I don’t understand your comment. Did you even read the article, or did you just read the headline and reactively decided to reply on an unreflected whim? What, exactly, are you trying to say in the context of this article? When you heard about the Equifax breach, was your reaction “But their customer service person the other day was a really nice guy”?
It's possible to give riders good, modern conveniences like being able to order and pay with a pocket computer app without breaking taxicab regulations. That is, it's possible to be a cab company with good service, a good fleet, and good app integration. Here in Montréal we have Téo Taxi as an example of this kind of service. As a plus, their fleet is also all-electric.
Legally speaking; they're plain cabs. They have the same fares as all other cabs, and follow all the regulations that other cabs obey. The company that owns them has also bought another cab service, Taxi Diamond, which has begun to operate in a similar manner, with a pocket computer app, and the two fleets may even share with each other. During peak hours when a Téo is unavailable, you may get a Diamond instead.
I know similar services have popped up elsewhere in the world. I don't know if Uber is directly responsible for these updates to cab services, but their existence means that it's possible to be better without having to break all existing laws. Laws which exist to protect both consumers and employees.
Yes, it is possible. It even happened more than once over the world.
What is also clear is that modern taxi regulations serve much more to create a lucrative market for favored people than to protect common people, promote an economy, or increase the safety of society. The fact that a few times it got distorted into something that was actually good for everybody does not make the regulation good, it's just something that happen to anything that is widespread.
It's pretty obvious that customers love Uber, which is why they're so ubiquitous. The main opponents to Uber are simply motivated by commercial incentive. It's the same in any industry that's threatened by new business models.
Consumers who don’t like Uber don’t tend to go around opposing their business model, those efforts come directly from people who operate or profit from traditional taxi businesses.
I'm a software developer that has absolutely no association with the taxi industry. But I still oppose the way Uber operates regarding local laws and the way they've handled consumer data.
PS: Here in Austin, Texas we managed to ban Uber for a while because they didn't adhere to proper background check regulations. Then they lobbied some politicians to have the state of Texas change the laws. Needless to say I'm not a fan.
I have no commercial incentive to hate them. I'm also not in an area where I'm forced to take them due to lack of public transportation options, fortunately.
Buses run on time. Every taxi I've taken here is clean. Pricing is upfront. An app exists so I can order a cab, but in the center of town, I know exactly where to find a cab if I'm out at a bar. I can also walk the 45-55 minutes home from there, but I don't always want to in winter.
I prefer a system that doesn't screw over drivers. I don't want to be rated by the driver on whether or not I'm a good passenger. It seems trivial. I want someone driving for pay to have a special driver's license endorsement.
I don't want to willingly give money to a company with a culture such as them. If I were in an area where another such service was available instead, I'd choose the one that is willing to work with lawmakers and cities instead of flagrantly avoiding them.
That's not to say that taxi service is good everywhere or doesn't need change. I'm a supporter of public transportation and wish it were expanded. I'd only take Uber if there was absolutely no other option whatsoever, though.
Here in Austin the buses are pretty good too but for some reason everyone complains about them. I don't get it... I mean, yeah you might have to sit next to another human being for a few if it's really busy, but it's way cheaper and runs on a schedule.
I do not use them. I'm not even sure if Uber itself exists where I'm at, and have not checked. And No, not really, though it isn't like I'm forcing folks to avoid them. I'm vocal about the dislike, though. I encourage others to use other options when reasonable options exist. I'll encourage folks to talk to their governments to put reasonable options in place. And so on.
I remember the nightlife before Uber in Paris... It sucked.
The ridiculously rare taxis were always only taking people that accepted to (over)pay in cash.
In other words you were basically auctioning a ride home.
Also, I doubt that they were declaring that cash as income.
Doesn't Uber do that auctioning too? They call it price surging. Typically only happens during events where there's a spike in demand, like a very popular concert, for example.
Sure, but the auction itself is largely hidden away from you, instead of competing with other riders on price. In this case availability + east of use trumps "weird auctioning for rides"
Uber just shows you the price, whereas it's less fun when you wonder "will I get a better price from the next taxi, and how long will it take until I see one"
This is an easy mistake to make. Uber’s customers matter the least, with the citizens who live in communities where Uber operates (ie voters) coming first, and Uber’s drivers coming second.
Do you think voters like the taxi cartel? Do you think they like regulatory capture?
It's the classic case of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits. The taxi companies push for legislation to increase their power because it makes them rich, to the average citizen the costs (time, effort, money) to fight taxis aren't worth it.
This is why markets are great - they allow consumers to vote with their dollars. I don't know anyone who would choses a taxi over uber/lyft.
I remember the nightlife in Munich before Uber. Taxis were always plentiful and clean, usually Mercedes E class. Most Taxi drivers were very professional and educated about their job. The strong regulations really worked in the favor of that industry.
Just got back from Munich, Taxis were plentiful, clean and Mercedes E class. Also didn't accept credit cards, got denied service from the train station because the address was deemed too close and the fare too small for the guy to lose his spot in line.
Ended up walking several miles with luggage because I couldn't get a Uber. Not a fan.
Credit cards aren't so widely accepted in Germany, that being said I was always able to get a taxi that takes credit card if necessary.
> Ended up walking several miles with luggage
I find that hard to believe in a city with such dense and extensive public transport? I lived there for 30 years and don't think I ever had to walk several miles, provided I was still within city limits. Where were you that you were without public transportation?
So basically you not only did not do your basic homework before arriving in a new city (which would also have told you that credit cards are less than ideal in Germany), you didn't even bother reading the informational material that's plastered all around the train station? Or just asked someone? Or at least, after failing to accomplish what millions of citizens and tourists do every day, try to hail another taxi while walking "several miles" (which is an insane distance to walk in a city for European standards)?
As someone who is now living in the US after the mentioned 30 years in Munich, I almost understand how looking up the basics of transportation for a brand new city escaped you, but still, you get absolute no sympathies for me.
Your argument boils down to you expecting something to be the same as what you know, not it being better. You expect a good system to get worse because of your ineptitude to navigate a non-US city.
> So basically you not only did not do your basic homework before arriving in a new city (which would also have told you that credit cards are less than ideal in Germany), you didn't even bother reading the informational material that's plastered all around the train station? Or just asked someone? Or at least, after failing to accomplish what millions of citizens and tourists do every day, try to hail another taxi while walking "several miles" (which is an insane distance to walk in a city for European standards)?
So basically, you see the value proposition of Lyft/Uber.
Making the whole system effectively worse, just so some dolt who is not up to the trivial task of taking a bus or a taxi reaches this monumental achievement is not a good value proposition at all, no.
plentiful and clean, yes.
90% of the taxi drivers I had were horrible though up until a few years ago.
Sure, anecdata, but to this day I'm wary of using taxis because the majority of taxi drivers I had were either rambling and shouting, going 80 on a 50 road, or downright driving recklessly.
Very few people in London would be getting a black cab home, it's too expensive. They'd get a licensed mini cab instead, which can vary in quality. Uber also operates as a licensed mini cab company, their only difference to others being their per mile pricing, which previously was something only black cabs could do, but Uber found a loophole (calculating fares in a server room in Luxembourg instead of in the car).
Also, while I've had plenty of complaints about Uber drivers, bad driving is not one of them.
Everyone involved in bars and restaurants here is Los Angeles that I’ve talked to loves Uber; it’s had a transformative affect, tax revenue on booze up 9% while DUIs are down 24% over the last five years.
I've decided to honk every time an Uber/Lyft double-parks in front of me. These services, while offering some convenience, are also affirmative action for bad drivers. They make everything about driving in the city more annoying, but people who don't have cars and/or don't drive don't seem to appreciate this as they have their driver let them off in the most inopportune places.
What you've said relates two unrelated things. Drivers who double park suck, but Uber/Lyft drivers aren't the only ones that do. If it makes you feel better just honk at all cars that double park.
Uber/Lyft drivers are the only ones that pull up with their hazards on just as soon as their car is on the far side of the intersection. They're the only ones biding their time in the bike lane waiting for another fare. They aren't the only ones bouncing between the lane lines checking their phones, but that's a little less appropriate for honking. I will flash highbeams at them if they're truly egregious.
I know what I'm talking about, I drive, bike, and walk in this city, and I pay attention and I know the laws. And I don't know where you get that this is to make myself "feel better," because my intent is to make these cars' presence uglier for the neighborhoods in which they behave this way.
The only thing you do by honking your horn at a car in a lane they're taking up is 1) they move if they're not there for a reason or need to be there, or 2) being briefly annoying to the driver, if they're even in the car, which the driver will promptly forget. If you know the laws and see a car breaking a law, then call the police and tell them someone is breaking the law, since it's their responsibility and not yours to police.
Like I said, it's not so much about them remembering (though that would be nice), it's about providing a memory for those within earshot.
If you know the laws and see a car breaking a law, then call the police and tell them someone is breaking the law
Do you live in a city with a big gigcar presence? These incidents only last a minute, so other strategies are necessary. FWIW, they are invariably also blocking the bike lane.
Taxis in Chicago have done all that and far will worse for decades. Ditto for delivery vans and trucks.
Illegal, dangerous, and inconsiderste driving seems to be a general “commercial driver” thing more than just an Uber thing. They think they own the road.
By my estimation, people take a magnitude longer time to get in and out of an Uber. For some reason that I assume is due to a perceived difference between taxis and gigcars: taxis will leave you there if you're not ready, and Uber has to wait for as long as you want to dilly-dally.
I've never paid for an Uber, but I have enough non-tech friends who swear by it, including one who spends over $1000/month on it.
For Uber the world is like a big Risk board. They invade territories all over the world and roll the dice. Some they win and some they lose, but they win more than they lose, and the more territories they hold, the more armies they get to play with next round.
I enjoy the service. I dislike the Uber company morals.
Personally Ive tried using a local version of Uber (Gocatch) mutiple times and it's just not as good. I really dislike continually immoral behaviour of Uber and would like to support an alternate. But the service has to work and in Australia there doesn't seem to be an option. I feel this is a huge business opportunity if someone can get a competitor right. But I've never seen good marketing to pull people from Uber and it seems to be getting ever harder position to break. I think in my region the guys really missed an opportunity as Uber seem to be cleaning up their act and giving free press to competitors.
I totally agree with this statement and the one preceding it, but since when did we start (or stop) using a company's products and services based on the company (or individual CEO, founders') moral behavior?
If you did deep enough, you can find plenty of immoral behavior and moral shortcoming on almost every major company and/or CEOs, founders. Even Apple (CEO Jobs was famous for not donating even a penny to charity, being a "d*ck" to his co-workers... etc). Does that mean you stop using iphones? Or stop filling Gas because Chevron and Exxon 'don't care about the environment'?
By that notion -- judging a company or service based on moral behavior and deciding to not use them -- one cannot properly function on a day to day basis in the modern world.
> but since when did we start (or stop) using a company's products and services based on the company (or individual CEO, founders') moral behavior?
Since forever. At the bottom of this comment I've linked a study saying 50% of people will change their purchasing power on a companies perceived moral.
Brand has always been a massive component of a companies value and sales driver. There's a strong reason companies publicise good acts, donations to charities etc and have been doing this since early days of the modern economy. And this is increasing important the more elastic and comparable a product/service.
>By that notion -- judging a company or service based on moral behavior and deciding to not use them -- one cannot properly function on a day to day basis in the modern world.
This feels all or nothing. People act on what they know. Or what they care about. One does not have to be fully informed to have these decisions. Nor stop using a product where you feel let down by a companies morals. Only use an alternate when a person feels the alternate is a reasonable replacement.
I love using Uber and am willing to look past their previous corporate offences since their new CEO seems focused on righting the wrongs. Uber's key problem is that their core business is illegal in most countries, since most countries have laws and regulations to protect passengers in taxis. Whether or not those laws and regulations should be changed is up for debate, but I think we need to refer to Uber as a taxi company instead of a ride-share company.
51 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] threadTo me, Uber is a great company both as a customer and entrepreneur.
https://teomtl.com/en/
Legally speaking; they're plain cabs. They have the same fares as all other cabs, and follow all the regulations that other cabs obey. The company that owns them has also bought another cab service, Taxi Diamond, which has begun to operate in a similar manner, with a pocket computer app, and the two fleets may even share with each other. During peak hours when a Téo is unavailable, you may get a Diamond instead.
I know similar services have popped up elsewhere in the world. I don't know if Uber is directly responsible for these updates to cab services, but their existence means that it's possible to be better without having to break all existing laws. Laws which exist to protect both consumers and employees.
What is also clear is that modern taxi regulations serve much more to create a lucrative market for favored people than to protect common people, promote an economy, or increase the safety of society. The fact that a few times it got distorted into something that was actually good for everybody does not make the regulation good, it's just something that happen to anything that is widespread.
PS: Here in Austin, Texas we managed to ban Uber for a while because they didn't adhere to proper background check regulations. Then they lobbied some politicians to have the state of Texas change the laws. Needless to say I'm not a fan.
Buses run on time. Every taxi I've taken here is clean. Pricing is upfront. An app exists so I can order a cab, but in the center of town, I know exactly where to find a cab if I'm out at a bar. I can also walk the 45-55 minutes home from there, but I don't always want to in winter.
I prefer a system that doesn't screw over drivers. I don't want to be rated by the driver on whether or not I'm a good passenger. It seems trivial. I want someone driving for pay to have a special driver's license endorsement.
I don't want to willingly give money to a company with a culture such as them. If I were in an area where another such service was available instead, I'd choose the one that is willing to work with lawmakers and cities instead of flagrantly avoiding them.
That's not to say that taxi service is good everywhere or doesn't need change. I'm a supporter of public transportation and wish it were expanded. I'd only take Uber if there was absolutely no other option whatsoever, though.
I love Uber and all their competitors.
It's the classic case of dispersed costs and concentrated benefits. The taxi companies push for legislation to increase their power because it makes them rich, to the average citizen the costs (time, effort, money) to fight taxis aren't worth it.
This is why markets are great - they allow consumers to vote with their dollars. I don't know anyone who would choses a taxi over uber/lyft.
Regulated markets are great. Unregulated markets are a terrible thing, and what Uber and Lyft are shooting for.
"Uber" is German for good, but often "Scheisse" is a much better word.
Ended up walking several miles with luggage because I couldn't get a Uber. Not a fan.
Credit cards aren't so widely accepted in Germany, that being said I was always able to get a taxi that takes credit card if necessary.
> Ended up walking several miles with luggage
I find that hard to believe in a city with such dense and extensive public transport? I lived there for 30 years and don't think I ever had to walk several miles, provided I was still within city limits. Where were you that you were without public transportation?
Contrast, when I got to Paris and London, I opened the same Uber app that I have in the USA, with the same credit card and it "just worked".
As someone who is now living in the US after the mentioned 30 years in Munich, I almost understand how looking up the basics of transportation for a brand new city escaped you, but still, you get absolute no sympathies for me.
Your argument boils down to you expecting something to be the same as what you know, not it being better. You expect a good system to get worse because of your ineptitude to navigate a non-US city.
So basically, you see the value proposition of Lyft/Uber.
Sure, anecdata, but to this day I'm wary of using taxis because the majority of taxi drivers I had were either rambling and shouting, going 80 on a 50 road, or downright driving recklessly.
Also, while I've had plenty of complaints about Uber drivers, bad driving is not one of them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackney_carriage
I know what I'm talking about, I drive, bike, and walk in this city, and I pay attention and I know the laws. And I don't know where you get that this is to make myself "feel better," because my intent is to make these cars' presence uglier for the neighborhoods in which they behave this way.
If you know the laws and see a car breaking a law, then call the police and tell them someone is breaking the law
Do you live in a city with a big gigcar presence? These incidents only last a minute, so other strategies are necessary. FWIW, they are invariably also blocking the bike lane.
Illegal, dangerous, and inconsiderste driving seems to be a general “commercial driver” thing more than just an Uber thing. They think they own the road.
For Uber the world is like a big Risk board. They invade territories all over the world and roll the dice. Some they win and some they lose, but they win more than they lose, and the more territories they hold, the more armies they get to play with next round.
I enjoy the service. I dislike the Uber company morals.
Personally Ive tried using a local version of Uber (Gocatch) mutiple times and it's just not as good. I really dislike continually immoral behaviour of Uber and would like to support an alternate. But the service has to work and in Australia there doesn't seem to be an option. I feel this is a huge business opportunity if someone can get a competitor right. But I've never seen good marketing to pull people from Uber and it seems to be getting ever harder position to break. I think in my region the guys really missed an opportunity as Uber seem to be cleaning up their act and giving free press to competitors.
I totally agree with this statement and the one preceding it, but since when did we start (or stop) using a company's products and services based on the company (or individual CEO, founders') moral behavior?
If you did deep enough, you can find plenty of immoral behavior and moral shortcoming on almost every major company and/or CEOs, founders. Even Apple (CEO Jobs was famous for not donating even a penny to charity, being a "d*ck" to his co-workers... etc). Does that mean you stop using iphones? Or stop filling Gas because Chevron and Exxon 'don't care about the environment'?
By that notion -- judging a company or service based on moral behavior and deciding to not use them -- one cannot properly function on a day to day basis in the modern world.
Since forever. At the bottom of this comment I've linked a study saying 50% of people will change their purchasing power on a companies perceived moral.
Brand has always been a massive component of a companies value and sales driver. There's a strong reason companies publicise good acts, donations to charities etc and have been doing this since early days of the modern economy. And this is increasing important the more elastic and comparable a product/service.
>By that notion -- judging a company or service based on moral behavior and deciding to not use them -- one cannot properly function on a day to day basis in the modern world.
This feels all or nothing. People act on what they know. Or what they care about. One does not have to be fully informed to have these decisions. Nor stop using a product where you feel let down by a companies morals. Only use an alternate when a person feels the alternate is a reasonable replacement.
The study I found with a quick search. https://theamericangenius.com/business-marketing/company-eth...