[Z K]

Originally Posted by P1et

If your friends think that Uber is so crap, why on earth do they keep driving for Uber? Maybe time for another job?

If you don't have a college education and are in between jobs, you're not so picky on what brings the bread in to feed the family. Any income is better than no income.

The greatest thing about Uber is that anyone can drive it. There's no job application process. You just sign up online, they check your car and you're ready to go.

People who can't get a job at McDonalds can easily get a job with Uber.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by CANGRKE70

I've used Uber once and almost died twice at the hands of our driver. Never again.

I know it's cheaper, but also insurance plays a role. Get into an accident and hurt with Uber and your insurance might not cover you. If they do, lucky. All Uber drivers are pretty much uninsured. All Canadian Insurance co. will not insure under personal insurance if you tell them you're going to be an Uber driver. Most Uber drivers "neglect" to inform their insurance that they are doing so.

That is another issue I have read about; the drivers not being screened very well if at all. In one instance here in Denver, an Uber driver picked up a woman at her apartment and drove her to the airport. The driver then figured while this person was out of town, he could go break into her apartment and rob her. It turns out the woman had a roommate who caught the driver trying to break in and called the police.

[catchm3ifyoucann]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

F*ck Uber. They are a shady company with some of the stuff they have pulled. First off, they claim they are not a transportation company, but merely a technology company that connects people with rides. They do this to get around the regulations taxi companies have to follow like licensing, insurance, taxes, and car inspections. Second, they treat their drivers like crap. None of the drivers are employees, but are all contractors who receive no benefits and have to provide the car and maintain it. They are also not allowed to work for any competitors, which is odd because as contract workers, they should be able to work for multiple employers if they choose to. Many drivers do like working for Uber, but Uber's long term goal is to replace every driver with autonomous vehicles.

Third, the Uber executive staff have been involved in scandals to dig up dirt on critics of the company, track riders with the "god" mode of their software, and also placing bogus calls for rides to their competitors so they could actually pick up more passengers. Lastly, and one of the most infuriating things experienced by customers is their surge pricing that has been known to charge up to 7 times more than the regular fare.

All that said, that doesn't make me a fan of dirty and smelly cabs. The Uber/Lyft model has potential assuming the ethics issues can be worked out.

I would have to disagree. If they were to replace drivers with autonomous vehicles they would have to start paying insurance, pay for the vehicles, and pay for their maintenance. I see no benefit to them going that route. If anything they would be the last company to use autonomous vehicles.

[P1]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

That is another issue I have read about; the drivers not being screened very well if at all. In one instance here in Denver, an Uber driver picked up a woman at her apartment and drove her to the airport. The driver then figured while this person was out of town, he could go break into her apartment and rob her. It turns out the woman had a roommate who caught the driver trying to break in and called the police.

Damn!

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by P1et

Damn!

If you think there hasn't been more than a few taxi drivers who drop off a family at the airport and then return back to the pickup spot, think again

[Z K]

Originally Posted by fravel

I thought Uber had some sort of blanket corporate insurance policy that covered their drivers while they were on an Uber fare.

Total BS. Uber pretty much puts it on the driver to claim it out of the driver's own personal insurance - they tell the driver to never tell the insurance company they are driving for Uber. Most car insurance policies will not cover it if they know you are driving Uber.

Uber's insurance will kick in only if the driver's insurance claim is denied. This allows Uber to not pay a cent on most insurance claims - putting all the cost on the driver and passenger. Oh, and if you get into an accident while driving Uber - they can terminate you immediately.

Uber has some serious ethical issues. The model is good but they need to take care of their drivers better.

[RickFLM4]

I've never used Uber and rarely use taxi's but IMO Uber and their drivers are functioning as transportation providers. I don't care who people use / prefer but think this business should be subject to the same regulation as taxi's or the regulations should be removed from taxi drivers. It does not make sense to me that taxi drivers are heavily regulated but Uber drivers are not.

[rr006rbc]

Hmm..I've never had an issue w/ an Uber driver before; they seemed to have been pretty good to me. I've used it about 20 times in the last 2 years or so. And I'm here in LA where the worst drivers in the US supposedly are. :shrug:

[Needbmwpartzz]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

I've never used Uber and rarely use taxi's but IMO Uber and their drivers are functioning as transportation providers. I don't care who people use / prefer but think this business should be subject to the same regulation as taxi's or the regulations should be removed from taxi drivers. It does not make sense to me that taxi drivers are heavily regulated but Uber drivers are not.

That's the thing....the business models do not match therefore the regulations will not and have been sidestepped by Uber and even if they do regulate people will find another alternative(ride share or even another platform) to solve their transportation needs....uber just happens to fill that need at the moment and is doing that successfully so far.
Nows the time to blaze a new trail for the personal transportation markets and Uber is leading the way,but time will tell if they will have staying power.

[Bobble]

I've used Uber a couple times, never Lyft and Taxis when out of town and don't want a car like in SF. Here's my take with no real opinion either way.
Uber is very convenient but one of the 2 times I did get caught up in surge pricing so was a bit dismayed when the estimated $13 ride was $22 either way it was cheaper than a DUI.
Taxis pretty much all the same, smelly not the best appointed and always in a hurry, but did have a fantastic taxi ride in SF once as we convinced the Eastern European driver to simulate the scene from Bullitt, poor taxi. If taxis could only be cleaner.
I find , if all the rumors are true, it is a bit unfair that actual livery companies need certain things but Uber and their drivers do not. They should all compete on a somewhat level field. If things where the same cost wise I'd choose Uber simply because of the convenience and condition of cars. I wonder if an Uber driver would allow 6 drunks in their car all at a once like a taxi? As far as crime goes I'd be willing to bet it's pretty much the same Uber vs Taxi.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by Needbmwpartzz

That's the thing....the business models do not match therefore the regulations will not and have been sidestepped by Uber and even if they do regulate people will find another alternative(ride share or even another platform) to solve their transportation needs....uber just happens to fill that need at the moment and is doing that successfully so far.
Nows the time to blaze a new trail for the personal transportation markets and Uber is leading the way,but time will tell if they will have staying power.

What is the logic to leave taxi's regulated if Über is not regulated (or vice versa)? Both transport people from point A to point B. The method by which the ride is summoned or employment status of the driver should not impact the regulation over the ride itself.

[Z K]

I think the easy answer to Uber's treatment of drivers is to just treat them as employees. Give them employee benefits based on the amount of time they drive. We may have to pay more for an Uber ride but at least I feel better that the driver is screened and is someone who is motivated to drive well. This should shut up taxi companies as well because Uber will shoulder the same costs and responsibilities.

There are alternatives to ridesharing like Flywheel. It makes it so you can hail a taxi like you would an Uber. You can track, rate drivers and pay through the app just as Uber does.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by catchm3ifyoucann

I would have to disagree. If they were to replace drivers with autonomous vehicles they would have to start paying insurance, pay for the vehicles, and pay for their maintenance. I see no benefit to them going that route. If anything they would be the last company to use autonomous vehicles.

It's not just autonomous vehicles that Uber wants, they also want every vehicle on the road to be an Uber car. Their dream is to end private vehicle ownership and have transportation become a service with everyone riding around in Uber cars.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/16/tech...d=hp-stack-dom

[Needbmwpartzz]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

What is the logic to leave taxi's regulated if Über is not regulated (or vice versa)? Both transport people from point A to point B. The method by which the ride is summoned or employment status of the driver should not impact the regulation over the ride itself.

I see your point but it's obviously not as simple as you stated.....uBer has avoided regulation... fact...(but they are also being litigated as we speak)
So the courts will decide what's what....and at the end of that will dictate what is or is not going to fly here.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by Needbmwpartzz

I see your point but it's obviously not as simple as you stated.....uBer has avoided regulation... fact...(but they are also being litigated as we speak)
So the courts will decide what's what....and at the end of that will dictate what is or is not going to fly here.

Well that's my original point. If they avoid regulation then it should be removed from taxi's as well. Regardless of the loopholes they found they are transporting people, just like taxi's. If courts rule the Uber drivers don't need to be subject to the same rules that taxi's are now, then neither do the taxi's. Just eliminate the regulations for all. If customers are ok with unregulated uber drivers then they should also be ok with unregulated taxi drivers and can choose to use whichever they prefer.

[tony20009]

I have to say, I'm not sure what the point of controversy is with Uber.

I don't know that I have a strong opinion, OP, other than that I agree about governments' needing to eschew placing the heavy hand off expressly non-safety related regulation of transportation services provided by the private sector. I am fine with a jurisdiction wanting to have vehicles registered for the basic purpose of keeping track of them and their operators, and I realized a de minimus fee may be needed to support that sort of thing, but dictating where and where not they can operate is going to far IMO.

Of course, taxi services and their owners are going to lobby for more restrictions as they've long had essentially a monopoly on that business, aside perhaps from the limo service segment of that industry. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that they are behind all the "hoopla" about Uber. After all, damn near everything having to do with politics and regulation arises from some business (or group of them) feeling their revenue streams are threatened by a new business/business model that they can't easily adopt.

Speaking of that, as a regular traveller and D.C. resident, I use car services quite often. It's usually far cheaper to have a sedan pick me up and drop me off than it is to drive and park at the airport or train station. That's even before considering not having to walk from the parking lot to the terminal. A bit better on that a Dulles since it has valet parking right next to the terminal, but still being dropped at the front door upstairs cuts a few minutes off the walk to the gate, and since I never have bags to check, I am one of those "arrive at the airport 20-30 minutes before departure people" who never wants to add minutes to the trip to the gate.

FWIW, I don't find hailing a taxi to be all that difficult in D.C. or most other cosmopolitan cities; but I wouldn't try doing it in NoVA, except perhaps in Old Town by the restaurants and shopping. In Los Angeles, I found it best to call for one in advance, which when I did so, I had no issues. I've had no issues with car/limo services in any city.

I have a long time friend who lives basically at Prince St. and Royal in Old Town and I doubt he'd even think of trying to hail a cab on the corner, so to speak. I wouldn't try hailing a cab in my neighborhood in D.C. either, but I could easily get one on one of the nearby major streets, but I'd hate to any of those streets, solely because of the distance. I used to live in Dupont Circle, and on The Hill before that, and hailing a cab was no trouble at all.

As for "smelly and dirty" cabs, well, I haven't ever been in one that smelled. Years back, one could fairly commonly come upon a raggedy cab seat, but not so much these days. The floors aren't always the cleanest, but their not any dirtier the soles of my shoes, so I'm okay with that. LOL

Maybe one day I'll try Uber? Do you have any experience getting an Uber car to pick you up at five a.m. or some other odd hour? That's the main thing that pushes me to sedan services. The last thing I want is a car that doesn't show up before I'm ready to go.

All the best.

[P1]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I have to say, I'm not sure what the point of controversy is with Uber.

I don't know that I have a strong opinion, OP, other than that I agree about governments' needing to eschew placing the heavy hand off expressly non-safety related regulation of transportation services provided by the private sector. I am fine with a jurisdiction wanting to have vehicles registered for the basic purpose of keeping track of them and their operators, and I realized a de minimus fee may be needed to support that sort of thing, but dictating where and where not they can operate is going to far IMO.

Of course, taxi services and their owners are going to lobby for more restrictions as they've long had essentially a monopoly on that business, aside perhaps from the limo service segment of that industry. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that they are behind all the "hoopla" about Uber. After all, damn near everything having to do with politics and regulation arises from some business (or group of them) feeling their revenue streams are threatened by a new business/business model that they can't easily adopt.

Speaking of that, as a regular traveller and D.C. resident, I use car services quite often. It's usually far cheaper to have a sedan pick me up and drop me off than it is to drive and park at the airport or train station. That's even before considering not having to walk from the parking lot to the terminal. A bit better on that a Dulles since it has valet parking right next to the terminal, but still being dropped at the front door upstairs cuts a few minutes off the walk to the gate, and since I never have bags to check, I am one of those "arrive at the airport 20-30 minutes before departure people" who never wants to add minutes to the trip to the gate.

FWIW, I don't find hailing a taxi to be all that difficult in D.C. or most other cosmopolitan cities; but I wouldn't try doing it in NoVA, except perhaps in Old Town by the restaurants and shopping. In Los Angeles, I found it best to call for one in advance, which when I did so, I had no issues. I've had no issues with car/limo services in any city.

I have a long time friend who lives basically at Prince St. and Royal in Old Town and I doubt he'd even think of trying to hail a cab on the corner, so to speak. I wouldn't try hailing a cab in my neighborhood in D.C. either, but I could easily get one on one of the nearby major streets, but I'd hate to any of those streets, solely because of the distance. I used to live in Dupont Circle, and on The Hill before that, and hailing a cab was no trouble at all.

As for "smelly and dirty" cabs, well, I haven't ever been in one that smelled. Years back, one could fairly commonly come upon a raggedy cab seat, but not so much these days. The floors aren't always the cleanest, but their not any dirtier the soles of my shoes, so I'm okay with that. LOL

Maybe one day I'll try Uber? Do you have any experience getting an Uber car to pick you up at five a.m. or some other odd hour? That's the main thing that pushes me to sedan services. The last thing I want is a car that doesn't show up before I'm ready to go.

All the best.

I take Ubers to the airport quite frequently at 4am in order to catch 7am flights. Never have had an issue. There are a lot of drivers who prefer the nightshift. No traffic, quiet on the street, and long-distance jobs.

[mccannable]

Didn't read half the argument.

If I never have to set foot inside a taxi again I will be thrilled. Even if urber cost the same, or a little more, I would still use it. Easy, convenient, cleaner.

[ASAP]

I have over $1000 in charges in 10 different US cities with Uber... all I have to say is that if you still use and/or prefer taxis you may be borderline retarded. As an economically intelligent individual, I am not here to give you an opinion of the ethics / practices of a company but rather the incredible convenience of a great service... if you are into company ethics, go ahead and sell your macbook, get off facebook, don't use any MS products and sell all of your diamonds.

[Needbmwpartzz]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I have over $1000 in charges in 10 different US cities with Uber... all I have to say is that if you still use and/or prefer taxis you may be borderline retarded.

Lolz.....captain obvious asks you please explain to the mildly retarded why they are the way they are in hopes that they one day will join the ranks of non-retarded among our great forum here!
$$

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Needbmwpartzz

Lolz.....captain obvious asks you please explain to the mildly retarded why they are the way they are in hopes that they one day will join the ranks of non-retarded among our great forum here!
$$

non existent

[Josh5442]

Cost aside, I think they both have their own unique niches. If I go into town on a Saturday with my friends, we're taking an Uber. If I'm in Vegas for business, cabs are easier. The only time I find myself in a dirty old cab is when I call a local cab company. Most airports/attraction spots I've been utilize newer clean imports.

My uncle drives Uber XL on thur-sat for some quick extra cash. He walks away with $1000-$1200 on busy weekends. Usually works from 9pm to 3am, stays around the city doing club/bar pickups. Works out great as he's always been a night owl and loves driving around the city sipping dunks. And if someone pukes, he's credited $200+ in a few hours.

As far as a legal standpoint, neither company or business model is perfect. Cab companies exploit laws and regulations just as much as Uber. While I do agree Uber should protect driver and passenger while on the clock, I know people who use their friend's cabs regularly. They don't even need a valid license as long as they don't get caught.

I will say, I've never had an aggressive Uber driver, but cab driver...