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.
One can criticize Uber and similar companies and still criticize the taxi system--disliking one does not mean embracing the other. One can fix the taxi system without gutting the consumer protections taxi companies must arrange--sufficient insurance, background checks, car safety checks. But, if you prefer, go ahead, eat your unregulated, who knows how old, who knows how contaminated, chicken (or something) eggs.
Starbucks is 'exploiting' me too. It is charging me $1.85 for a small coffee. I can get a Medium size coffee for only $1 at McDonald. We need regulation for Coffee. I am going to protest Starbucks. They employ good looking baristas to serve my coffee.
I don't get your point. Maybe I should create a app where people can post "I sure would like some coffee. And if you let the app charge your credit card 95 cents, I'll drive over to your building, open my trunk and share some of my coffee with you. That should be legal, because I'm just sharing my coffee with you. And you can place your order because I'm not running a coffee selling business, I just happen to have an expresso maker in the trunk of my car. And it will be much safer, because I will not have to carry cash and you won't know how you are sharing your coffee with, thus no discriminating against people with unrefined taste buds.
One can criticize Uber and similar companies and still criticize the taxi system--disliking one does not mean embracing the other. One can fix the taxi system without gutting the consumer protections taxi companies must arrange--sufficient insurance, background checks, car safety checks. But, if you prefer, go ahead, eat your unregulated, who knows how old, who knows how contaminated, chicken (or something) eggs.
I have never had an issue with car quality, insurance or safety. So, I'll continue using Uber until otherwise.
I have never had an issue with car quality, insurance or safety. So, I'll continue using Uber until otherwise.
Hmm. You seem not to understand the consumer argument for regulations. Or, perhaps I am mistaken, and you, before agreeing to the payment arrangement, ask each Uber driver to 1)allow you to do a mechanic's check of their car (engine, brakes, signals, gears, tires, and more if needed), 2)give you their insurance card so you can phone their insurer to check the extensiveness of their coverage for a paying passenger and 3)demonstrate their safe driving for 10 minutes or so on a course of your designation. That's great if you're able to do that! However, regulations exist for those of us who have either insufficient time or expertise to effectively examine the mechanical, financial, and navigating sufficiency of the car, insurance, and driver, respectively.
Good for you if you prefer ride-sharing. But, notice the change in language, a good tip-off that they are slipping out of the regulations taxi riders could use to demand help in an untoward case.
If you don't do those checks with Uber and other ride-sharing arrangements, may you (and others on the road) never have occasion to discover whether the ride-sharing car, insurance company, and/or driver are sufficient.
Hmm. You seem not to understand the consumer argument for regulations. Or, perhaps I am mistaken, and you, before agreeing to the payment arrangement, ask each Uber driver to 1)allow you to do a mechanic's check of their car (engine, brakes, signals, gears, tires, and more if needed), 2)give you their insurance card so you can phone their insurer to check the extensiveness of their coverage for a paying passenger and 3)demonstrate their safe driving for 10 minutes or so on a course of your designation. That's great if you're able to do that! However, regulations exist for those of us who have either insufficient time or expertise to effectively examine the mechanical, financial, and navigating sufficiency of the car, insurance, and driver, respectively.
Good for you if you prefer ride-sharing. But, notice the change in language, a good tip-off that they are slipping out of the regulations taxi riders could use to demand help in an untoward case.
If you don't do those checks with Uber and other ride-sharing arrangements, may you (and others on the road) never have occasion to discover whether the ride-sharing car, insurance company, and/or driver are sufficient.
Here's my point, as a consumer.
1. Taxis, which are heavily regulated: have been dirtier, older, less safe, more of a hassle, charged more, refused to drop where requested, don't take cards, try to get me to pay cash even when they have a cc machine, etc.
2. Uber, which are less regulated: Have always been prompt, clean and convenient. My only issue is some of the Uber X drivers have no idea where they're going.
So, frankly, I don't really care about any of the background. All I care about is my experience, and it's clear that the user-rating star system has been a far more effective avenue of recourse than government oversight.
Like I said, as soon as I notice the issue I've had with taxis, I'll start looking elsewhere.
Uber or a mechanic does an inspection of every vehicle before they can drive for the service and their insurance coverage is clearly spelled out on their website. Not sure why people are acting like they are completely unregulated and somehow taxis are safer or something.
Here's my point, as a consumer.
1. Taxis, which are heavily regulated: have been dirtier, older, less safe, more of a hassle, charged more, refused to drop where requested, don't take cards, try to get me to pay cash even when they have a cc machine, etc.
2. Uber, which are less regulated: Have always been prompt, clean and convenient. My only issue is some of the Uber X drivers have no idea where they're going.
Like I said, as soon as I notice the issue I've had with taxis, I'll start looking elsewhere.
Only some of the taxi problems can be blamed on government regulation, and only some of the Uber advantages can be blamed on the lack of government. For example, Uber is a new company, and new companies always work harder. How will it be once Uber is much older, especially if all the taxis are driven out of business (no pun intended)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CirclingLogan
So, frankly, I don't really care about any of the background. All I care about is my experience, . . ..
Really, though, ^this is the problem. Obviously, experience is important. But so is analytical power. Your sentence above suggests you don't have time for analysis. But, I wonder, if your experience is better with Uber, why do you think that is? Here are some options:
A)Anything regulated by the government will be of poorer quality.
B)Yelp-like reviews are the best way to deliver a service.
C)Companies that cut corners can be more efficient--but, what corners are they cutting, and are those corners there for a reason?
I'm not saying any of the above are your position, they're just all I could quickly produce. I'm sure if I spent more time I could make more. However, my point is this: the first two are ideological tropes. Sometimes they're right, often they are not. Obviously, government can do a better or worse job--some cities have great taxicab systems (e.g., New York, NY) while some do not (e.g., Prague). Also obviously, review systems are easily manipulated, draining them of reliability. Obviously, nothing is perfect.
The third, however, is a hypothesis which forces a question: Is Uber's business model dependent on cutting corners and, if so, what do we do? If we believe the corners are useless (i.e., of no value), then remove the corners and let all the ride services play by those rules. I submit that if we did that, Uber's stock valuation would evaporate immediately, because Uber depends on having competitors that are competing with one hand tied behind their back (by government regulations).
However, if we believe those corners are useful (i.e., they keep me from having to do all those checks every time I want a ride, and keep the public from paying for driver negligence in the case of a hospitalization forced by an accident), then we should enforce those checks on Uber. Or, at the very least, we should require every Uber rider to sign a form agreeing that should troubles come to them because of the ride (e.g., an accident requiring hospitalization), they will pay for it or arrange for it to be paid prior to treatment (which is what taxi insurance does), so it doesn't come out of the public welfare system if/when Uber claims the rider's understanding of protection is mistaken.
If you'd be comfortable signing such a form, I'd be comfortable with Uber existing. Otherwise, your experience is insufficient basis for public policy. Sorry.
Uber or a mechanic does an inspection of every vehicle before they can drive for the service and their insurance coverage is clearly spelled out on their website. Not sure why people are acting like they are completely unregulated and somehow taxis are safer or something.
If a driver gets in an accident while looking down the street for a fare, the taxi company pays. But, a recent crosswalk crash (resulting in death and injury) in SF is instructive of Uber's view:
++++
The last thing Kuang remembers before the crash, she said, is seeing light from a cell phone shining on the Uber driver’s face. “He keep looking at phone,” she said, bobbing her head down to demonstrate. “I cannot forgive him.”
Kuang said she is still receiving medical care for injuries to her eye, arm and leg. Her son has recovered physically but is in counseling. Every time he sees another child, he asks, “Will you play with me?” because he misses his sister, she said.
The girl’s family sued Muzaffar and Uber in January, alleging that Muzaffar was logged on to the company’s UberX app when he fatally struck Sofia and was waiting to receive and accept a ride request. The driver’s attorney also has said he was between fares.
Uber has maintained in court papers that Muzaffar was never an “employee, agent, joint venture or partner of Uber.” Attorneys said he had, however, passed a background check. They said he had not been carrying a fare, heading to pick up a fare or responding to a request to pick up a fare — and thus had no reason to be interacting with his smartphone
----
Hmm. How is he going to head to pick up a fare or respond to a request if he doesn't check his cellphone?
But, I guess some people only care about their experience.
If a driver gets in an accident while looking down the street for a fare, the taxi company pays. But, a recent crosswalk crash (resulting in death and injury) in SF is instructive of Uber's view:
++++
The last thing Kuang remembers before the crash, she said, is seeing light from a cell phone shining on the Uber driver’s face. “He keep looking at phone,” she said, bobbing her head down to demonstrate. “I cannot forgive him.”
Kuang said she is still receiving medical care for injuries to her eye, arm and leg. Her son has recovered physically but is in counseling. Every time he sees another child, he asks, “Will you play with me?” because he misses his sister, she said.
The girl’s family sued Muzaffar and Uber in January, alleging that Muzaffar was logged on to the company’s UberX app when he fatally struck Sofia and was waiting to receive and accept a ride request. The driver’s attorney also has said he was between fares.
Uber has maintained in court papers that Muzaffar was never an “employee, agent, joint venture or partner of Uber.” Attorneys said he had, however, passed a background check. They said he had not been carrying a fare, heading to pick up a fare or responding to a request to pick up a fare — and thus had no reason to be interacting with his smartphone
----
Hmm. How is he going to head to pick up a fare or respond to a request if he doesn't check his cellphone?
But, I guess some people only care about their experience.
Not really sure how this addresses what I said.
If the app is on then Uber is liable, at least now but I guess that might not have been the case when this accident happened.
Only some of the taxi problems can be blamed on government regulation, and only some of the Uber advantages can be blamed on the lack of government. For example, Uber is a new company, and new companies always work harder. How will it be once Uber is much older, especially if all the taxis are driven out of business (no pun intended)?
Really, though, ^this is the problem. Obviously, experience is important. But so is analytical power. Your sentence above suggests you don't have time for analysis. But, I wonder, if your experience is better with Uber, why do you think that is? Here are some options:
A)Anything regulated by the government will be of poorer quality.
B)Yelp-like reviews are the best way to deliver a service.
C)Companies that cut corners can be more efficient--but, what corners are they cutting, and are those corners there for a reason?
I'm not saying any of the above are your position, they're just all I could quickly produce. I'm sure if I spent more time I could make more. However, my point is this: the first two are ideological tropes. Sometimes they're right, often they are not. Obviously, government can do a better or worse job--some cities have great taxicab systems (e.g., New York, NY) while some do not (e.g., Prague). Also obviously, review systems are easily manipulated, draining them of reliability. Obviously, nothing is perfect.
The third, however, is a hypothesis which forces a question: Is Uber's business model dependent on cutting corners and, if so, what do we do? If we believe the corners are useless (i.e., of no value), then remove the corners and let all the ride services play by those rules. I submit that if we did that, Uber's stock valuation would evaporate immediately, because Uber depends on having competitors that are competing with one hand tied behind their back (by government regulations).
However, if we believe those corners are useful (i.e., they keep me from having to do all those checks every time I want a ride, and keep the public from paying for driver negligence in the case of a hospitalization forced by an accident), then we should enforce those checks on Uber. Or, at the very least, we should require every Uber rider to sign a form agreeing that should troubles come to them because of the ride (e.g., an accident requiring hospitalization), they will pay for it or arrange for it to be paid prior to treatment (which is what taxi insurance does), so it doesn't come out of the public welfare system if/when Uber claims the rider's understanding of protection is mistaken.
If you'd be comfortable signing such a form, I'd be comfortable with Uber existing. Otherwise, your experience is insufficient basis for public policy. Sorry.
I'm not trying to write public policy. I'm trying to get from one location to another conveniently, safely and comfortably. I'll let you know when Uber starts failing on those measures.
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.
