• n2burns@lemmy.ca
      22·
      2 years ago

      You’re doing exactly what I spoke about, oversimplifying!

      Every km you drive brings you a km closer to needing to change your oil, tires, brake pads, etc. You might only think of these expenses when you visit the mechanic, but they can be amortized out when you drive.

      Every km you drive decreases the resale value of your car. You might only see this when you sell the vehicle, but that’s part of the price calculation.

      EDIT My original comment got cut-off. I’ve completed my thought there.

        • CommunityLinkFixerBotBEnglish
          2·
          2 years ago

          Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !fuck_cars@lemmy.ml

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          2·
          2 years ago

          Sorry, that’s just not true. Some costs are fixed, or have a minimum, but many depend on distance driven. Obviously whether the “majority” of costs are fixed depends on how much you drive/localized costs/etc, but very few people have the “vast majority” of their costs fixed.

          If you want sources, feel free to look it up yourself, but here are a few showing the breakdown of ownership

          P.S. You actually reminded me, insurance changes with how much you expect to drive! As well, driving more increases the odds that you’ll get into an accident, which can increase your premiums.

            • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
              1·
              2 years ago

              The argument was not whether fixed cost exceed the variable cost or vice versa.

              The argument was that a lot of people severely underestimate the actual cost of any given trip because they only account for (a subset of) the variable costs (i.e. gas).

              And it’s true. Rarely anyone does full costing when it comes to cars because „the fixed cost are there no matter how much you drive“.

              • bluGill@kbin.social
                1·
                2 years ago

                @yA3xAKQMbq

                @fuck_cars @DontMindMe @Caradoc879 @n2burns @InquisitiveApathy

                the argument in this thread has been about if fixed vs variable costs where more. I fully agree cars are expensive no matter how you do the math, and most people underestimate it (in part by only considering gas). However I stand by my claim that once you have the car you may as well use it as the additional variable costs from all optional trips is tiny (I’m assuming that you have the car for some purpose that cannot be done by something else - towing the proverbial boat for example).

    • Caradoc879@lemmy.world
      47·
      2 years ago

      Yep. I live in a suburb outside a major city. To get to the “train station” without a car, I’d need to walk over a mile to the closest bus stop, take that bus up the road to a transfer, take that bus to the light rail station, then take that light rail to the train station. 1 1/2 hours vs 45 minutes driving. And if I’m already driving 45 minutes anyway, I’d rather just stay in my car and go straight to my destination.

      Another ignored factor is safety. depending on the city (like mine), public transportation is full of mentally ill and people on drugs. I’ve seen more fights and freaky shit on public transportation than I have the rest of my life combined. I had to physically intervene a dude harassing my client with autism once and shove him out the door. That was the last time I took public transportation because it’s not worth my safety. Thanks drug decriminalization.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        41·
        2 years ago

        Thanks drug decriminalization.

        Of course, it’s because of the ramping down on the war on drugs, not because of the opioid epidemic, the housing crisis, and rampant poverty!