by timhebb (Posted Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:20:19 GMT)
It's not that I don't care if the vehicle gets damaged while being rented (after all, I'm responsible for damage at end of lease if I don't buy). It's that the business that acts as the middleman between owners and renters, RelayRides.com, provides the insurance to cover any damage or loss that might occur, thus relieving me and my own insurance company of the liability.
When I traded in my previous LEAF, which I also rented through RelayRides, the only damage it had was a badly scuffed and scraped rear fender from an encounter with a concrete wall in a parking garage - which I had done myself.
As I've pointed out previously, peer-to-peer car sharing is a rapidly growing concept and business, which is recognized and protected by California and other state's laws. Sorry that some people just don't get it. I understand it may not be for everyone, but I don't understand the blanket disdain that some on this forum seem to have for the very concept. It's wildly popular with many younger people, and it's a very workable way to provide as-needed access to vehicles in more flexible and affordable ways than traditional rental car companies, and relieves pressure on occasional drivers to own vehicles, thus adding to traffic congestion/pollution, etc. I've rented my LEAF to a pair of Harvard instructors, to an engineer from the Bay area who has a LEAF of his own at home and likes to continue being environmentally friendly when he travels to So Cal, and assorted other interesting and responsible types. Vehicle owners have full discretion to rent, or not, to anyone who requests their vehicle. Apart from this forum, the only other concerted opposition I've found to car sharing is from auto dealers and salesmen, which is not a group I personally would be flattered to find I have much in common with.
By the way, I earned over $500 last month from renting my two vehicles on RelayRides (never at the same time![:)]( "Smile")
). Meanwhile, those on this thread who bemoan the lack of available LEAFs for rent continue to ignore the thriving communities of vehicle swappers who happily drive LEAFs, and just about anything else they desire, at very affordable rates whenever the notion strikes them. Like the LEAF itself, car sharing represents a paradigm shift, which some people eagerly embrace, while others not only resist change, they refuse to tolerate it.
theaveng wrote:
The person who offers his car for rent does not own the car, so apparently he does not care if it gets damaged. It's Nissan's car and Nissan's problem.
It's not that I don't care if the vehicle gets damaged while being rented (after all, I'm responsible for damage at end of lease if I don't buy). It's that the business that acts as the middleman between owners and renters, RelayRides.com, provides the insurance to cover any damage or loss that might occur, thus relieving me and my own insurance company of the liability.
When I traded in my previous LEAF, which I also rented through RelayRides, the only damage it had was a badly scuffed and scraped rear fender from an encounter with a concrete wall in a parking garage - which I had done myself.
As I've pointed out previously, peer-to-peer car sharing is a rapidly growing concept and business, which is recognized and protected by California and other state's laws. Sorry that some people just don't get it. I understand it may not be for everyone, but I don't understand the blanket disdain that some on this forum seem to have for the very concept. It's wildly popular with many younger people, and it's a very workable way to provide as-needed access to vehicles in more flexible and affordable ways than traditional rental car companies, and relieves pressure on occasional drivers to own vehicles, thus adding to traffic congestion/pollution, etc. I've rented my LEAF to a pair of Harvard instructors, to an engineer from the Bay area who has a LEAF of his own at home and likes to continue being environmentally friendly when he travels to So Cal, and assorted other interesting and responsible types. Vehicle owners have full discretion to rent, or not, to anyone who requests their vehicle. Apart from this forum, the only other concerted opposition I've found to car sharing is from auto dealers and salesmen, which is not a group I personally would be flattered to find I have much in common with.
By the way, I earned over $500 last month from renting my two vehicles on RelayRides (never at the same time
). Meanwhile, those on this thread who bemoan the lack of available LEAFs for rent continue to ignore the thriving communities of vehicle swappers who happily drive LEAFs, and just about anything else they desire, at very affordable rates whenever the notion strikes them. Like the LEAF itself, car sharing represents a paradigm shift, which some people eagerly embrace, while others not only resist change, they refuse to tolerate it.
