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

Fuck Cars

15608 readers
423 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
all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tlekiteki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 57 points 10 months 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 10 months ago (1 children)

Ridesharing, yes. Not uber taxi with exploitation

[–] huppakee@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months 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 10 months 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 10 months 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 10 months 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 10 months 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 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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 10 months 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 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] capybara@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months 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

[–] hark@lemmy.world 53 points 10 months ago (1 children)

When tiktok did this, politicians took that as a sign to further ban efforts. When does uber get banned?

[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

When it stops being American and stops bribing American politicians, obvs.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 30 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fuck Uber with a broken glass-encrusted dildo. Those Randroid douchebags can die in a fire made of fires.

[–] Lyrac@programming.dev -2 points 10 months ago

no need to kink shame

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 19 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Why tf is Uber notifying people of anything not directly related to a ride they’ve ordered??

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Walmart near me has put up signs at the check out complaining about some tax.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If I ever went to my local Walmart, I'd turn them around.

If you knock them over, they'll get fixed faster.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago

Because the entire platform is a tool for violating and grinding into dust existing labor laws. Why would political funding laws be any different?

[–] Aknight2015@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago

Public transit is a direct threat to their shareholders.

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago (4 children)

This has to be illegal and if it isn't it should be.

[–] CalipherJones@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

For some reason tech companies get a pass on a ton of regulations just because they're a different form of whatever they're replacing.

"No no no Ubers not a taxi service it's an app. toooootally different..." /s

[–] Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

If you have money, legality means nothing. Uber has money.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Uber is literally a tool for violating labor law.

They'll get away with it, unless someone offers them some masonry.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Looks like an app notification

They can send notifications through their app (which you installed and very probably accepted to in the terms and conditions) without any legal concern so yeah no.

Even if you try fighting it they'll just say hey it's your phone man just uninstall the app

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

But isn't trying to influence public policy illegal?

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't think so.

When my city had a soda tax, every fucking store put a sign out calling it a war on poor people tax. But it was a $0.10 increase on sugary drinks to add to the educational budget.

Or maybe it is illegal but I live in a shit hole country.

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I live in Taiwan and I don't think it's legal for companies to sway policy.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

Ah yeah so definitely America is a shit hole country.

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In what country? It's pretty normal to see companies lobbying for policy here, or urging people to sign petitions.

[–] jaschen@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't know. It just feels like something like this shouldn't be legal

[–] Griffus@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

In most of the world it is, and seeing how where it is not is developing, that is a vert god thing.

[–] twice_hatch@midwest.social 11 points 10 months ago

Outrageous!

It should be a progressive tax topping out way higher than that!

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 7 points 10 months ago
[–] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

"Secret" yet this was likely voted on at the ballot.

[–] Buske@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Oh no private equity isn't getting it's way.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

If it is so secret how come you know about it