BMW to Let Car Owners Rent Out Vehicles Like `Airbnb on Wheels'
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Renters could mess up a vehicle in any number of ways, from making a mess with food and drink, to damaging parts of the interior, to getting in accidents and causing serious damage. Are owners expected to do a full damage assessment pre/post every rental? Nobody will accept any liability otherwise.
That's overlooking any "drive it like you stole it" issues which can ruin the mechanicals.
Think of all the nefarious activity a renter could get up to. Road rage incidents, motoring offences. Drug dealing or trafficking. Congratulations, your car is now on a watchlist.
Imagine the disputes over how much gas is left in the vehicle. Let alone what type of gas a renter puts in there.
There's no way any ordinary insurance policy would cover this kind of scheme. Your premiums can, and should, skyrocket.
Then contemplate the practicalities of all this. A renter will have to pick the vehicle up from a location, then presumably return it to the exact same location. If that requires payment for parking, who pays?
Don't get me wrong; I can't wait for the future where nobody owns a vehicle and we all travel in autonomous electrical vehicles that are efficiently utilized, monitored and cleaned automatically as needed. But this halfway house is a nightmare.
In the above case, the survivors sued the car-sharing company, the estate of the (deceased) driver, and the vehicle owner. I would not expose myself to that kind of liability without very well established law around it.
These guys already do it. Don't get me wrong I had exactly the same sentiments as yourself and even aired them during an interview with the company. But that being said they seem to be growing steadily as people will do anything for an extra buck and hell the range of cars available is crazy. I encountered everything from beaten up old for lasers to late model Mercedes SLK Coupe's. (disclaimer: I did some work for them doing insurance checks/photo's of vehicles a year or so ago, something that was done at regular intervals, every 2-3 month or so depending on how heavily used the vehicle was/owners preferences)
Just think of the unbelievable number of ways that could go wrong:
Renters could mess up a house in any number of ways, from making a mess with food and drink, to damaging parts of the interior, to having accidents and causing serious damage. Are owners expected to do a full damage assessment pre/post every rental? Nobody will accept any liability otherwise.
That's overlooking any "party like a rock-star" issues which can ruin the contents.
Think of all the nefarious activity a renter could get up to. Domestic abuse, public order offences. Drug dealing or trafficking. Congratulations, your address is now on a watchlist.
Imagine the disputes over how much electricity has been used, or how much milk is left in the fridge. Let alone what type of milk a renter puts in there.
There's no way any ordinary insurance policy would cover this kind of scheme. Your premiums can, and should, skyrocket.
Then contemplate the practicalities of all this. A renter will have to travel from their home to the location of the property, then presumably return home. If that requires payment for transport, who pays?
Don't get me wrong; I can't wait for the future where nobody owns a home and we all live in autonomous coffin hotels that are efficiently utilized, monitored and cleaned automatically as needed. But this halfway house is a nightmare.
TL;DR: The concept of renting property to third parties has existed for a long time, and the problems are well understood.
Car2go (Smart) does exactly this... only they disguise it as eco-score (there's some trees on your dashboard and according to your driving style they grow or shrink). Given my last car was an 1994 BMW 318is, it took some time until I managed to get my driving style under control until I got my license yanked away (but that's another, totally unrelated story...)
Interestingly, the car has been stolen twice. I don't remember if it was stolen by GetAround users or not, but IIRC I don't think so. The car was recovered both times within a day or so thanks to the GPS unit that is installed in the vehicle.
> Renters could mess up a home in any number of ways, from making a mess with food and drink, to damaging parts of the interior, to getting in accidents and causing serious damage. Are owners expected to do a full damage assessment pre/post every rental? Nobody will accept any liability otherwise.
> Think of all the nefarious activity a renter could get up to. Domestic violence, noise violations. Drug dealing or trafficking. Congratulations, your home is now a a meth house.
There is still at least one problem left - peak usage.
My observation is in the place where I live that around first morning hour the people who drive are the people who would use the car whole day. So we can ignore them in the estimation.
Then comes the bulk of the people who use the car to just get to work. I would estimate that around 1/2 to 2/3 of the cars are in the move during one hour.
I would assume that sizeable proportion of the current public transport users would also consider to use cars when they are readily available.
So I would assume that the number of cars needed to provide reliable automated cars service instead of private cars would be close to the number of current cars.
If it's environmental, we can assume cars in the future will be all-electric, powered by nuclear or renewable energy sources.
If it's congestion, firstly we should see a dramatic reduction in the number of accidents. Automated vehicles will make far more efficient use of limited road capacity, and with no need for parked cars to litter urban streets, we will have greater capacity.
More importantly, we can just regulate against congestion. Cap the number of cars in an area at any one time, if you want, or implement dynamic pricing. That will go a long way to eliminating unnecessary journeys during peak times.
Price or rather TCO. That is, if the amount of cars needed is the same as today, then why should people prefer communal self driving cars instead of personal ones?
Of course same cars could be used during the day, the question is just how much it would bring the cost down.
That will go a long way to eliminating unnecessary journeys during peak times.
Or eliminate the idea of communal self driving cars. There are no unnecessary travel when you have to get to the point A on time.
There is even another issue with accidents and luxury cars. [1] If you own a luxury car and it's in an accident the value drops pretty significantly vs. a non luxury car (where it still drops of course). With a rental apartment you have to worry about damage but not damage that would cause you to have a significant drop in the resale value.
[1] Recognizing this test is starting with Mini of course however the idea from reading is they would expand to other parts of the brand.
This is about people subleasing their own vehicles, not a traditional car hire service.
ZipCar is like a hotel, and this proposed service is like Airbnb.
They'll likely get some BMW fans and aficionados, but given the small marketshare that BMW holds, most users are not going to use this as their go-to for getting a car.
Other thing - if you look at this service as a marketing channel to sell more BMW vehicles... then it doesn't really have to be a dominant service.
I think that's almost certainly what it is. Getting a BMW is a status symbol or a dream for many early drivers. There are lots of ways to get a beamer for cheap, certified pre-owned being a well known one. Maybe being an Uber driver is another way people have tried to finance their cool purchase, but this channel seems like a much more direct one.
I tend to buy/keep cars ~forever, so it wouldn't work as well for me now, but if I could lease ~3-5 BMWs for ~20-30 people to share (at a remote company office or something which has a lot of people cycling through, and where some cars are needed), and then add them to a fleet pool otherwise, I'd be in. That's somewhere between Zipcar, Uber, and leased company cars.
Managing maintenance, cleaning, insurance, repairs, etc. for them for me would be great, too.
Sharing economy type stuff makes complete sense when it's something you share often enough to want first dibs, but not often enough that renting it out from time to time is an inconvenience. But if you're renting it out full time then I'm not sure I understand how the incentives line up. Seems like if they notice you're doing well they could just swoop in and under-cut you next time the contract is up.
What's interesting is if car manufacturers start to develop vehicles specifically for this kind of market. I'd love to have personalization settings (nav, seat, climate, driving controls, etc.) which follow me as a driver across a fleet of identical or related vehicles. You might also have a "valet mode" (some cars do now), "renter mode", and "owner mode", with different performance limits (I can ruin a $1-2k set of tires in 10k miles of spirited driving, but if I ran the right profile on the car, I could make them last 30k miles). Might also make some maintenance/safety things non-overrideable for renters -- you can't start the vehicle if the brakes/tires/fluids/etc. are not good, for insurance and vehicle-damage reasons.
Likely they are getting ready for self driving cars business model that come will come at a press of a button.
I can see Tesla probably the next to do this.
The world is a changin'.
For luxury cars it appears that it would tend toward "never ever". Having a luxury car isn't for practicality and you tend to feel very possessive about what you have and it possibly being damaged. Having it tarnished in some way lessens the joy of arbitrary non essential ownership. The idea that someone might have some heavy perfume or cologne or smoke in or near the car (however prohibited) would be enough to give many people pause. Also what if someone drove the car and by accident left some contraband in it?
I also wonder if the stack fallacy could be coming into play here: http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/18/why-big-companies-keep-fail...
What do you mean by this? Do you mean too much infrastructure dedicated to cars or inefficiencies in the average cars' usage?
The idea that cars sit idle too much does not hold water. Cars age through usage, not over time.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873243740045782171...