Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Car and Ride-Sharing Services Not Posing A Threat To Buying and Owning A Car

      Car and Ride-Services Bringing the End of Car Ownership? Not so fast!


    With the rise of services of car and ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft, a number of people have said this would begin the downfall of buying and owning a new vehicle in the U.S. But a new study commissioned by Kelly Blue Book says that isn't happening for the majority of the country.

     

    The study revealed many Americans consider vehicle ownership to be more convenient, reliable, safer than car- and ride-sharing services. It also revealed that 76 percent of respondents that use these services are planning to buy or lease a vehicle within the next two years.

     

    "While there are numerous benefits to ride sharing and car sharing, our data reveals that owning a car still reigns supreme, with reliability, safety and convenience all being major factors," said Karl Brauer, senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book.

     

    Other findings of KBB's study include,

    • 73 percent of respondents said they have heard of these ride-sharing services, but only 16 percent have used them. This is similar to car sharing services as 43 percent said they have heard of them, but only 7 percent have taken advantage.
      • Most of the respondents using these services are young people living in urban environments. This makes sense as owning a vehicle in this environment is more of a pain.

      [*]Car and Ride sharing services are seen more as substitutes for taxis and rental cars. [*]Affordability was the top reason given respondents who don't own a car.

      • Only 5 percent said using a ride-sharing service was the reason they don't own a car. 3 percent said gave the same reason for why they use car sharing services.


     

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Kelly Blue Book

     

    Press Release is on Page 2



    Kelley Blue Book Study Reveals Ride-Sharing, Car-Sharing Services Do Not Pose Threat To Car Buying

    • KBB.com Finds Americans Not Ready to Give Up Freedom Associated with Vehicle Ownership


    IRVINE, Calif., March 10, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- The results are in, and according to Kelley Blue Book, ride- and car-sharing is not an imminent threat to new-car buying and vehicle ownership, despite the growing number of services being offered to consumers. This is just one of many interesting findings from the recent 2016 Kelley Blue Book Ride Sharing/Car Sharing Study, released today by KBB.com, the vehicle valuation and information source trusted and relied upon by both consumers and the automotive industry.

     

    Commissioned by Kelley Blue Book and conducted by Vital Findings to understand the motivations behind ride-sharing and car-sharing usage, as well as opinions and behaviors surrounding current and future transportation, the survey found that these sharing platforms primarily are used as substitutes for taxis and traditional rental car companies, and have very limited impact on current or future vehicle ownership. In fact, the expected transportation method of the majority of Americans that currently own or have access to a vehicle (74 percent) is to drive themselves in the next six months. When asked what statements about owning or leasing a vehicle respondents agree with, 80 percent completely or somewhat agreed that owning or leasing a vehicle provides a sense of freedom and independence, followed by 62 percent that completely or somewhat agreed that owning or leasing a vehicle gives you a sense of pride/success.

     

    Ride-sharing services, including Uber and Lyft, among others, use a Smartphone app for consumers to request and pay for a ride on demand from drivers who typically own the cars they drive. On the other hand, car-sharing companies, such as Getaround, ZipCar and Car2Go, among others, provide consumers with the opportunity to borrow vehicles and drive themselves, using a Smartphone app to schedule, unlock and pay for borrowed vehicles.

     

    "Ride- and car-sharing services are getting a lot of attention these days, and we wanted to better understand the current landscape of these app-fueled platforms and how they may impact both consumers and the auto industry moving forward," said Karl Brauer, senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book. "While there are numerous benefits to ride sharing and car sharing, our data reveals that owning a car still reigns supreme, with reliability, safety and convenience all being major factors."

     

    Looking down the road, the field is relatively level for potential ride-sharing providers to enter the market with more than one-third of respondents (37 percent) giving the most consideration to companies with a ride-sharing app, followed closely by rental car companies (32 percent) and taxi/limo companies (26 percent). In addition, 24 percent of those surveyed also would consider vehicle dealerships as a potential ride-sharing provider over vehicle manufacturers (16 percent) and individuals with a vehicle (15 percent). Respondents were least likely (14 percent) to consider tech companies as potential ride-sharing providers.

     

    Similar to ride-sharing, the opportunity for new car-sharing services to enter the market is fairly level, as traditional vehicle rental companies (36 percent), companies specifically created to provide vehicle sharing (33 percent), and notably, vehicle dealerships (31 percent) were among the most considered car-sharing providers among respondents.

     

    Sample of Additional Findings from 2016 Kelley Blue Book Ride Sharing/Car Sharing Study

    • Awareness Doesn't Mean Use: Nearly three-quarters of respondents (73 percent) are aware of ride sharing, but only 16 percent have actually used these services, with Millennials and city dwellers leading usage. As for car sharing, 43 percent of respondents are aware, but only 7 percent use these services.
    • Still Planning to Buy or Lease: Vehicle-sharing services are viewed as substitutes for taxis (41 percent) and rental cars (39 percent), with more than three-quarters (76 percent) of vehicle-sharing users reporting their intent to purchase or lease their own vehicle within the next two years.
    • Ownership Has Its Benefits: According to respondents, vehicle ownership is more reliable (81 percent vs. 19 percent for ride sharing; 78 percent vs. 22 percent for car sharing), safer (80 percent vs. 20 percent for ride sharing; 80 percent vs. 20 percent for car sharing) and more convenient (74 percent vs. 26 percent for ride sharing; 75 percent vs. 25 percent for car sharing) than depending on sharing services.
    • Budget Is Primary Ownership Factor: Among those surveyed who did not currently own or lease a vehicle, more than half of respondents (57 percent) name affordability, which also was the highest listed reason, as the main deterrent for not purchasing or leasing their own vehicles. Only 5 percent said utilizing ride sharing and 3 percent said utilizing car sharing as reasons for not owning a vehicle in the future.
    • Safety First: More than two-thirds of respondents (69 percent) believe that ride-sharing services are a great way to combat drunk driving; however, only 33 percent of those surveyed deemed ride-sharing to be safe. In fact, 48 percent stated they wouldn't be comfortable riding alone with a ride-share driver.
    • The national survey reveals the responses from more than 1,900 U.S. residents between the ages of 18-64 years old, weighted to Census figures by age, gender and ethnicity that have a variety of residential and ownership patterns.

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Very interesting, this goes with what I have seen and heard from coworkers. I do also wonder how these services will fair with the recent news of the sexual assaults by drivers? We are in an interesting era where most people still see security and safety in owning their own ride.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

     

    "The study revealed many Americans consider vehicle ownership to be more convenient, reliable, safer than car- and ride-sharing services."

     

    ​the lingering effects of recession dried up the well of car business for a few years, and people lost income, and new drivers probably still didn't have steady income of any kind.

     

    Why would anyone not either family or a domestic relationship share a car.  Who pays for repairs, who gets to drive it, what happens if one crashes, who cleans it, etc.

     

    The highway system liberated America from having others dictate when you come and go.  And where you go.  Convenience.

     

    Your car is your own pod.  You don't HAVE to ride with others and deal with what MIGHT happen, like getting shot etc.

     

    Reliable, as long as your car is in working order, you can go when you need.  Waiting for someone else to come get you may never happen.

     

    Car sales is and always will be about people's cash flow, and the credit faucet.  

     

    There are times when it is more convenient to use a public transit, that is true.  But people as a whole still would prefer to have the car available to them as much as possible.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      There has been a prevailing thought about the likes of Uber and Lyft that once they switch from human drivers to self-driving vehicles, they would stand to see a significant reduction in overall operating costs. This possibly means consumers could see these services as an alternative to owning a vehicle. But a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) disputes that claim.
      Researchers Ashley Nunes and Kristen D. Hernandez examined the San Francisco market on the per-mile cost of an automated taxi service to owning a vehicle. They found an automated taxi would range between $1.58 and $6.01 per mile, while the conventional vehicle would be at $0.72 per mile.
      "When we started going into this work, we found there's a lot of hand-waving. There was a notion that 'All we have to do is remove the driver, assume a reduction in insurance, and there's our great number.' We said, 'Let's hold it up to scrutiny.' It didn't hold up," explained Nunes to Automotive News.
      The massive disparity gap isn't due to ownership or maintenance, rather a fundamental issue about the taxi market in general. Nunes said taxi operators drive too many miles without a paying customer - hence their higher costs. In San Francisco, the MIT researchers found a 52 percent utilization rate for ride-hailing. Even if they were able to reach 100 percent utilization, Nunes said they would still be "unable to provide a fare that's comparable to car ownership."
      "Their approach with the investment folks has been, 'Trust us, we'll figure this out and it'll be this great utopia where everyone is jumping from an Uber to a scooter to an air taxi.The future may well be all those things. But you need to demonstrate you can offer the service at a price point that consumers are willing and able to pay. Thus far, they are unable to do so," said Nunes.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      There has been a prevailing thought about the likes of Uber and Lyft that once they switch from human drivers to self-driving vehicles, they would stand to see a significant reduction in overall operating costs. This possibly means consumers could see these services as an alternative to owning a vehicle. But a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) disputes that claim.
      Researchers Ashley Nunes and Kristen D. Hernandez examined the San Francisco market on the per-mile cost of an automated taxi service to owning a vehicle. They found an automated taxi would range between $1.58 and $6.01 per mile, while the conventional vehicle would be at $0.72 per mile.
      "When we started going into this work, we found there's a lot of hand-waving. There was a notion that 'All we have to do is remove the driver, assume a reduction in insurance, and there's our great number.' We said, 'Let's hold it up to scrutiny.' It didn't hold up," explained Nunes to Automotive News.
      The massive disparity gap isn't due to ownership or maintenance, rather a fundamental issue about the taxi market in general. Nunes said taxi operators drive too many miles without a paying customer - hence their higher costs. In San Francisco, the MIT researchers found a 52 percent utilization rate for ride-hailing. Even if they were able to reach 100 percent utilization, Nunes said they would still be "unable to provide a fare that's comparable to car ownership."
      "Their approach with the investment folks has been, 'Trust us, we'll figure this out and it'll be this great utopia where everyone is jumping from an Uber to a scooter to an air taxi.The future may well be all those things. But you need to demonstrate you can offer the service at a price point that consumers are willing and able to pay. Thus far, they are unable to do so," said Nunes.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      Developing autonomous vehicles in sunny, dry locales like Phoenix, Arizona has proven to be difficult due to numerous variables such as traffic and human behavior. But an upcoming study from Michigan State University reveals that autonomous technologies still have a number of hurdles as testing begins in areas with changing conditions.
      Automotive News had the chance to speak with Hayder Radha, an MSU professor of electrical and computer engineering who oversaw the upcoming study. The findings reveal that the algorithms that are used to distill the various bits of information coming from the cameras and radar/lidar sensors have issues when it lightly rains.
      "When we run these algorithms, we see very noticeable, tangible degradation in detection. Even low-intensity rain can really create some serious problems, and as you increase the intensity, the performance of what we consider state-of-the-art mechanisms can almost become paralyzed," said Radha.
      "Once you throw in a few drops of rain, they get confused. It's like putting eyedrops in your eye and expecting to see right away."
      Researchers looked at various parameters in their study, including the size of the raindrops and the effect of wind. Using a scale that ranged from a clear day to a major downpour, the study revealed that algorithms failed to detect as much "as 20 percent of objects when the rain intensity was 10 percent of the worst-case scenario." This increased to 40 percent when the intensity of the rain increased to 30 percent.
      Other weather-related issues that were revealed in MSU's study,
      The high-resolution maps that autonomous systems to determine their location may need to be updated due to the changing seasons. "You can imagine in environments where there are a lot of leaves on trees or on shrubs close to the road, they are an essential part of the map. So summer and winter are completely different. When they fall down in winter, you have nothing to work with. So that tells you that for this technology to be robust, it needs to be developed in different conditions than you see only in Arizona and Silicon Valley," explained Radha. Cold temperatures play havoc with lidar sensors. The study reveals that the amount of "poor-quality or irrelevant returns from lidar sensors" increased as if the temperature was at 10 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Some of these issues can be addressed by getting more information from radar and lidar as engineers develop various ways to use them to classify objects. But Radha explains the big improvements will come when self-driving tech is tested in other locations such as Michigan and Pittsburgh to name a couple.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Developing autonomous vehicles in sunny, dry locales like Phoenix, Arizona has proven to be difficult due to numerous variables such as traffic and human behavior. But an upcoming study from Michigan State University reveals that autonomous technologies still have a number of hurdles as testing begins in areas with changing conditions.
      Automotive News had the chance to speak with Hayder Radha, an MSU professor of electrical and computer engineering who oversaw the upcoming study. The findings reveal that the algorithms that are used to distill the various bits of information coming from the cameras and radar/lidar sensors have issues when it lightly rains.
      "When we run these algorithms, we see very noticeable, tangible degradation in detection. Even low-intensity rain can really create some serious problems, and as you increase the intensity, the performance of what we consider state-of-the-art mechanisms can almost become paralyzed," said Radha.
      "Once you throw in a few drops of rain, they get confused. It's like putting eyedrops in your eye and expecting to see right away."
      Researchers looked at various parameters in their study, including the size of the raindrops and the effect of wind. Using a scale that ranged from a clear day to a major downpour, the study revealed that algorithms failed to detect as much "as 20 percent of objects when the rain intensity was 10 percent of the worst-case scenario." This increased to 40 percent when the intensity of the rain increased to 30 percent.
      Other weather-related issues that were revealed in MSU's study,
      The high-resolution maps that autonomous systems to determine their location may need to be updated due to the changing seasons. "You can imagine in environments where there are a lot of leaves on trees or on shrubs close to the road, they are an essential part of the map. So summer and winter are completely different. When they fall down in winter, you have nothing to work with. So that tells you that for this technology to be robust, it needs to be developed in different conditions than you see only in Arizona and Silicon Valley," explained Radha. Cold temperatures play havoc with lidar sensors. The study reveals that the amount of "poor-quality or irrelevant returns from lidar sensors" increased as if the temperature was at 10 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Some of these issues can be addressed by getting more information from radar and lidar as engineers develop various ways to use them to classify objects. But Radha explains the big improvements will come when self-driving tech is tested in other locations such as Michigan and Pittsburgh to name a couple.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      Most buyers don't tend to think of resale value until it comes time to sell their vehicle. But which models keep their value and which ones don't? iSeeCars.com recently published a study that looked into more than 4.3 million new and used car sales to determine which models lowest and highest loss in value after a five-year time frame.
      What vehicles had the lowest depreciation? According to iSeeCars, that would be SUVs and trucks. Taking the number one spot was the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited with an average depreciation rate of 27.3 percent. One only car, the Subaru Impreza would make the list - ninth place with a 42.3 percent average depreciation rate. On the opposite end, the Nissan Leaf has the highest depreciation at 71.7 percent. The rest of the list is made up mostly by luxury vehicles like the BMW 7-Series and Mercedes-Benz S-Class.
      "While the average new vehicle loses 50.2 percent of its value after five years, there are vehicles that retain more of their value and depreciate less than average. For consumers who buy new vehicles and sell them around the five-year mark, choosing a model that retains the most value is a smart economic decision,” said iSeeCars CEO Phong Ly.
      Some other findings from iSeeCars.com study,
      Toyota Prius c and Prius owners are sitting pretty as they are the lowest depreciating hybrid models in iSeeCars' analysis - 51.5 and 54.1 percent respectively.  The BMW X5 and X3 lose a fair amount of their value over the course of five years - 65.6 and 64 percent. For sports cars, the lowest depreciation models are the Subaru Impreza WRX (35.9 percent), Volkswagen Golf R (43.3 percent), and Chevrolet Corvette (44.6 percent). Source: iSeeCars.com

      View full article
  • Posts

    • And READ my post.   *On one hand you say and SUV like your friends Infiniti is perfectly fine for hauling stuff because all you need is a tarp and a vacuum.   *On the other hand you say that this cannot be done with a Suburban for a different set of reasons.   If you don't the issue I have here, then perhaps we need to move on from this because we are not going to see eye to eye here if you don't that issue.   Again, vehicles like the Hyundai Santa Cruz do have multiple uses for multiple types of people. You just happen to not be one of them but you were never interested to begin with. I, on the other hand, am very interested in it and that bed length is the LEAST of my worries.
    • For shit like that I'd hire a landscaper, who would haul such content in a dump truck or trailer. 
    • You going to hand-shovel a ton & a half of wet stone into the back of a Suburban, trying to tarp the carpeted bottom & plastic sides of the interior to keep it from getting torn apart? Really? Re-read my post- people don't put LOOSE material of any considerable volume in a vehicle like a Suburban. Is it physically possible? Sure - but does it happen? But a lawn mower or a potted shrub or a few bags of mulch- a roofed SUV could handle as well as a 4-ft bed trucklette. The overlap in cargo capability of a 4-ft bed and a mid-size SUV is a LOT more than between a Suburban and a full-size pickup.  
    • So while a tarp for your friends Infinite was okay, is not okay for a Suburban? That makes zero sense and that is the double talk I was talking about here. What you just said about the Suburban can be applied to the Infiniti and it actually makes a case for the Hyundai in the process. Again, being hung up on the bed size caused this. 
    • Everything else (and a buttload of excuses by you) aside, I do find it amusing how you think bags of mulch don’t gets holes in them and leak everywhere like they tend to do. Quite frankly you have tried to play it both ways by touting Full size trucks on one hand while trying to say that SUVs are better suited for light work (they are not in this case) than the Santa Cruz while ignoring the fact that the SUV argument applies to full size trucks. This all started because of your “problem” with bed size which, quite honestly, seems to be your problem and your problem alone here but not everyone sees it as a problem and the positives have been pointed out in spades.     And I live in NC and have ZERO use for a snow blower. Thanks for playing though Balth but please don’t try and act like gas spillage inside a vehicle isn’t a issue (it is). Whether someone goes electric or not is 100% irrelevant and you are deflecting with that statement. And again, all of those efforts your Infiniti boy makes to accommodate loads in his SUV could by 99.9% mitigated and simplified by just having a small bed with which to carry those things without the follow up cleaning and tarp shaking lol. Seriously, stop trying to equate your needs with others here (or dropping your “friend” as an example that actually supported the need for something like the Hyundai).
  • Social Stream

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...