Too bad, so sad... If they hadn't allowed their service to get so horrible, with nasty old cars, drivers that don't speak English and drive around in circles to increase fares, drivers claiming their card readers are "broken" so you have to pay cash, taking an hour to show up when called, passing by black people, etc., then this wouldn't be happening.
From the article: "Cab drivers, on the other hand, maintain that they undergo more rigorous criminal checks, enjoy more robust insurance, and generally have better knowledge of city streets."
Who cares about knowledge of city streets? Haven't they heard of Google Maps and Waze and GPS? This just shows how out-of-touch and behind-the-times the cab industry is. The insurance is a canard, as Uber insures their drivers for more than the cab companies (the problem with Uber is what happens when you don't have a paying rider). And criminal background checks are useless if you haven't been in the country very long; how are they going to check your background in Pakistan? Also, the Uber/Lyft reputation systems are far more valuable anyway, plus Uber/Lyft keep detailed records of all their drivers' movements when they have riders, so it's pretty hard for them to get away with anything; cabs aren't guaranteed to have any of that oversight.
And apparently driving for Uber isn't that bad, since the cab companies are now complaining that all the good drivers are switching to Uber/Lyft, leaving them with crappy drivers who earn them huge lawsuits for accidents they cause.
Funny story: for a while in SF, the taxi union (?) was running ads that were thinly veiled attacks on Uber/Lyft. One of them showed a smiling taxi driver with the caption "would you rather have a driver who knows the city by heart or by GPS?" I found it particularly hilarious because the answer, for me at least, is GPS with live traffic information. Just another example of how out of touch the taxi companies are.
GPS still doesn't beat a good driver 9 out of 10 times for city driving. Uber drives consistently miss exits, head down clearly mistaken paths created by GPS errors, sit there staring at the GPS rather than the road
I uber to work everyday and 90% of the time the uber driver blindly follows GPS through an alley that isn't really meant for traffic, ignoring the much simpler and faster route that whatever GPS uber uses can't figure out.
But it's cheaper, cleaner, and will show up on demand. But the navigation of the driver is the big positive for cabs.
I'm not going to contest your experience because my experience with uber in the city was for tourism/getting home after a night of partying, not work. In my experience uber drivers took my word over the GPS every single time when I gave directions. I know that the driver can affect my rating like I can theirs so its in all our best interest to have a good ride.
>> "drivers took my word over the GPS every single time when I gave directions"
So wouldn't a driver knowledgable of the city streets that you don't ever have to give directions to be better?
I use Uber all the time but I find that regular taxi drivers are better in traffic as they tend to know ways around it the GPS doesn't provide. I also regularly get GPS focussed drivers taking 1 turn too early and driving in a circle to get back to where they started to make the correct turn (twice this week already). I still prefer Uber overall but dismissal of street knowledge because GPS is 'better/more accurate' doesn't gel with my experience at all.
It'll be super funny when self-driving cars are seen following the at-times-ridiculous GPS directions. For the foreseeable future, I wouldn't want to be in a car without a steering wheel.
GPS directions are only ever ridiculous due to a lack of information. In many cities (Sydney Australia, for example) data is good enough and the roads straightforward enough that chosen routes are always either ideal or sufficiently close to ideal.
In my experience, many veteran taxi drivers simply take (sometimes longer or more congested) routes, just because they are used to them and think they are better. In some cases, I've noticed the difference of a fare as much as 30%. I always have a hard time explaining them that other route is shorter, because they know better (than me or GPS). For this reason, I now first call taxi firms that use GPS on all cars.
I'm confounded as to how these uber drivers who either live in the city, or drive through it every day, don't know the city. How does that even happen?
From what I can tell, the vast majority of SF Uber drivers don't live in SF, and to make matters worse, most seem to have only been driving for Uber for a matter of months. Routes and traffic patterns are actually more complicated than you might expect, and it can take quite a while to figure it all out.
My own experience is just the opposite--I've never had a problem with Uber but have had plenty of problems with taxis. Just yesterday coming home from the airport the taxi driver got off the highway in the wrong neighborhood, ignored my verbal directions three separate times, and when he finally got to my house refused to get out and help me with my luggage.
"GPS still doesn't beat a good driver 9 out of 10 times for city driving."
Most of your data points are from a single route (your daily commute) and this may not be representative for all trips, even within your city.
I live in a city with significant variation in traffic patterns from day to day, and GPS with traffic info performs much better than someone who knows the roads.
I drive to work every day (suburb to heart of dc), and a good majority of cars in front of me "driving distracted" are often Uber or Lyft (more than cell phone talk/text or applying make up type of drivers).
It's just frustrating to see these drivers driving so distracted (I think they are more distracted before picking up a passanger)
I've had Google maps tell me to go the wrong way down a one way street. Two different times! You gotta be paying attention to where the GPS is telling you to go. Knowing the roads in invaluable for a driver. That being said I've had many cabbies who had no idea where they were going.
To this day Google/Waze will suggest I get onto the 101's Octavia entrance by just driving down market and turning right onto the 101, neglecting the very longstanding rule that you have to run the Octavia St gauntlet to get on the 101's Octavia route.
I reported a huge problem in Google Maps for years and it wasn't fixed. A bunch of POIs for downtown Seattle were transposed to downtown Kirkland. Search for directions from Microsoft campus to the Seattle Federal Building and it would send you to a residential area off 85th west of 405 in Kirkland.
This sort of problem won't apply for driverless cars though, as they must honor road signage. The first time your one-way street is encountered by a driverless car, the discrepancy between map and reality will be identified and corrected.
I'm only 4 miles, so the trip costs about 9 bucks each way. I don't have a second car and even if I did, my office charges 300 (pre tax so really less) to park. And if I'm forced to stay late, I can expense the ride home. So I'm pretty sure it's cheaper than driving myself.
But I could do public transit for around 2.50 each way. But adding about 15-20 minutes transit time.
What I really should do is bike to work. It's better for my health, wallet, and environment. I really have no excuse.
I bike commute 8-9 months of the year, but currently am ubering both ways during this wet El Niño winter we are having as I live without a car.
I estimate my Ubers this year will work out to around
($20/day for uber * ~60 winter work days) = $1200
Most people with modest vehicles will see a total cost of car ownership costing them somewhere in the $5-10k/year range. So I could double or triple my already heavy reliance on uber and come out ahead.
TLDR: For those with short commutes, a heavily uber-assisted bike commuting plan is a huge financial win. And this is not even considering the downstream value of the productivity and health benefits resulting from regular exercise. Or the value of the time I can now spend reading instead of driving.
I'm assuming you're in the SF Bay Area -- there have only been a handful of days when I've had to break out the rain gear so far this season (today was one of them). Maybe 5 days max.
If a person is willing to bike to work when it's dry in the morning (even if it might rain on the way home) there's probably only around 20 - 30 days when they'd need Uber, so that'd cut the Uber expenses by 1/3 to 1/2.
Totally. I'm the first to admit that I'm a lazy bike commuter and with a little grit could greatly reduce my commute costs.
The point I was trying to illustrate for anyone reading is that uber is cheap, not expensive, when used to obviate the need for private vehicle ownership.
Uber Pool is like $6 from Union Station to my office, no tip. I rarely have to put up with another person and many drivers don't even seem to realize they are supposed to wait for one.
I'm in Chicago and it's about an $8 cost per trip on average to go from one part of the city to another. The subway system is about $2.50 for the same trip but it's not on demand.
If you only care about cost in a big city there are likely less expensive options but if time is more valuable to you then cost isn't the big concern.
not the person you were asking, but that would really depend. It costs $18 to take the caltrain both ways from San Jose, and I could see uber being cheaper if he both lives and works in Santa Clara, for example.
Why would you compare a Caltrain fare from SJ to SF to an Uber ride within Santa Clara (especially when there's only one Caltrain station within Santa Clara's city limits, so it's unlikely that he'd take Caltrain if he were staying in Santa Clara)
It would cost $60 - $80 for a one-way Uber trip from San Jose to SF, Caltrain would be around $16/day with a discounted 8-ride ticket, around $10.50 per day if you use a Caltrain monthly pass.
Even if you put 4 passengers in the car, it'd still cost you $35/day for Uber.
No, my point was that riding Uber to work can be cheaper than public transport depending on where he lived). I think he gave a clearer answer as a reply.
I can appreciate both sides of this. There are lots of times that uber's maps will ignore an alley that would prevent having to circle the block, or will try to send a driver on the highway for one exit when going between 4th and 9th, which is a horrible idea.
There's a particular brand of driving that feels like "Only barely keeping it together because of the GPS" that's a little uncomfortable.
A confident driver with some slick shortcuts can be a really fun experience.
You can probably buy GPS data for travel between any two given locations that will indicate the most popular routes and how long they took - from cellphone companies, Google and the like? Do driver routing companies (deliveries, taxis and such) do this to discover implied optimal routes?
In theory this is possible. In practice, it's clearly not commonly done as Apple, Google, etc. will merrily send you into notorious traffic jams, unprotected turns against heavy traffic, etc. even in major cities will millions of users.
It seems like Google might be getting slightly better now that they're pulling in Waze but I have seen little reason to believe that this is at all widespread.
I once called a taxi (not in US), the operator said it will arrive in 5 minutes. About 20 minutes pass, and I get a call from the operator saying that the driver can't find my street and asks me if I can walk a few minutes to one of the larger, more well known streets.
So after 10 more minutes the driver finally finds me on a street corner and I enter the car - the GPS device (which would have guided him right to my doorstep) is installed but shut down and unused. I ask the driver why he didn't use the GPS, and he manages to tell me with a straight face that he doesn't need it because he knows all the streets in town.
I was literally left speechless for the entire ride.
Counter-point: once in Chicago a n00b Uber driver who didn't speak much English drove onto the bridge that had "Under Construction" signs, construction equipment and those orange barrels all over the place. Only my frantic yelling from the back convinced him to disregard GPS and go "custom route".
In London I actually find the opposite. I like Uber and the convenience, but all the drivers are foreign and don't know their way around. More than 3 times I've been taken a hugely longer way round because the driver blindly followed the terrible Uber GPS, literally adding 15-20 minutes to the journey for no reason. Sure, I can get some of the cash back (and it is super easy to do so) but I would like for them just to take the right damn turning the first time.
Also they have to use the Uber GPS and not Google Maps, which several drivers have told me is quite inferior.
London taxi drivers are a massive outlier, though. They are world famous for their knowledge and expertise. It's not really relevant to compare them to anything outside London.
I have had a SF cab driver input the wrong address in GPS and start driving the entirely wrong direction, so it is pretty good to have a driver that knows the city. Hilariously though, this clueless driver wasn't a Uber/Lyft driver, but a traditional taxi cab driver!
The problem there is that the driver had to manually input the address. With Uber/Lyft, that problem doesn't exist, because you input the address into your phone's app, and that's relayed to the driver's phone and automatically used to route them. Any time you have humans entering data, you're bound to have problems like this.
> The problem there is that the driver had to manually input the address. With Uber/Lyft, that problem doesn't exist, because you input the address into your phone's app, and that's relayed to the driver's phone and automatically used to route them.
That doesn't work if you use the mobile site, m.uber.com, rather than the app. That site doesn't even offer the option to enter a destination.
(I use the mobile site because unlike the app, it doesn't ask for a pile of invasive permissions.)
I don't know about you, but I know my home address just fine, and have no trouble entering it in (in fact, the Uber app probably lets you save it as a "favorite"). I don't expect some random Joe to be able to enter in my home address error-free.
Now, if you don't know your own home address better than some random driver, then you have problems.
To be fair I would say it was perhaps less being out of touch and more about being desperate to try to say anything for differentiation. But either way your point is the same. And for those that say "well I'd take a local driver over a GPS driven experience that might go wrong with bad data" I would ask; are you're old enough to remember having vastly different fares when you took a cab to and from the airport on a business trip? Never have to worry about that when you know a GPS system is doing the driving.
In my experience in SF, all Uber drivers who use the nav built into the Uber app fail at this. They never know which roads tend to be choked with traffic during different parts of the day, and it's rare to end up with a driver who actually knows the city well.
Drivers who use Waze (still a minority, it seems) tend to do much better.
The “more rigorous criminal checks” part made me laugh. (And the next thought in the article, which is: These “strengths” are real, but the stupid public is slow to realize them!) Ha! Before Uber, I took a lengthy (probably $40) cab ride (with a stop in the middle to pick up a friend) in San Francisco. Now, I stupidly left my iPhone in the back seat, somehow. However, I immediately realized this upon exiting, and immediately used my friend’s phone to call Yellow Cab with the cab number of the taxi I just exited to request they send the driver back. They said they would “try.” They failed, despite my follow-up calls and pleas. (And the driver could not have gotten far, as this was in a less dense area of SF.)
A day or two later, I made the trek to the Yellow Cab offices in SF (which took time, Muni + a good walk). I then spent a long time waiting to be seen, only to be told that Yellow was “just a co-operative” that wasn’t liable; and, infuriatingly, they refused to give me the identity of the driver in question. I had wanted to file a police report naming the driver.
I never got my phone back — or an ounce of justice.
This is not a rare or freak incident, as anyone who has ridden taxis enough times can attest. I lost another pricey personal item three years earlier in an Austin cab, and was similarly left without recourse when the driver failed to acknowledge requests for its return.
It’s obvious the accountability that drivers have in any ride-sharing platform far outweigh the supposed criminal checks done by slimeball companies like Yellow Cab. If that same driver tried shit like that on Uber, not only would his rating drop, but he himself would be dropped because Uber itself would actually give a s--t when a customer reported this sort of incident! (And they wouldn't have to hike over to Uber HQ to do so!)
> Who cares about knowledge of city streets? Haven't they heard of Google Maps and Waze and GPS?
If I get into a cab, the driver asks where I am going, and I stump them by naming a major hotel, I personally feel like that was a frustrating failure, as now we are stuck in an intersection while I try to teach them the layout of a city I know less about than they do: the reason I am hiring a cab driver in the first place is because I want to outsource transportation, and the power that comes from being able to a street hail a cab to anywhere I want to go is tremendously useful.
The way I would describe the benefit is that "if I am using a cab it is generally because I don't know where I am or where I need to be". Imagine if you went to a restaurant, ordered a sandwich, and the waiter was like "ok, I can make that, but can you tell me what goes in it?" or hire a consultant to build some software for you and they say "ok, I can type that, but how do I build this?".
The real problem in San Francisco is that it was impossible to street hail. Your best strategy was typically to go to a nearby hotel and tip the valet to flag you a cab. Even then you were effectively screwed. And the dispatch at every cab company I have ever dealt with (except for Radio Cab in Portland) is a mess, and often they just lose track of fares.
What Uber and Lyft provided is just software that they could have sold to the cab companies to replace their dispatch, which would have solved these problems and worked in the existing ecosystem, but they wanted to take over the world and vertically integrate. I can see why, even if it frustrates me that we live in a world where that is even possible, as I do not see them as net forces for good :/.
I used to have to try to get cabs an hour or more before going to a doctors' appointment. Cabs would just not show up and I'd have to call the dispatcher over and over. Dispatchers would tell me straight out that they wouldn't send a cab into Bayview (where I got physical therapy). To hail a cab on the street, I would have to ask strangers to do it for me while I acted like it wasn't for me (or else cabs would assume I couldn't fold my wheelchair to fit it in, or manage getting into the cab myself) So from my perspective the Uber/Lyft model has been life changing.
but they wanted to take over the world and vertically integrate
You make this sound like there was a choice. Taxi companies are monopolistic entrenched bureaucracies. "Pay us money, run our software, and totally change the way your business operates" is just not going to happen.
Please explain why you think the cab companies would have used this software. What incentive do they have, when they have a monopoly? To improve customer service? Why would they care about that? They've never demonstrated that they care about customer service at all. Uber/Lyft aren't going to give their software and service away for free, and cab companies aren't going to pay for something they don't need unless they're forced to by the government (which was in their pocket).
Uber/Lyft did the only thing they could: an end-run around the taxi cartels.
>> And criminal background checks are useless if you haven't been in the country very long; how are they going to check your background in Pakistan?
Recent immigrants have been through the US boarder enforcement regime. It isn't perfect, but it is something more than the average american goes through. So it is incorrect to say that being a recent immigrant renders any background check pointless.
Remember that is the US with the reputation for difficulties re background checks. Getting a definitive answer as to someone's convictions in 50+ different jurisdictions that make up the US is far more complicated than from a unified justice system as found in Pakistan, Canada or India. And given some of the gibberish I've seen from US agents, their english is far more comprehensible.
I used to fly to SF from Chicago often. I was surprised by how poor the quality of the taxi's were in SF vs Chicago. I understood then why Uber started there. My taxi experiences in Chicago were far better than SF and I suspect a company like Uber would not have started in Chicago precisely because the cabs are better here. Also of course public transportation.
I had exactly the same experience coming to SF from NYC. I took taxis in NYC every once in a while, the only bad experience was on new years eve where everybody turns their lights off and operates without the meter. After moving to SF I had such poor experiences with taxis that when I raised it with a friend they exclaimed oh, nobody uses taxis here they're awful - use uber (I now use Lyft regularly).
Some of those experiences include:
- very obviously driving me around the block after I asked to be dropped off at a particular location. The driver refused to let me out when I asked
- driver refused to drive me with a "I don't want to go that way"
- two drivers claimed their card machines didn't work and insisted on cash, the second tried it even after I asked before the ride if paying by card was okay
Wow, this is weird, I'm being modded way up. I was expecting the reverse: on another, much older "tech news" site, any time the Uber/Lyft vs. cabs debate comes up, there's a very strong contingent of people there who absolutely hate Uber/Lyft and go on and on about how wonderful cabs are.
To be fair, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hate Uber: they are cheaters with no ethics [1], the executives are blatantly misogynistic [2], they consider rape a cost of doing business, as they consider that rapid expansion to India was more important than doing background checks on drivers [3], and of course I could go on, but I'll leave it there.
> they consider rape a cost of doing business, as they consider that rapid expansion to India was more important than doing background checks on drivers[3]
I didn't follow that case closely, but according to that article that's a pretty gross mischaracterization of what happened, since the driver had "evaded Uber’s earlier security checks by providing a fake police reference letter."
You also imply a pretty explicit calculus ("well, some rapes will happen, but it's worth it") that I doubt occurred except in the sense that any taxi company would have to consider.
But maybe there's a better source?
edit: not to take away from your other points. I've had extremely mixed feelings about uber due to those incidents and others, balanced by how completely awful cab companies tend to be and uber's genuine good points.
> The new screening process will include requiring address verification, a local criminal court search and a national criminal database search
makes it sound like their previous background check did not include, "has this driver been convicted of sexual assault before?" This particular driver had indeed been previously found guilty of sexual assault, and Uber hired him without caring about that.
Sounds like you've got some sort of agenda to push.
I've never had a job ask me if I've been convicted of sexual assault, and if anyone was going to be asked, you would think it would be someone with the last name Dildonics.
Does your job involve being alone with strangers in a situation where you control their environment? Cabs, car shares, etc. are a somewhat special situation as they routinely deal with people who aren't familiar with the area, operate at times without many witnesses around, and often get people who are at higher risk (drunk, sick, physically impaired, etc.), and they control the route, ability to leave the vehicle, etc.
It's not quite as bad as, say, child care but requiring stricter background checks really doesn't seem like an unreasonable expectation.
I took an Uber just yesterday where the guy showed up way after the estimated time, in a junky car, didn't speak English, and couldn't even follow the maps prompts that were coming out of his phone in Chinese. The only difference is on Uber I can give that guy feedback, whereas with cab drivers that's a tedious bureaucratic process that nobody pursues.
I've never had any of these experiences when riding in cabs. The cars were always ok, the drivers were polite and well spoken, they took direct routes and never demanded cash.
I use Uber for one simple reason: It's 30% cheaper than a cab. It isn't the quality of the cars, the personality of the drivers or the nature of the service. All of those things vary from case to case for every transportation service. Uber's only compelling feature is their lower price.
From what I understand, the average Uber driver makes very little money, < $9/hr after Uber's fees and vehicle maintenance costs. And the low customer prices are effectively being subsidized by venture capital money. How long can this last? Could this be another Groupon situation, where the Ponzi scheme doesn't fall apart until after Uber's IPO?
Uber is sometimes more convenient and sometimes not. Downtown Chicago, NYC, or DC, it's more convenient hail the cab already driving by you. In the burbs Uber is more convenient.
From Union Station in DC I take Uber, even though the cab line is way more convenient. It's about 40% cheaper accounting for no tip. Silicom Valley subsidizes my morning commute!
Disagree about that in Chicago. Can companies often claim their meters are down or go the "long way" to jack up the fare. Uber and Lyft have justly eaten up the market here.
Never, not once in 15 years, have I had a cab claim their meters are down. I've suspected a padded fare a couple of times but the difference was so small, that as a native I didn't notice. Credit card readers being down used to be a common refrain, but seems to have gone away in the face of Square.
What I have had, not commonly but often enough that it no longer surprises me, is extremely racists statements about where I live (I'm a white south sider which seems to attract crazy talk). This has occurred in taxis, Uber & Lyft. I've even had Uber and taxi drivers (Lyft isn't immune, just small sample size) try to refuse to drive me home after picking me up. I've reported these incidents to either 311 or the respective apps. With the apps I have no idea of the effectiveness. With 311 I had a case number assigned and received an update months later when a driver lost their license over a racist incident.
If I really had any complaint about Uber & Lyft is that it seems to have driven the profit out of livery cars and really created a race to the bottom in that market. I used to much prefer private cars for most things, but now the difference isn't worth paying for except for prescheduled events.
All that said, I use taxis, Uber, Lyft & livery cars with some regularity, and my usage of them largely is based on convenience not quality of service. Taxis when I'm in the loop or some other busy spot, Uber/Lyft when I need an adhoc ride elsewhere, and private cars for scheduled rides.
I've never had a cab go the long way. Maybe I have a Chicago accent.
I do regularly get cabs who say their card reader is down, at which point I just say "you are required to accept credit cards", and they always back down. I agree though that this is a reason to use Uber.
Blatantly, hoping that the riders aren't paying attention. I took an Uber in NYC that tried this: while driving toward my location that was only 5 more blocks away on the same street, he turned right, then left, then left, then right (back onto the original street). He only did the first left turn after going off-course because I demanded it--I'm sure he would've taken his sweet time if I hadn't.
To balance the anecdotes: I once took a yellow cab to an NYC airport, and in the middle of the highway (didn't even pull off to a shoulder) the cab driver stopped his car because his English wasn't good enough to read the signs. He just kept asking me "left? right?" as cars blew past him at 45+ mph, honking their horns.
I wish yellow cabs had a rating system so I could've given that driver 1-star like I did the Uber driver.
Agree. In Chicago, cab drivers tend to know the city better simply because uber drivers tend to be part time. But I take uber to and from the suburbs a lot and that just wasn't an option before uber
The one thing that cabs do have going for them is no surge pricing. During peak weekend hours where surge pricing is 2x+ on both Uber and Lyft, cab fares stay the same. That's the only time I find myself taking a cab.
The downside to that, which I've read many people complain about, is that during those peak times, you simply can't get a cab. With a constrained supply and fixed pricing, demand outstrips supply and then you may or may not be lucky enough to get a ride. That's the whole reason they have surge pricing: to get more drivers out during those times to handle the load. Cab drivers have little incentive to bother driving during peak hours since they get paid the same.
Marginally maybe, but when there's already a shortage of drivers for the demand, it's not like he's sitting around waiting for a fare most of the time anyway.
Every time I've taken an Uber in San Francisco I've ended up having to tell the driver how to get where I was going. Their GPS consistently tells them to take routes that technically work but are not the most efficient. For example, they always want to take California Street or Geary (stoplights at every intersection) instead of Bush/Pine (one way and with timed lights). As a native San Franciscan driving in the city for 20 years I know these are better routes. Most of the drivers I've had seem to not live in the city. I even had one driver who was in town for the week from LA and had never been to SF before.
Of course it's just a problem with the GPS algorithms, but that sort of hyper-local knowledge seems to be really hard to encode in algorithms. I wonder how many GPS systems could pass "the knowledge" in london for example? I think we on HN tend to have too much faith in the superiority of software.
Dude, you clearly know nothing about this company. Do you even live in SF? I haven't been in anything except a new or near-new Yellow Cab in years, and yes, they know how to use Google Maps.
Sadly, a lot of terrible cab drivers are moving over to Uber and Lyft now, and they're bringing with them the bad attitudes that drove people away from cabs.
I'm a frequent Lyft rider. One of my worst experiences recently was with a guy who spoke extremely broken English and who could barely understand English either. This wouldn't be so bad, but Apple Maps told him my house was someplace it wasn't (I didn't realize this was Apple Maps fucking up at the time; I've since begun texting drivers coming to my house telling them to not use Apple Maps), so I had to call him on the phone. It took a solid five minutes for him to understand that he's in the wrong location and needs to drive a few more blocks to find me, and he refused to exit his nav and look where I dropped the pin (I always take extra care to put the pin in the right spot). It took so long because his English was word salad, and he didn't understand basic words like "keep driving forward". Then, when he got to my place, I went to sit in the front (which I always do, and Lyft encourages), and as soon as I opened the door, he shouted at me "HEY, I'M UP HERE! GET IN BACK!" (the most coherent thing he said to me the whole time). Fortunately, the ride wasn't too far, so I just endured it and one-starred him when I got to my destination.
His rating was already at 4.5, which is below Lyft's termination threshold; I probably should've cancelled as soon as I saw it. Hopefully the one star I gave him was enough to get him kicked off the platform.
I've also had other bad experiences from drivers who act like their job is to milk their passengers:
- One guy also demanded I ride in the back. When I got in, I saw why: the inside door panels and the backs of the front seats were covered in advertising for his private driver service. If I knew then that was against the TOS, I would've had a nice chat with Trust & Safety.
- A driver took the wrong turn and got into an express toll lane on the freeway. Because of that, he missed the exit and we had to go on a long detour. He started ranting, saying "I'm trying trying to run a business here but people keep hitting me with all these tolls!". Also, this was another guy who made me ride in the back. Yeah, there's a pattern with these people. Because of that, making me ride in the back is now a guarantee you'll never get more than three stars from me (3-star or less means you're never matched with me again).
- A superstitious guy who refused to trust the voice nav... so to verify that the directions will indeed get us there, he started thumbing through the turn-by-turn directions with his face buried in the phone so he can't see the road, driving 20mph on the service road of a freeway. After the third time I told him to trust the nav and that I've taken Lyft from this place to that place dozens of times before, and he refused, I had him cancel the ride and let me out. I complained to Lyft and got my money back (because he charged me for the ride).
- Drivers, plural, who report that they've arrived before they actually get here. Dude, I can see your car coming down the street in the distance. You're not here yet.
- Driver who, on the way, pulled over at a gas station and texted me demanding I send him my destination address. When I told him I already entered it into the system, he cancelled the ride. My guess is he was going to cancel if the destination wasn't far enough away or maybe he was trying to redline me (the system only shows destination addresses once the driver reports they've arrived). Nothing of value was lost.
- Drivers who insist on parking a couple of blocks from my office building and then demanding I walk to their car instead of them driving up to my building. I'm not even on a busy city street... I work in the burbs! Also, the path from my office building to their car is always unlit, and it mostly happens when it's dark out. Sorry, but I'm a woman... I'm not walking through an unlit area at night to meet a driver who's exhibiting sketchy behavior. I'll just cancel and eat the fee. Bonus points to the guy who told me that I need to look at the Lyft map and walk to where his car is. He was laughing when he said it, too. Not my first bad experience with him: I cancelled on him once before after he was rude to me on the phone (and he has a very unique name I remembered). Since then, if I see his name come up, I immediately cancel. Guy is seriously creepy. He's not the only one who does this: maybe 5% of drivers who pick me up from work pull this, and they're all creepy guys who you can tell used to be cab drivers.
- One time I did walk the block or two over to the guy in a scenario like the above (one of the few times a driver pulled this when it was light out), he started ranting at me about how I kept him waiting for three minutes. When I said "I was expecting you to arrive where I actually was", he told me to get out of his car. As I was getting out, I told him I was complaining about him to Lyft, he said "I don't care, I work for myself", and then I walked back to my office building. As I was about to request a new ride, he drives over to me and physically chases me into the building. Luckily, I got in the elevator before he could. My boss called the police, they made sure he left (according to the police, he wanted to make sure I wouldn't do anything to hurt his reputation), and I then had a nice long chat with Trust & Safety.
There's a common thread here: people who think that they run private driver businesses and claim to just use Lyft as a tool are always the worst drivers.
Actually, 90% of drivers I deal with are perfectly pleasant. I just ride Lyft a lot, so I meet more drivers than the average person, and these experiences stick out in my mind.
See, the nice thing about Uber/Lyft here is that you just have to rate these drivers poorly, and you won't be matched up with them again, and after too many bad ratings, they'll be kicked out and won't be driving for anyone. This wasn't the case with the cab companies; there was no incentive to get rid of bad drivers.
The best thing you can do is give truthful ratings, and for really bad ones (or ones where you weren't able to rate them) complain to Uber/Lyft. They seem to care a lot more about their reputation than the cab companies ever did. After all, they don't have a monopoly.
Traveling around the world, cab drivers are often times some of my favorite people. I like the profession, generally finding cab drivers to be interesting and knowledgeable of local areas. In San Francisco, I try to take regular cabs when I can just to meet people and support the old profession and working class folks.
Bay Area, about a week ago. It was dark, cold, and raining around 5:30pm. Myself and the wife, who is at term and therefore obviously pregnant, got off at the train station and attempted to take a cab to alleviate the few minute wait in the rain for a Lyft or Uber.
I didn't have any cash. I know by now that you have to ask if they take credit card ahead of time; fine.
Me: "Hi, do you take credit card?"
Them: "No, no credit card. It's broken."
Me: "You've got stickers on your window that say you take them?"
Them: "Well, how far are you going?"
Me: "No thanks, I'll try the next one.
Me: "Hello, do you take credit card?"
Them: "Maybe. Where are you going? Minimum 15 dollar."
I know that it's about 12 dollars to my house. I tell him where we're going, and he just shakes his head.
Me: "Fine, screw it. I'll just get a Lyft."
I pulled out my phone, standing in front of a line of Taxis, and got a Lyft. About 6-8 minutes later, they picked us up, and took us on our way.
An entire line of cab drivers, my pregnant wife and I standing there in the rain and cold, and not a single one of them trying to actually take the fare.
During the 15 minutes or so of this interaction, and us waiting for Lyft, not a single cab was taken by the very strong flow of people leaving the train station at rush hour. Lots of pickups from friends and family. Plenty of Uber cars. Pink mustaches in quite a few windshields.
It was like something out of a movie. An entire line of real people, sitting there in their cars, often complaining about a lack of business, or how times have changed, or how insurance is X, or Uber is Y.
Not a single one with enough gumption to step up to the plate, smile, and say: "Where to mister?"
Why do you let them tell you they don't take cards? From a quick googling, it seems like taxis in SF must take cards. If they drive me somewhere and the machine's broken, that's not my problem.
Have to agree with some of the other responses. So what if they "have to" take cards. I believe that voluntary trades are the only moral ones; to use coercive force against someone in a commercial trade just to get my way seems rather thuggish. Also, once I manage to force them to take me against their will: what service should I expect? Top notch, or the sort of service a resentful party is likely to give when they didn't want the business in the first place.
Nope. Even if it were my only option to get I ride... I'd not use this sort of law to get it.
SF is not Silicon Valley proper, in the sense that the jurisdiction of SF over its taxi fleet does not extend south of San Francisco city proper and its airport. Anywhere else is different county rules.
What's it like to ride in a SF taxi? I'm not a frequent taxi user, but last time I rode in an NYC cab, the partition made me feel like I was going to jail and the advertising screen made me feel like I was riding public transportation. No doubt the normal private cars are more comfortable.
Here's my problem with cabs - the drivers. Many of the are downright nasty.
I'm deaf and I always dread taking the cab. I write down the location prior to getting in but I am not sure if the driver can read English. If not, then I try my best to explain where I want to go. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
I've been kicked out of cabs right after being picked up and the driver learned who I am. They just didn't want to deal with me. It's embarrassing and tough to swallow at times.
A few drivers are very nice and personable and gave me no problems and took me where I needed to go as well as not doing the 'long tour'.
When Uber came out - it was a godsend! Everything is so easy and transparent. I do not have to sit in the cab and watch continuously and make sure I am going the right direction and get off at the right place. I can finally relax while riding.
The ad screen almost feels inhumane. There's no way to turn it off or even dim it. After a long flight, having that thing in your face can be really unpleasant. It's my biggest gripe with NYC cabs. It's just too 1984 for my taste.
What, of course there is. There's a red button in the lower-right hand corner you can hit to turn it off in most cabs; granted, there are some where you cannot turn the screen 'off' but you can turn off the display of advertising on it (and it just then says "Touch here to resume").
That "off button" doesn't turn it off, it makes it goes into a silent slideshow mode showing you more ads with an equally bright screen. Point is you can't win against the ad machine.
The taxis themselves are basically fine. Probably (potentially?) cleaner than uber imo: leather seats are way easier to clean than cloth, and most ubers I've ridden in have cloth seats. Taxis tend to be unhappy if you pay with a card, but telling them they'll accept a card or nothing generally works.
The problem is taxis just don't come. There are relatively few areas of sf and times where you can reasonably street hail. So you're left with calling one of the multiple taxi services, and they make it readily apparent they don't give a fuck less about you. This worked as a business model only because there was no alternative.
My personal story: I had a badly broken leg (9+ months on crutches) and had to take taxis daily. From near mission/23rd (a population center), an 80% wait time for a taxi was approx 75 minutes and a 95% wait time 180 minutes. For a 16 minute drive to soma. They simply -- and a dispatcher admitted this to you -- lie when you call and ask the wait time. They couldn't follow simple requests like giving me a 5 minute warning call when they were about to arrive so I could crutch down stairs without making the driver wait. None of the services, even when told I'd be riding them 10x/week and had mobility problems, would come reliably.
I took a lot of ubers even when they cost thrice what taxis did, simply because when you requested one, they told you if they were going to come. So if the wait time was too long, you could be an adult and make alternate arrangements. Taxis just leave you wondering if they're going to come. The impact on your life of using taxis, thus having to leave 90 minutes before you want to get to the office (and leaving at 5pm/commute rush hour) is really shitty.
It's similar down the peninsula. I left sf and made the mistake of calling a taxi because a car was in the shop. Dispatch said 15-20 minutes. An hour in I called an Uber. Would you believe the driver has the giant balls to call 75 minutes after I requested a taxi to complain because I ditched and didn't call to cancel? I only waited 4 times their maximum estimate.
I'd love to take taxis instead of Ubers. I think Uber pays their drivers too little and is exploitative. Hopefully they will be forced to pay drivers more; I'll keep using them if so. But the utility of a taxi that either actually comes, or tells you they won't so you can make plans, is what keeps me using them.
> Uber pays their drivers too little and is exploitative
Taxis are even worse until you own your own medallion and car. If you are on the low end of the totem pole in the taxi system, then taxis are way more exploitative than uber.
I haven't used Uber a lot, but when I have the drivers universally love it. I've had them spend an entire 20 minute trip telling me how much the love Uber and how great it is to work for/with them. Are they really exploitative or is this just perception from outsiders?
Yeah but they lie about how much they like it. I mean, nobody likes a downer, and they need to get rated well so they can keep their ratings high enough to keep driving. You think you'd rate them perfectly if they complained about driving for Uber the whole ride? Plenty of articles online and forums online show how unhappy the drivers really are. don't trust what they tell you when you're paying them and their tip and ranking are tied to what they tell you about how much they like it.
source: Know a few people who drive for Uber AND Lyft, they all like working for lyft a lot more
This was genuine. I certainly wouldn't expect them to conplain, but nobody fakes spontaneously talking about how much they love their job for twenty minutes.
Speaking for myself here, but it seems like most of the criticism of Uber being "exploitative" comes from people who don't use the service.
Personally, I don't want to be an employee. I already put up with that mess at my day job. I want to click a button on the app when I want to drive, get the person where they're going, sign off, and have no other obligations aside from that.
Simple, fast, and easy. No wonder the government had to intervene.
Where I live there is a minimum fare of $75 imposed on Uber cars leaving from the airport. I took an Uber there and had a great, simple experience ($34 fare) but had to take a taxi back when returning from my trip.
The cab was falling apart. One of the doors didn't open from the inside. The axles made horrible, periodic thunking sounds (I'd guess the CV joints but am no car expert). The engine light, the wheel stability light, and the SRS warning light lit up the dash. The cab driver drove 10-15mph over the speed limit and nearly side-swiped several other cars. I asked to pay with a card and was met with a grunt of disgust, even as I added a standard 10% tip.
I understand there are some regulation issues related to Uber in many cities, but given the experiences I've had, I can't wait to be rid of taxis.
I should add that in London I had the opposite experience, where the standard cabs (and official app) were fantastic, but Uber was price gouging during a tube strike.
As a Londoner I and most of my friends hate black cabs. The drivers hate going more than 2 miles out of the centre of town, the cabs spew out diesel and the fares at night are 4x uber.
The drivers have the knowledge admittedly but it is not enough. I give them 5 years. Max.
Life Hack: Put the "pin" in the Uber app, near the airport (where there is no fee). As soon as you get a driver, call and let them know you're at the airport, which terminal/exit you're at.
This avoids any fees, and also gets around the "We do not service this area" blockers.
Depends on the airport. Some airports are vicious about enforcing Uber bans (and the drivers quickly figure this out), so drivers will call to confirm your location if the pin is near the airport.
On the other hand, most airports have some sort of public transportation heading in a not-airport direction...
This, a million times this. Also, taxi drivers could care less about your ride experience. No way to rate them and cause any change, so they just treat everyone like crap.
The ads are annoying, and I always mute them (and then re-mute them again when it "wears off" halfway through a long trip), but I never cared about the plastic partition.
It will be interesting if there is room for traditional cab companies after the market stabilizes. Uber and Lyft have been effectively subsidizing fares at the same time as providing superior service.
It is not really clear what level of service the market demands without loads of venture capital helping to subsidize it.
Does anyone know how much of this has to do with the crashing value of Taxi Medallions ? One article on a company in the NYC area claimed they had loans where they used the Medallions as collateral and that the crashing value was putting the loan in danger of being called by the bank.
"In reality, we have the best color scheme there is in the world, we’ve got a lot of loyal customers, we still get a high volume of calls to our color scheme on a daily basis"
Does "color scheme" have a special meaning in the taxi business, or is this guy actually bragging about how their cars are painted?
Yellow cabs are a multi-organization multi-city brand; so are e.g. checkered cabs. It's like Coke vs. Pepsi without the central corporate parent. Not inconceivable an independent bottler would prefer bottling for Coke rather than Pepsi right?
I've been told by a couple of different foreign nationals that guide books in their country recommend only taking "yellow" cabs to distinguish between non-licensed cabs.
I have no idea if that phenomenon is worth anything though.
AIUI, -in SF, at least- each taxi cab company has its own unique color scheme. I guess Yellow Cab's is Yellow on Yellow. Others are Red on Black, or Blue on White, or whatever.
So yeah, I'm fairly certain that the guy is bragging about how lucky his company was to be able to have the "traditional" taxi color scheme... it's more or less as silly as it sounds.
The process of calling a toll free number for a SF cab sucks. Often get a busy signal. Most of the time they are slow to respond. Some times they never show up at all. Basically, I can't count on them to be timely.
Uber (and formerly Sidecar) just shows up in a few minutes and takes me where I wanna go.
This was bound to happen, just a matter of time. Uber and Lyft are able to operate at much lower costs, and additionally have basically an unlimited supply of capital (VC investment). Traditional businesses have no chance of being competitive in this market.
It is a bit concerning that Uber is hemorrhaging money right now, being able to cost themselves lower than conventional cabs because they have such a massive amount of capital.
Outpricing your competition by making a loss/no profit is a nasty tactic, especially when your competition can't compete at a loss (for whatever reasons) and then goes out of business, only for the surviving business to then rise their prices to whatever point they want, given that there is now no competition.
> being able to cost themselves lower than conventional cabs because they have such a massive amount of capital
Is Uber less expensive than regular cabs?
My experience in Uber so far has been uniformly excellent and my experience in regular cabs has ranged between ok and dismal. I think I would probably be willing to pay around a 25% premium to use Uber over a regular cab.
The traditional taxi operators haven't needed to care about customer experience for so long, that I'm not sure they can change.
UberX is the only Uber available in NZ, and without surge pricing it's about 25% cheaper than a normal cab, and almost half the price for me to get to the airport, due to outrageous taxi fees at the airport.
Uber in NZ also operates much closer to a Taxi too, drivers must have a P endorsement, which allows you to commercially charge passengers, and requires you to pass a test and have a govt run background check, and have a clearly visible govt issued ID card while carrying passengers.
Most of the drivers for uber are therefore former taxi drivers, who drive for uber because it pays better and gives better flexibility.
Taxi companies don't necessarily hire employees. The whole medallion controversy in NYC was that the market value of the medallion had outpaced the rent the taxi owner could charge the driver for that shift.
* U&L don't own the cars, so they don't need to enforce a price floor to stay n business. If the drivers in one city saturate the market and driving becomes unprofitable, U&L lose some rev-share, but no capital investments.
* Taxi companies are required to disclose their costs on the outside of their car (in most jurisdictions), meaning it can't change often like U&L's dynamic pricing and it also acts as a price floor where U&L don't have one.
* Also, U&L can hire more drivers than the fixed number of taxis in any jurisdiction defined by the government, thus moving the city higher on the supply curve and driving down the cost below what taxi companies need to cover their expenses.
There's a lot of snarky answers, but some things off the top of my head why Uber can be cheaper:
* More efficient (less down-time driving around)
* People use their own cars (no need to buy/maintain taxis)
* Less overhead (no need for managers, dispatchers, etc)
* No taxi medallions
* More popular, so more rides
* Subsidized by VC money (Okay, kinda snarky, but legitimate)
The last point about subsidization sounds bad, but their goal is (likely) to just get enough market share that they've already won by the time self-driving cars come out (and can cut costs significantly then).
I am really looking forward to self-driving cabs. When I see what the job does to people I usually feel bad for them. It sucks getting in a cab whose driver is a jerk, but I honestly can't expect them to be happy with a job like that. People shouldn't have to be doing that job.
I'm not up to date with the state of SF transportation rules and U&L. Are U&L still ignoring rules designed to provide access to those with disabilities?
> Are U&L still ignoring rules designed to provide access to those with disabilities?
In my city one of the options (besides SUV, black car, etc) is for persons with disabilities. The app seems to have some options to switch between requesting a driver with a wheelchair-compatible car and the city's own paratransit service. I've never used it myself, so I can't comment on the implementation.
Lack of driver health insurance, lack of benefits, lack of liability from crashes, reduced compliance costs via skirting local regulations [e.g. Background checks for Uber/Lyft are cheaper than the more thorough checks in some municipalities]
Background checks are a canard. How do the cab companies check the background of someone from Uzbekistan? They can't, they can only go back as far as that person has been in the country, which isn't very long judging by their mastery of English.
U/L do carry insurance for their drivers when they're driving a passenger, and it's probably more than the regular cab companies carry (which is why SF Yellow cab is going bankrupt: they weren't insured for enough for one of their incompetent drivers, according to the article). Also, U/L have deeper pockets than any local cab company/coop, so civil suits will net higher payouts too if it came to that.
As for health insurance, from what I've read a lot of cab drivers aren't full-time employees either, so they also don't get health insurance, or benefits.
> Background checks are a canard. How do the cab companies check the background of someone from Uzbekistan?
In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail."
By that logic, stop visiting the doctor, using seat belts, or any safety device known to man because it can fail for some non-0 fraction of the time.
> U/L do carry insurance for their drivers when they're driving a passenger, and it's probably more than the regular cab companies carry (which is why SF Yellow cab is going bankrupt: they weren't insured for enough for one of their incompetent drivers, according to the article)
> Drivers can answer no and effectively lie to their insurance company (while also committing insurance fraud) but still receive coverage, or they can say yes and they would be immediately denied coverage. Additionally, they could even be dropped from their policy for disclosing that they are a rideshare driver.
> Since it’s not really in Uber’s best interest to disclose the lack of collision coverage during Period 1, many drivers don’t discover that they’re not covered until it’s too late. I’ve been researching rideshare insurance options in Nevada since Uber went live and spoken with hundreds of Uber drivers yet we haven’t been able to find a single insurance carrier willing to insure rideshare drivers. Some carriers offer a commercial policy but the cost is prohibitive at $3,000-$5,000 a year.
> Meanwhile, risk-averse insurance companies have been excruciatingly slow to adapt to this new and innovative form of transportation. I maintain an up to date list of insurance options by state for Uber drivers on my site and you’ll notice that Nevada is not currently on that list. There literally isn’t a single option for drivers which unfortunately is somewhat typical. A majority of states in the US still don’t offer a rideshare friendly personal insurance or hybrid policy for Uber drivers which means a whole lot of drivers are forced to lie to their insurance carriers or find a different line of work.
There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state.
In fact there is an entire business built around the fact there are massive holes in that policy:
> Traditional auto insurance policies may not provide clear coverage for drivers who participate in ridesharing programs. The partnership between Uber and Metromile means you’re insured 24/7, whether you’re using your car for personal use or driving with Uber. Now, Metromile offers complete clarity to Uber driver partners.
The difference with Uber is the driver gets fucked instead of the Taxi/Uber company.
> As for health insurance, from what I've read a lot of cab drivers aren't full-time employees either, so they also don't get health insurance, or benefits.
I'm not even going to bother with this one. I've pointed out enough holes already.
> In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail."
You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail.
> There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state.
> In fact there is an entire business built around the fact there are massive holes in that policy:
That "entire business" is "an auto insurance company". Funny that. You see "massive holes". I see "the market at work". Do you wish to force insurers to take on risks that they can't take in a fiscally responsible way?
Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft and Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while transporting a fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the time that they pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating their vehicle. [0][1][2]
As with all things political, it will take far too long for this to become the policy everywhere, but it's pretty much inevitable.
To analogize: just because many Red States like Alabama refused to accept no-strings-attached Federal subsidization of Obamacare premiums for their poor, and refused to use no-strings-attached Federal money to expand Medicare to cover those who fall into the "Medicare gap" doesn't mean that those programs are bad, or a disaster. It's just a fact of life that many politicians love to play football with other people's livelihoods.
> You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail.
Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. Did you not bother to read the link to the drunk girl who stupidly got into a car with one of these guys?
One of the main arguments proponents make about these services is driving people who have been drinking home and people in strange places home.
"Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there are clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired passengers." isn't even close to saying "HEY NO ONE HIRE FELONS".
If you want to engage in childish strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the problem I'm discussing, go troll someone else.
> Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft and Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while transporting a fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the time that they pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating their vehicle. [0][1][2]
> But drivers have been incurring all sorts of risks when they use their personal vehicles for TNC work. During Period 1, Uber and Lyft do not offer collision (coverage for when the policyholder is at fault), comprehensive (for fire, theft and other damage), underinsured motorist coverage or medical payments. (They also do not offer those coverages for the succeeding periods, unless drivers carry them on their personal policies).
> The new insurance is offered by Farmers as a supplement — called an endorsement — to drivers’ personal auto policies, and it will cost an additional 8 percent of their premium. A smaller insurer, MetroMile, already offers individual ride-service insurance, but it’s exclusive to Uber drivers. That insurance costs a base rate plus a per-mile charge.
Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some bizarre reason(?)
The drivers themselves need to buy supplemental insurance or there is a gap in coverage during Period 1.
> Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. Did you not bother to read the link to the drunk girl who stupidly got into a car with one of these guys?
Wow.
Bro. A couple of things:
Humans who would launch unjustifiable assaults against other humans come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them are convicted felons. Most of them are not. A proper background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree of certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other things).
It often takes a very, very long time before one can seal a felony conviction. "The guy who can't find solid work because he did a dramatically stupid thing a decade ago, despite the fact that he's a dramatically different and dramatically better guy now than he was then" is kinda archetypical.
A prior felony conviction, along with the degree of one's success at rehabilitation is just another datapoint to be considered in a proper background check.
> "Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there are clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired passengers."
You say that like regular cabbies with clean records aren't not-infrequently accused of theft, assault, and swindling. :/
> Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some bizarre reason(?)
Heh. You said:
> The difference [in regards to insurance coverage] with Uber is the driver gets fucked instead of the Taxi/Uber company. [1]
From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward about the limits of their insurance.
You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies. Perhaps their policies in regards to disclosure of this information have changed recently, but everything I've read that was actually published by the companies in question was straightforward and clear.
[0] I know what such a thing is because I was subject to one in a former life.
[1] Amusingly, you said this right after you mentioned that Uber had done the legwork required to find an insurer that was willing to insure commercial drivers making use of their personal vehicle during the time that they're not driving for Uber.
> A proper background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree of certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other things).
...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay.
That makes no sense and you basically admit I'm correct then go on and on about something else.
> From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward about the limits of their insurance.
Once again, you aren't countering my argument in any way shape or form. You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay."
> You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies
You clearly don't understand what I've written at all and I'm going to stop here because its pretty clear you are attacking strawmen and patting yourself on the back for it for some bizarre reason.
> ...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay.
Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :)
From the sound of it, it's you who's interested in forgoing proper background checks, and just blackballing everyone who's been convicted of a felony:
> In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail."
Think through your statement:
* You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they've recently arrived in the country.
* You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.".
* This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable.
If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check. [0] Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people.
> You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay."
Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage.
> You clearly don't understand what I've written at all...
No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written. :)
[0] But, frankly, the same level of scrutiny should be applied to everyone... you never know who's an antisocial scumbag that just hasn't been caught yet.
> You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they've recently arrived in the country.
I literally said otherwise:
> In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail."
Aka "We should continue to use background checks as prescribed by the locally democratically elected authority even tho they can fail in some scenarios."
That isn't a statement on the accuracy of those background checks and only a complete idiot would come to that conclusion.
> * You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.".
> Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. [Sarcasm]
Its a specific discussion of people who are in positions of power.
> * This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable.
1) People who fail standard and normal background checks because of felonies when attempting to get a job that places them in a position of power.
2) You keep re-stating what I say to make it apply to a broader context than what I actually say which is simply arguing with a strawman, yet again.
> If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check.
It is usual and standard to have a background check performed by fingerprinting to the standards of the city of Houston when engaging in services regulated by the city of Houston.
Once again, you seem to argue against a strawman for no apparent reason.
> Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
> There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state.
That was the argument. The context was in relation to Taxi companies. Yes, the insurance burden is shifted and you just agreed with it.
Congratulations.
> No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written. :)
1) You've admitted my argument that part of the cost savings is by shifting the some of the burden from Uber/Taxi company to drivers for insurance.
2) You admit I'm correct that they should use normal and customary background checks used by the local democratically elected authority.
3) You've basically agreed my argument is fundamentally sound and 100% correct. Or you are lying in your most recent post.
4) Your entire attack on my argument is from the angle of re-writing my argument to attack a strawman.
> Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :)
Actually, you did even in your most recent post.
Given "proper" background checks in the context of skirting local regulations is determined by the locally democratically elected authority (the city of Houston) by arguing against that position, you literally said:
> Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people.
1) You can't actually invalidate how Houston is handling this without accusing Uber of being racist, classist, and dramatically damage to felons who have reformed.
2) This is due to the main difference is the fact Houston wants people fingerprinted and Uber didn't comply.
3) You ignored the actual flaw in my argument (Houston would have cleared the driver I used as an example in their background check) to accuse me of being racist, classist, etc.
Congratulations. I just proved it using standards of evidence you are.
I never said they were perfect but pretty much every single person who defends Uber falsely claims that Uber is complying and/or not engaging in activity that is shady.
And when it comes to things like insurance and background checks, Uber is worse than the Taxi companies in many areas. [e.g. Houston ]
Anyone raping anyone is horrendous and a tragic atrocity. It should never be allowed to happen!
However, we don't live in Minority Report. You do not and cannot know if someone is going to commit a crime, regardless of their past actions. Discarding "innocent until proven guilty" is also an atrocity, that shouldn't be allowed to happen.
While difficult to accept, it really is impossible to compare two atrocities and declare one is more important than the other.
On a different note: Improving realtime safety, inside of an Uber, is something you will get unanimous support for. If what you're looking for is Uber combined with http://www.companionapp.io/ that is worthwhile and I hope Uber prioritizes this feature next over all others.
Infact, if anyone reads this and has the appropriate connections to get this idea into the hands of Uber's executives, it is really worth Uber's time to get safety right. Allowing women/children(even men) to opt-in to pre-set a designated "Companion" on trips taken between 8pm-8am(configurable) is worth investing the three or so dev months it would take them to build this out.
I interpreted his "liquidate them" comment to mean basically forcing the companies to break apart and sell everything off, (perhaps seizing all their assets judicially). So, presumably, we'd still have a bunch of oil companies, but they wouldn't be the ones we have now, or nearly as powerful, and their current owners would all be up a creek.
Oh come on. Enough sunlight hits the earth in an hour to power worldwide consumption for a year.
It takes an infinitesimal amount of land if you were going to use solar alone [1]. There is enough wind power potential in the US midwest, from North Dakota to Texas, to power the entire US 4x over [2]. There's enough generation capacity to move 77% of light vehicles in the US over to electric immediately. There's plenty of energy to go around.
Fun fact: The latest budget bill that passed at the end of 2015 had one of the largest subsidies (ITC production tax credit) for solar and wind generation installation ever.
I'm currently programmer nomad-ing in Uruguay and have been delighted with Easy Taxi. I don't know if all the cabs use it, but tons of them do and it works just as well as Lyft/Uber did for me in Seattle. Real-time updates of location, ratings, instant confirmation of fare acceptance... I say I want a cab and pretty much get one within 5 minutes no matter where or when I am.
It's all the same yellow and black taxies but everyone has a cell phone mounted to their dash and.. it just works. I'll never ever understand why taxies in the US haven't done this. Had they, I probably wouldn't have switched _exclusively_ to using Lyft.
It's the same here in Lithuania, when Uber started to become popular a few years ago the taxi companies joined forces and launched their own apps (there are two main competing apps).
I don't understand how US taxi companies have been so oblivious to this, given each one in major cities probably has more cabs than the whole country does here :D
Uber finally launched a couple of months ago, but it's more expensive and doesn't have as many cars.
Just before Uber in 2009 I was once left stranded at Jerry Garcia Amphitheater because it was "out of the way" for the cab company. I had to walk several miles through the hills to get home. Uber solved a huge problem for us.
>> “In reality, we have the best color scheme there is in the world, we’ve got a lot of loyal customers, we still get a high volume of calls to our color scheme on a daily basis,” he said.
The first and last yellow cab I took in San Francisco: the driver didn't know where the Presidio was, took us somewhere completely different, and then argued with us for a solid five minutes insisting we'd given him the wrong address (we hadn't, multiple times, with the zip code, explaining that it was near the Golden Gate bridge). The driver had a GPS unit in the car. I couldn't even get angry; brain was already saturated with amazement.
I will miss the transportation market taxi cabs provide. When the constraint is on supply-side (drivers) but the cost is constant (that is, given a sufficiently capable driver, your fare should be about the same) you're only limited by hailing a cab, which has become quite a bit easier now that everyone is using Lyft and Uber. Oh well. I get that the QoS is not as consistent with cabs, but I always found that part fun.
Please please please let Austin's Taxi companies be the next to fall.
Between shitty customer service, not showing up on time (or at all), and having drivers that will always try and take the slowest shittiest way to get anywhere to inflate the bill... I can't wait for them to go out of business.
Spot the cab driver with a passenger... he'll drive 50 MPH in a 65 zone. Spot the cab driver without one... he does 90. So not only do they rip the passenger off, but they fuck up traffic for everyone behind them. Fucking cunts, they all deserve to be put out of business.
Can not count the number of times I called a cab to the airport in the last 10 years, only to have the cab not show up on time leaving me in a spot where I'd have to beg a neighbor to take me to the airport, or drive myself and pay for week-long parking my company didn't cover when I had to take a business trip.
Uber and Lyft... they may not be perfect, but they're infinitely better than taxis. Infuckingfinetly better.
Taxis going out of business... 1) natural selection, and 2) good riddance.
There are a lot of comments in this thread about the problems Uber solves. I'd like to pose a different question: which of those problems is not solved by Flywheel?
For those who don't know, Flywheel is an app that lets you call a regular taxi cab with an Uber-like dispatch system. You watch the cab arrive with GPS and pay on your phone. It is some small fixed cost over the cost of a cab, no surging obviously. And you can put in your destination for the driver to navigate to via GPS, just like Uber.
I think there's an element of principle to it. I certainly feel that way, and it appears the majority does as well.
App GPS, app payment, star ratings... these are not new things. And yet the taxi industry couldn't be bothered to better itself until a higher quality service came through and gutted their profits.
Consumers suffered some universally abhorrent treatment for years because taxis flat out don't give a fuck. And now, what.. all is expected to be forgiven because they're suddenly in the app store?
That is the biggest point in favor of Uber, their threat made some taxi operators attempt to get their act together.
I think that in a few years Uber will learn to give as few fucks (to borrow your phrasing) as taxi companies do today. Most of the current taxi drivers will become Uber drivers, Uber will have too many riders to do reasonable customer service, and there will be no incentive to go the extra mile for customers when there is no entrenched competition to outshine.
The only reason I bother playing the devil's advocate in pro-Uber threads is because I don't like how they got here. They used VC money to barrel into ever major city and actively ignore the law. It's just one more symptom of the problem that having a billion dollars in America makes you above the law.
Sounds like it does most of what ride-share services do.
Does Flywheel allow you to rate individual drivers/cars (and prevent being matched to creepy drivers or dirty cars on future rides)? I think that's actually one of the biggest value-adds of Uber/Lyft/Sidecar--direct feedback about drivers which tends to retain good drivers and reject bad ones.
You can rate your ride, I have no idea what happens to the feedback.
The uber/lyft rating system is a little broken these days since many drivers will ask you to exchange 5-star ratings with them (you have a rating too). When a bad driver is a 4.8 and a good driver is a 4.9 it's hard for me to tell what I am getting into.
Good to hear. The few times I've called a cab in SF it never showed up. I've heard there is no penalty to them if they just pick someone else up instead on the way. So glad their company got the penalty for poor service in the end.
Uber/Lyft are very interesting. The main reason cabs are so terrible is because the unions have a complete stranglehold on the industry, which means pretty much no advancement in technology and monopolistic pricing.
They both are basically going against everything the unions stand for by not having regular wages or benefits.
Edit: Admitting you're wrong is not something most people here on HN can do. Instead, they downvote.
Um, I thought the reason cabs are so terrible is not because of unionization, but because it's a cartel, and it's given that power by the government because of the issuance of licenses (called "medallions") which ensure a limited supply of cabs, artificially restricting competition.
"but because it's a cartel, and it's given that power by the government because of the issuance of licenses (called "medallions") which ensure a limited supply of cabs, artificially restricting competition."
Right, the unions. It's not a corporation that is artificially restriction competition, it's the unions. These unions have deals with the government.
No, that's not a union, that's a cartel. A union is an organization of labor, not company owners. And it's the cab owners who have the deal with the government.
"Taxi unions in cities such as Boston, Denver, New York, and San Francisco are not pleased...."
Sorry, but they are unionized and like every other industry where unions have control, you get inflated wages and higher prices. It nearly put the big 3 out of business during the downturn of 2008.
Companies like Toyota didn't even bat an eye during that time because they could make changes with ease.
Boston only started to unionize in 2007, for example. Prior to the labor union being formed, the taxi cartel has long had an artificially restricted monopoly on medallions, which ensures a lack of competition and discourages innovation, causing them to stagnate and become ripe for disruption. I'm sure having unionized labor doesn't help in keeping costs down and the driver unions have gone on strike over things like requiring GPS, but you have failed to demonstrate that the labor union is the primary cause of their current troubles. If that were the case, you ought to be able to show that prior to 2007, Boston's taxi companies were constantly innovating and upping their game and that it's only after unionization that they have stagnated.
In fact, the GPS strike was due to the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission enacting rules that required the use of GPS -- this was something that the taxi companies could have introduced themselves if they were at all competitive, but due to their cartel status why should they even bother?
I think those unions resemble more trade associations and not labor unions as they lobby and fight for the owners of cab companies and not the drivers as your comment suggested.
It's because "the unions" is colloquial shorthand for "labor unions" which, whatever their plusses and minuses might be, are a very different concept than `taxi unions'
Because of this muddled terminology (and probably because suggesting a single source here is obvious oversimplification) you sound like you don't know what you are talking about and are just typing a screed. Hence the downvotes.
I think you are smarter than that, and can find a more articulate approach.
Your comments are grey because your statements are completely ignorant.
Major cities instituted a medallion system for taxi, restricting who could operate a taxi service. The owners of the cab companies in major cities bribed the local governments into limiting the number of medallions in circulation, then bought all of the medallions. Meaning that cab companies have government-sanctioned monopolies on taxi service in many major metro areas of the US.
As others stated, this is an example of a cartel, not a labor union. And the entire purpose of cartels is to maintain artificially high prices.
Edit: I think I'm done commenting about this. I thought HN was supposed to be about expressing new ideas, but I was wrong. It's an echo chamber and not even close to being open or free.
From the article: "Cab drivers, on the other hand, maintain that they undergo more rigorous criminal checks, enjoy more robust insurance, and generally have better knowledge of city streets."
Who cares about knowledge of city streets? Haven't they heard of Google Maps and Waze and GPS? This just shows how out-of-touch and behind-the-times the cab industry is. The insurance is a canard, as Uber insures their drivers for more than the cab companies (the problem with Uber is what happens when you don't have a paying rider). And criminal background checks are useless if you haven't been in the country very long; how are they going to check your background in Pakistan? Also, the Uber/Lyft reputation systems are far more valuable anyway, plus Uber/Lyft keep detailed records of all their drivers' movements when they have riders, so it's pretty hard for them to get away with anything; cabs aren't guaranteed to have any of that oversight.
And apparently driving for Uber isn't that bad, since the cab companies are now complaining that all the good drivers are switching to Uber/Lyft, leaving them with crappy drivers who earn them huge lawsuits for accidents they cause.