myrridin

Yes they could. The difficulty is relatively minor--for instance I have set up my own personal corporation that I conduct business through.. Without a lawyer. It would likely be expensive though. The insurance rates would be pretty high... much like any other rental company. Juries do seem to prefer to make "evil corporations" pay for things rather than "sympathetic individuals"...even if the fault is mostly with the individual.

Oh, and even though a corporation provides some measure of protection from personal liability--it is not blanket protection. Individual behavior can remove that protection. For instance, if one member of the corporation claimed that the brakes had been repaired, but lied about it... They would be personally on the hook, along with the who corporation...

I-Like-To-Bike

I seriously doubt that many people are interested in a car share club at all, unless they think they are going to get something for next to nothing. Too many conflicts over prefered times to use, or too much hassle to get involved financially or legally with people who only want to use a shared car sporadically. How would the group divide expenses? Why would any occasional user want to pay a full share? Divide up by mileage? Who would want to share with, pay for, and be responsible for people who hardly contribute to the expenses?

A lose-lose situation, even if it were easy to set up legally. Too many complications for little added value.

Roody

Yes, there sould be many difficulties to overcome. According to one website, 116,000 americans belong to car shares, and over 10,000 vehicles. That's a very small number, but up from almost nothing 15 years ago. They said that many people who drive less than 6,200 miles per year might save money with a car share instead of a private car.

It looks like some answers to your other questions are easy to find on the internet.

I-Like-To-Bike

ZipCar and its business oriented arrangement is most definitely not what the OP with his SF scheme or you with the "car share club" were mooning over. I am not that interested to go searching for a dreamy concept that offers so little added value over the rental car services that already exists and are in place for car free people occasionally needing the use of a motor vehicle.

Roody

You're probably right. A car share club might save some people some money, but the hassles wouldn't be worth it for all but a few.

I-Like-To-Bike

Exactly. Are we now an interesting alliance?

crazybikerchick

Really I think the only type of car sharing service that can work is something like ZipCar where a 3rd party is administering it. I would never "rent" my car to a stranger and a friend or neighbour only if I had seen them drive and know they are a conscientious driver. Even if the person is on the hook if they get into a collision, there's the additional wear and tear on the car of driving it badly.

Roody

Probably not. We seem to agree that czr share clubs are not feasible for almost all people at this time.

However, the economics of individual car ownership are changing all the time. Parking costs are rising all the time in big cities, and sone cities are even considering congestion fees and the like. If these trends continue, I imagine that more people will be interested in alternatives to private car wonership.

If the liability issues could be solved, private car sharing might be one way to reduce congestion problems and parking problems in very dense areas. I'm thinking apartment buildings in Manhattan and other very crowded areas, where people only drive occasionally and use alternatives on a daily basis. It seems like there should be some way for four to eight neighboring families to get together and share a car without paying penalties such as legal fees and higher insurance rates.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sure there is a WAY now for a group to share the use of a single motor vehicle; only besides liability it is full of practically impossible to resolve problems over equitable division of expenses, licensing, taxes, maintenance and sharing of desirable time slots. Which you already acknowledged but you are letting your wishful thinking cloud your judgement, again.

BTW, has ANY US city actually imposed congestion fees? "Consideration" alone doesn't mean much in the real world.

gerv 

London considered congestion fees for a while.
As a matter of fact, they considered these just before they implemented them.

I-Like-To-Bike

Last time I consulted the map, London is NOT in the U.S.

gerv 

Yes, but London is in "the real world", a place that many US cities seem to be headed, kicking and screaming.

I-Like-To-Bike

So which US city is going to be the first to be dragged, kicking and screaming, by enlightened leadership into forcing "congestion fees" on shoppers who are still willing to come into the city?

And to stay on topic how will the car share club divide up this cost for its membership?

Roody

I really wish i that I had a couple neighbors who were willing to go in on a bike trailer with me. I wouldn't use one very often, so I don't want to spend the money. But it would be nice to share a trailer for an occasional run to Sam's Club or whatever.

Roody

New York City, right after 9/11, raised tolls on bridges and tunnels in order to decrease traffic in lower Manhattan. IIRC, Mayor Bloomberg and other city leaders wanted to extend and expand this congestion fee after the crisis ended, in order to reduce traffic congestion throughout the borough. So unusual of you to want to stay on topic!

I imagine that people who wanted to share ownership of a car would, if they were wise, draw up a contract that would specify rules and costs of the club.

gerv 

Roody, think about picking up an old kiddy trailer. There are lots of them around. I got one for $50.

The only caveat with most of these cheaper trailers is that the hitches are crap. I solved this by picking a Burley hitch (basically an unusually sturdy, phallic looking piece of plastic.) It allows the bicycle to tip over or rest on its side without tipping the trailer. I paid $25.

So for $75 I have a pretty reasonable trailer that has paid for itself many times (for example, I recently could pick up my cat from the kennel without needing a taxi).

Robert Foster

There is still the liability issue. In this country where we have more lawyers pre capita than just about anywhere. Everyone would be liable for any law suit over the insured minimum. An example is in my state you only need PL and PD at 30k and 60k on a paid for vehicle. If you are paying on one or leasing it you should have coverage of 100 and 300k. Imagine if one of the group happened to hit a city bus, heaven forbid and it ran into a store front? Anything in excess of 100 to 300k would be the responsibility of the owner. If one of the people in the group happens to have a DUI and someone gets hurt they could take the whole group to court and get an award of millions. Every member of a group and especially the owner of the vehicle could or would be responsible to pay that judgement.

I second the used trailer idea. Craigs list has them all the time.

Roody

Everybody (including me) says "the liability issue." Well, there's a liability issue any time you use a car. That's what insurance is for, to distribute the risk of liability.

My question is, why should there be more liability risk for a shared car than for an individually owned car? Why should you not be able to insure a shared car for the same cost as an individually owned car?

I-Like-To-Bike

You already acknowledged that this idea of car share clubs was born DOA. But you are entitled to use this thread (and list) for your continual mental doodling.

You would have to do a lot of imagining to come up with a group of unrelated people in the US who would want to first, "share ownership of a car" and second "draw up a contract that would specify rules and costs of the club," and third, and least likely, be satisfied with the results.

myrridin

Your premise is incorrect. There is no more liability for a shared car than an individually owned car... The additional liability comes from the collective liability for the drivers. So ask a parent if there insurance goes up when they allow their teenage children to drive...

And there is of course that tendency of so many to want to stick to the coorporation. After all they are in a better position to pay (for that greater good you keep on about) than the poor misunderstood sod who caused the accident...

Robert Foster

When you drive your own vehicle you are liable for any accidents that happen when you drive the car. You are also financially responsible for any accidents by anyone you allow to drive the vehicle. Insurance may cover much or even most of the costs but any cost over the amount insured is the responsibility of the owner. The more people you add to the driving mix the more chances you have of someone not being as cautious as you and having an accident that the owner can be held responsible for. If it turns out there is defective equipment the owner is held responsible for that as well. Parking tickets go to the owner as so do camera issued traffic tickets. You would have to VET every member of the club to make sure they have no outstanding DUIs or they whole group could be liable for any accident that driver might have.
It is one thing to cast your lot in with family on an investment like a car. It is all together another to do so with people you don’t know. Go to any parking lot and look at two cars of the same make and same model and you will see some that are well taken care of and some that are dirty and dented. And lastly in many states if a person using the car is found to be in passion of drugs the car can not only be impounded, the owners would have to pay to get it back, or confiscated by the police. All risks you have to be willing to take if you want to “loan” your vehicle to a stranger. Once you let your insurance companies know you are lending your vehicle out on a regular basis you can also count on a major adjustment or suspension.
If you form a corporation then you need a corporate insurence coverage policy and that most often is a lot more expensive than a private policy. But have an accident by any of the people in the corporation or car share and any lawyer worth his salt will bring suit against the whole group in an attempt to recover the maximum amount for his client.

Roody

In my state you don't sue a car owner--individual or corporation--for damages.

myrridin

Then I suggest you head down to a court house and open your eyes. Car owners (individual and corporations) get named in suits all the time. Lawyers pursuing damages routinely name any party they can attach to the incident--at least those with deep pockets... In this nation you can be sued by anyone for just about anything... Even if the suit gets thrown out--it still costs money to defend...


Note you didn't bother answering the question about a parents insurance going up when they let their children drive...

dcrowell

You're both right. Roody, you live in a no-fault state. That means when accidents occur between two motor vehicles (that are both insured) that no lawsuit should take place. There are rare exceptions.

It's much different if a pedestrian, bicyclist, uninsured driver, or out-of-state driver it hit. You could also damage non-vehicle property in an accident: lawns, gardens, buildings, etc. No-fault doesn't apply here.

That said, most car-insurance companies cover the cost of that litigation. They are liable, they'd rather not have to pay out damages.

Roody

Actually, in Michigan, an insurance company always covers the victim of an accident, even if none of the individuals carry insurance. The case will be assigned to an insurance company, and they will cover everything up to the legal maximum. Even in extreme cases, such as somebody stealing an uninsured car, and then getting injured, the assigned insurance company will cover it. (In such a case, the insurance company can then sue the uninsured car thief in order to recoup their payout.)