Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't wait for the day my employer makes me buy my own computer, licenses me the right to sit at a desk in their building, strips my benefits ,takes away workers comp protection, removes my ability to unionize, and can fire me without providing cause . . .but gives me the option to work whatever I see fit.
You do know that most cabbies don't own their cars and have to rent them from the local cab companies as well right?
The taxi model is heavily skewed to car owners and not to the cabbies themselves. There are independent owner/operators but they're in the minority especially as regulatory costs (purposefully inefficient) favor those who have economies of scale.
The few times i rode a legacy cab or car service from/to the airport in ATL has been horrible. Either been charge more than the original quote, unhelpful driver (ie did not help with my carry on size luggage), "no credit card accepted and no change for cash and no receipt" ... this happen 3 consecutive times i try to take transport!
Why? I and friends of mine that use it are quite satisfied. The playing field is already level, and the taxi companies are deservedly losing. Now they want to co-opt government to gain an advantage.
Harassment allegations on drivers, how it treats its workers, how it screens its workers (not very well), accusations of pushing for subprime car loans, allegedly calling Lyft drivers and cancelling rides, F rating from the BBB, suggestion of "digging up dirt" on journalists who criticize Uber, the terms and conditions basically have Uber denying any liability, you are typically much better protected from a rogue attack by a cabbie. It's great for customers until surge pricing or someone gets attacked, the liability insurance typically only covers car wrecks.
Go to the airport and inspect the cabs that pull up. How many of these would pass a cab "health inspection"? Cabs in 3rd world countries are in better shape. At least in NYC, the excuse is the medallion costs a quarter million so the car is working 24/7...the ones here are literally their rejects.
I absolutely believe there should be some level of inspection/process to Uber/Lyft but that doesn't mean that we should follow the cab model. Does anyone honestly believe that cabs are safer than riding in a random stranger's car? If cabs are so hamstrung by bureaucracy, why don't they unplug the meter and pick up an app?
Having ridden in far too many Atlanta cabs, I can expertly attest to the total lack of inspections and disregard for basic safety. I've had cabs w/ missing seatbelts, different color doors (and pricing from NYC still on it) and even one w/ an Igloo cooler as a center console. The smell of unburned exhaust w/ guys too cheap to turn on the AC or malfunctioning lighting is pretty much a given. It seems no matter what the vehicle, they find a way to make it dangerous, uncomfortable, and then put the most inept driver behind the wheel b/c the bureaucracy and taxi cartels squeezed all the profit from finding competent/semi-cleanliness conscious drivers.
I've used Uber in close to a dozen cities now without issue. If Uber needs some level of regulation, then we probably need to regulate all cars more closely b/c their drivers have minimum car requirements that quite a lot of people would never qualify for.
Cabs might not be safer, but you don't have a legal nightmare. Uber claims no responsibility for anything since the drivers are not really employees but independent contractors. We aren't commercial drivers. I drive myself or someone else but not commercially so I have the liability insurance that matches that. That's basically what Uber is doing, taking drivers and offering rides to others. But they're taking money like cabs.
Still not sure how one company abiding by regulations and the other not is an even playing field.
Cabs might not be safer, but you don't have a legal nightmare. Uber claims no responsibility for anything since the drivers are not really employees but independent contractors. We aren't commercial drivers. I drive myself or someone else but not commercially so I have the liability insurance that matches that. That's basically what Uber is doing, taking drivers and offering rides to others. But they're taking money like cabs.
Still not sure how one company abiding by regulations and the other not is an even playing field.
Not sure if it's still current but cursory research says that cabs in Atlanta don't have to carry additional insurance beyond the basic 25/50k that the state requires. I had to up my personal vehicle insurance to 50/100 for my job b/c I travel frequently. Uber covers drivers while driving for Uber for up to 1M. There's the potential gap when not carrying a passenger but how is it different than getting hit by any other driver at that point?
Can't wait for the day my employer makes me buy my own computer, licenses me the right to sit at a desk in their building, strips my benefits ,takes away workers comp protection, removes my ability to unionize, and can fire me without providing cause . . .but gives me the option to work whatever I see fit.
You know you're pushing for something a lot of us don't want? I drive part-time for Uber & I have driven Limos. Matter of fact, a lot of the work I've done has been as an independent contractor. I & a lot of people who do this work do not complain about the things you're talking about. We like not being told when to work, how to work, & where to work. So please don't cry on our behalf.
Here's the funny thing about Uber. My only complaint is that the rates that they are charging are too low. I understand being a low-cost solution, but even my passengers have stated that the rates are too low. Uber is already winning on service & convenience. They don't have to undercut fares as much as they do. I took someone from Euclid Ave in Little Five Points to about 2 miles north of Clairmont and the fare was something like $12.41. Way too low. However, I don't complain, because I work 25 hours or less & still make more than I did as a fulltime limo driver & more than other part-time jobs - all while coming & going as I please.
As for regulation, even if they required us to get chauffeur/taxi licenses, it still won't help save the taxi companies. The playing field still would not be even. Uber & Lyft trump on service & convenience.
You know you're pushing for something a lot of us don't want? I drive part-time for Uber & I have driven Limos. Matter of fact, a lot of the work I've done has been as an independent contractor. I & a lot of people who do this work do not complain about the things you're talking about. We like not being told when to work, how to work, & where to work. So please don't cry on our behalf.
Here's the funny thing about Uber. My only complaint is that the rates that they are charging are too low. I understand being a low-cost solution, but even my passengers have stated that the rates are too low. Uber is already winning on service & convenience. They don't have to undercut fares as much as they do. I took someone from Euclid Ave in Little Five Points to about 2 miles north of Clairmont and the fare was something like $12.41. Way too low. However, I don't complain, because I work 25 hours or less & still make more than I did as a fulltime limo driver & more than other part-time jobs - all while coming & going as I please.
As for regulation, even if they required us to get chauffeur/taxi licenses, it still won't help save the taxi companies. The playing field still would not be even. Uber & Lyft trump on service & convenience.
I'm not really "pushing" for anything. It's your co-contractors who have filed class action lawsuits by against Uber over their classifications who are pushing things. I'm not anti-Uber. I like the service and use it often. I agree that the pricing is atrifically low for the service provided, and that Uber's jockeying with rates constantly to squeeze competitors hurts their drivers, and sets unrealistic expectations for customers.
Why does becoming an employee mean your work hours and location must be mandated? That's sort of up to your employer to dictate via policy and not a federal requirement. Plenty of people work from various locations, at various times, without issue.
You know you're pushing for something a lot of us don't want? I drive part-time for Uber & I have driven Limos. Matter of fact, a lot of the work I've done has been as an independent contractor. I & a lot of people who do this work do not complain about the things you're talking about. We like not being told when to work, how to work, & where to work. So please don't cry on our behalf.
Here's the funny thing about Uber. My only complaint is that the rates that they are charging are too low. I understand being a low-cost solution, but even my passengers have stated that the rates are too low. Uber is already winning on service & convenience. They don't have to undercut fares as much as they do. I took someone from Euclid Ave in Little Five Points to about 2 miles north of Clairmont and the fare was something like $12.41. Way too low. However, I don't complain, because I work 25 hours or less & still make more than I did as a fulltime limo driver & more than other part-time jobs - all while coming & going as I please.
As for regulation, even if they required us to get chauffeur/taxi licenses, it still won't help save the taxi companies. The playing field still would not be even. Uber & Lyft trump on service & convenience.
They're undercutting to fight Lyft and not cabs. I took an UberX 2 wks ago at $19 to the airport from Midtown. Then last week there wasn't a ride in sight at 6AM so I upgraded to an Uber and paid the $60 to go to the airport. This week at 5:30 there was surge pricing in effect to push the supply up and it cost $24. I didn't have a problem at $35 to go to the airport in the first place but don't bother advertising $20 airport rides if that's not the reality since your drivers will revolt and refuse to work at that wage.
Not sure if it's still current but cursory research says that cabs in Atlanta don't have to carry additional insurance beyond the basic 25/50k that the state requires. I had to up my personal vehicle insurance to 50/100 for my job b/c I travel frequently. Uber covers drivers while driving for Uber for up to 1M. There's the potential gap when not carrying a passenger but how is it different than getting hit by any other driver at that point?
1 Mil sounds great but like any insurance policy, there are all sorts of caveats and loopholes. Uber's policies aren't very clear. It basically pushes the issue onto their drivers which technically are supposed to be private citizens with your typical personal insurance but when they accept payment they are commercial drivers, but that often isn't covered under personal coverage. It can just be a legal nightmare trying to figure out what's covered or not. Regarding taxis, I think there's room for improvement as well. I'm not necessarily pro taxi, but I'd like to see more regulation for a service that is ultimately a different type of taxi, someone drives you, you pay them, it's just how it's setup that's different.
1 Mil sounds great but like any insurance policy, there are all sorts of caveats and loopholes. Uber's policies aren't very clear. It basically pushes the issue onto their drivers which technically are supposed to be private citizens with your typical personal insurance but when they accept payment they are commercial drivers, but that often isn't covered under personal coverage. It can just be a legal nightmare trying to figure out what's covered or not. Regarding taxis, I think there's room for improvement as well. I'm not necessarily pro taxi, but I'd like to see more regulation for a service that is ultimately a different type of taxi, someone drives you, you pay them, it's just how it's setup that's different. [/url]
It's excruciatingly clear. Uber's insurance is in effect anytime the driver has the Uber app open. When they have an Uber passenger in the car, $1M in commercial insurance coverage is in effect.
I don't understand why an Uber commercial insurance policy would have any more caveats and loopholes than a taxi cab's commercial insurance policy, but I imagine that's more about you twisting things to suit your argument than something you actually believe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
