterfactuals... If each American had to choose between keeping their cellphone or their gun, how many would choose which?

      Considering only about 1 in 3 Americans either owns a gun [1] I'd say most people by default would choose their smartphone since 2 in 3 Americans [2] own one of those. I assume in both cases, they're counting adults - but regardless, that means 2x smartphone owners vs gun owners. If I owned a smartphone but no gun, I'd have to answer to keep my real smartphone and not keep my (not owned therefore theoretical) firearm.

      Among gun owners, you're talking about a biased group - you don't need to own a gun in mos

      • Honestly, I understand the part of wanting a firearm - target shooting is fun (well, used to be fun for me, then it got boring so I sold mine) but actually needing one - that must be a pretty fucked up location.

        • You don't normally need a gun, but when you do, little else is a substitute.

          • I wouldn't be so sure about that. A general availability of firearms tends to escalate conflicts that don't have to escalate otherwise. Here in Germany for example, home invasions are very very rare and if they happen, the outcome is usually a few bruises, if it even comes to that. Homicides are even rarer - there are fewer murders in Germany than in Alabama, despite Alabama being an open carry state and Germany having 16 times the population.

    • I'm not all that keen on having a phone in the first place. If I finally get to choose between phone and something else, I'm choosing something else.
    • While we're on the subject of unrealistic counterfactuals... If each American had to choose between keeping their cellphone or their gun, how many would choose which?

      I'll give you my smartphone when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

  • by ttsai ( 135075 ) on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @02:59AM (#50771287)

    I think it would be interesting to see the breakdown of survey results by country and region. If I live in the New York City area, I could see potentially going without a car due to viable alternative transportation options. If I live in Silicon Valley and already drive a car to work, it would be completely unacceptable to not have a car, as that would increase weekly travel times by 10-15 hours, i.e., an order of magnitude more travel time and several orders of magnitude more frustration. I imagine that Denmark and Germany and probably even China skew the numbers toward the New York City type of response.

    It would probably also be interesting to see the breakdown by age. I'm older in age and always choose to use a larger screen whenever possible. It would slightly bother me to give up my smartphone, but it would be unacceptable to me to lose my PC. The viewing and GUI interaction experience with a PC is way better and having to use a smartphone as my sole access to the web would make me go crazy.

    • I think it would be interesting to see the breakdown of survey results by country and region. If I live in the New York City area, I could see potentially going without a car due to viable alternative transportation options. If I live in Silicon Valley and already drive a car to work, it would be completely unacceptable to not have a car, as that would increase weekly travel times by 10-15 hours, i.e., an order of magnitude more travel time and several orders of magnitude more frustration.

      Stop it with that crazy logic stuff. Onward!

  • by FunkSoulBrother ( 140893 ) on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @03:09AM (#50771309)

    Fuck you, I'm a customer not a consumer. And no shit, its called public transit and living somewhere walkable.

    • most likely you are both. unless you are buying the smartphone for someone else in your family.
    • As much as I'd like to live somewhere walkable with decent public transit, whatever drive I have for that is overwhelmed by the repulsiveness of living that close to so many people.
  • another survey revealed that even engineers continue to be wary of fully autonomous vehicles

    That statement makes it look like it is almost a surprise.
    Most engineers that I know are more concerned with the problems that can arise with fully autonomous vehicles than Joe sixpack, simply because they have at least some idea of how it works.
    In an uncontrolled environment, there will be something that you did not plan for, and it is just a matter of time before there the shit hits the fan.
    For Joe sixpack, a computer is a magic box. They don't know how it works, and they don't care. Until something go

    • So, to be honest, there are a diminishingly small number of humans I would entrust to transport my small child. That's mainly because of the need to care for the child and the possible contingencies which occur when dealing with a child who is not able to negotiate all typical every day tasks, not necessarily the safety of the ride.

      Would I put my 4 or 5 year old in an autonomous vehicle? No.
      Would I accompany my 4 or 5 year old in an autonomous vehicle? Sure.

      Riding in an autonomous vehicle is, imho, akin to

  • felt they could get by without it by using an alternative form of transportation

    So they'd go nowhere? Because walking is one of the alternative forms of transportation.

  • Seems biased... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Sounds like something city folk would say.

    • I like how the "online survey" purports to sample "general consumers" (unless that was a casualty of editing). I'm sure being online, the survey doesn't carry any bias toward tech-savvy and -dependent consumers.

  • I want to post on slasdot about the idea Of giving up personal vehicles. Though please understand that self driving cars will be hacked to kill everyone. Wtf.
  • Almost a third of consumers are either under 17 or over 65 and don't have to drive themselves to work
  • Why is it such a surprise that they won't give up the thing that helps take it away.

  • by TheRealHocusLocus ( 2319802 ) on Wednesday October 21, 2015 @07:16AM (#50771913)

    TA is one of those gee-whiz ain't the world chaingin' golly gee wow. I think this article is also a great authoritarian training exercise to help condition people to the thought of centrally imposed austerity measures. Take two things most people use, each of which they carry a range of opinion from indispensable to frivolous --- depending on their own unique circumstances --- but of course!

    Combine these people together in a bowl, and add a dash of confiscation trauma, and stir. Confiscation trauma is when someone wants to explore how people feel about specific things, but they feel that a good way to get people to 'open up' about their true feelings is to introduce the idea that one of them might be involuntarily (or forcibly) taken away.

    It can be as subtle as a choice of headline, where One third of people would opt for smartphone over car becomes Would Give Up Their Car Before Their Smartphone.

    To 'opt for' implies you may have one (or neither) and you are not in any position of adversity, simply evaluating them. To 'give up' changes the flavor completely. Now people are imagining unwelcome external forces influencing them. Things are being taken away. Some may imagine financial difficulties, others become outright paranoid. Both camps, have merit these days as take-home pay has stagnated and as special interest groups push their agendas through Congress. But an integral part of the game is that you imagine some adversary that is forcing you to make a choice.

    Now the rants and counter-rants begin, and the issue clouds because some of the people who seems to be favoring smartphones are actually just saying that their own lifestyle does not include driving. Today. At this moment. Some who argue in favor of cars are actually feeling threatened because --- well, let me cut to the quick here --- cars use evil fossil fuel and folks who consider automobile ownership and the personal freedom they provide to be a modern rite of passage, feel they are feeling 'encroached' by metropolitan and suburban attitudes, and it is not difficult to imagine some future where even rural people who need their own transportation are impacted by these attitudes.

    So because the headline has tapped into this Confiscation Anxiety, this discussion becomes inflamed by people stating the obvious in a way that is assertive enough to come off as threatening (if their views were politically persuasive). And there are rebuttals just as inflamed TA does not help resolve this or even seed the aruments, really. It's just about suburbia and In the end it's just a puff-piece exploring attitudes about driverless cars and how people feel about them.

    The way I see it, sooner or later we will all be slapped against the wall by the economy. If by some miracle it could be resolved by making this silly either-or choice... what will be experienced by must-have-cars-fuck-the-smartphones people like me would be an unwelcome choice:

    Someone is broke, and they're going to need a ride for the tenth time.
    1. Do I give you a ride?
    2. Do I give you $20 so you can use your fancy smartphone to call Uber?
    3. Do I suggest that you should find a new friend.

    See! I can play this austerity flame game too! ;-)

  • Or "people", as they are preferably known. If you want to sound less like a soulless corporate drone and more like a human.

    Indeed that's even what TFA calls them.

  • Driving a vehicle and owning a car are not the same thing.

    I'm from the Netherlands. We use bicycles. The average Dutch person bikes 1018km a year.
    Yes, that includes the elderly, infirm and very young. My grandpa used his bike until he was 91.

  • Jokes on them, after living in Europe for an extended amount of time I can safely say that the American leftard romanticization of European public transportation and mobile phone service is complete crap. Buses here suck just as much as you'd expect in any major American city and cell coverage is even worse (at least it is cheap)! There is no way in hell I'd take a bus into work every day and for the first time ever I miss Verizon.

    Not to mention, owning a car and being able to take care of it without a me

    • Jokes on them, after living in Europe for an extended amount of time I can safely say that the American leftard romanticization of European public transportation and mobile phone service is complete crap. Buses here suck just as much as you'd expect in any major American city and cell coverage is even worse (at least it is cheap)! There is no way in hell I'd take a bus into work every day and for the first time ever I miss Verizon.

      Out of curiosity, what part of Europe are you talking about? I'm an American who spent a few years in Poland, and I would give almost anything to have the kind of cheap and reliable public transit I did while in Europe again.

  • Plenty of down-on-their-luck people living in their vehicles. Some have given up everything else they own, including their kids. A car represents the last hope for a chance for employment and futrure. California and other states have many such people.
  • Custodial, fast food, retail. The monthly smartphone bill is probably as much as gasoline. Digital items could be the second highest expense after housing.
  • When I was younger, socialising a lot and living in the city, it never occurred to me to buy a car.

    Once you live in the countryside with a family, you need a car.

    Anyone who looks at cars as a symbol of anything is stupid. They're tools.

The only way to learn a new programming language is by writing programs in it. - Brian Kernighan

Working...