Uber has been having similar regulatory fights in Kansas City, which recently passed ordinances that Uber claimed would make it prohibitive to do business there (http://goo.gl/cXlhzb). Uber made claims that "thousands of jobs" would be lost in the move, despite the fact that its competitors (Lyft, etc.) would abide by the new rules and continue to operate. It seems a little silly to talk about the jobs of your contractors as being "lost" when they can walk over to your competitor and work almost seamlessly.
Uber pulling out of Kansas makes half of the KC metro area impossible to work in. I'm curious if this will have a major impact on Uber's future in the entire city.
Uber made claims that "thousands of jobs" would be lost in the move
I've got a lot of reservations about calling Uber/Lyft a "job" in the first place; in fact I have a lot of problems with these "sharing economy" apps-calling them jobs when really you're just subcontracting labor on the cheap while the business side collects massive investments and benefits for the full-time employees.
It's like when you drive by a Dominos Pizza {substitute with the chain of your choice} and they have signs "make $15/hr"; you'll maybe make $15/hr on an incredibly busy day or a sudden surge in ride requests, but what's the mean? Is $15/hr the mean? If not, you don't get to advertise "make $15/hr".
I said it once at the start of all of these talks two years ago: It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that "disruption" in so many startups more recently means less "disruption with the goals of bringing about much needed substantive change to local regulation" and more like "give my company special treatment to operate". And it's a hard pill for cities to wave off when the population centers are all clamoring for an alternative to taxis.
I think I agree with you, but I'm hesitant to to slight somebody for how they making an honest living. All "jobs" aren't created equal, especially of many jobs are contracted or low paying without benefits. It's unfortunate that this kind of (presumably it's political in origin) rhetoric has colored our reality as it has.
Especially because they argue that they are not a taxi company because they are doing "ride sharing". Well are you ride sharing or are you a limousine service with jobs on the line?
Also, here's a video of Kansas City's mayor, Sly James, speaking about the frustration of these negotations from his side of things prior to the vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHjJUJW0Jt4
I hope this has a big impact on Uber even outside of Kansas.
I think any customer would prefer background checks for drivers. Being defiant against them is just bad PR.
Background checks cost $20, or if you go through a channeler because you want your results in a couple days, you can pay $50.. This is a tiny price to pay for the safety of thousands of passengers, not to mention it wouldn't cost them anything, as they could defer the cost to the drivers as a part of the application process.
Trying to skimp out on insurance also goes further to show a wanton disregard for passenger safety.
Kansas City, MO and Uber have worked out their differences. I believe Uber will provide background check info to the city about their drivers, and pay a flat fee to cover all their drivers in the city.
Good catch! I haven't been back recently and hadn't checked the news. I'm still waiting for the state legislators to prohibit city regulation of ride sharing services. This may roll back the requirements at the city level. See: http://goo.gl/7MIZFP
Does anyone have details on the associated costs involved for Uber and/or the drivers? I can't imagine background checks being very excessive for the drivers, so maybe it's grossly expensive and miscategorized insurance?
Uber + Lyft just relaunched here in Portland. Drivers are required to have valid business licenses and pass a background check too. Everyone is very happy with the changes. (except our local taxi commission, of course)
Same in many European cities, where even UberX drivers have to have a "private driver" license.
The requirements involve documented regular maintenance and insurance coverage that would include passengers, not sure what's the business logic behind opposing them.
I mean, the cost is already shifted to the drivers (who have to pay for license, submit maintenance paperwork and buy insurance) and taxpayers (who hire government clerks to review all that stuff).
But I get what you're saying - at that point the profit opportunity diminishes somewhat. The upfront cost of it also discourages casual drivers who only planned to do some weekend work.
Glad to hear they could reach a deal in Portland. The terms your describing is, I think, essentially the terms KC is asking for now. Uber is holding out that the Missouri legislature will override the city ordinance with regards to ride sharing. A likely proposition as Missouri's legislators are so readily influenced by those with money and love overriding home rule in the major cities.
The required insurance in that bill seems to be 1 million dollars, which seems still very low to me. Mandatory insurance minimums for cars here in Germany are much higher than that.
They are often required for jobs that may directly put other people in danger. If you are getting into the backseat of a Uber you don't want the driver to be someone who has had DUIs or a history of dangerous driving.
Hairdressers and other similar jobs are indeed regulated in this way - you dont want your ear getting cut off do you?
But the undocumented workers who handle your food, fix your car brakes, built your house and construct the fairground rides get a free pass. I don't understand the mental gymnastics required to support regulating ride sharing before all these other markets. For every bad story about a bad uber experience are 100's of lives spared from people not driving drunk. It's just mind boggling to me. Only blind ideology can make people this stupid. It's like they're afraid of a market solution being orders of magnitudes more efficient than the medallion system. And then we end up with lines like "you dont want your ear getting cut off do you?".
It's called principled reasoning. Radical stuff man, give it a try. You hold no principle to be true that dictates voluntary and peaceful cooperation should be prevented with threats of violence in order to achieve safety.
The only reason this conversation is being had instead of the conversation about background checks on your mechanic is because one sector is unionized. If you don't understand that you don't understand the politics of the situation. Great rebuttal though - shows what we're up against.
All of this nonsense about insurance and checks and blah makes me weep for humanity. If I can hitch hike legally, why can't I pay for the same service?
Basically it seems to me that regulation has the effect of forcing lifestyles upon people. You can't just sell people things, you have to be a Thing Seller and devote yourself to that regulatory environment and then you can sell some of the people some of the things.
The difference is when you hitchhike, there is insurance coverage in effect. So when the driver slams into a tree and you get hurt, your care (which isn't covered by health insurance) is paid for by the auto insurer. When you aren't covered by insurance, society absorbs the costs of the $10,000+ ER visit, $500 ambulance trip, etc. Your family bears the burden of chronic medical issues and work loss, etc.
The answer is simple. You pay a little more for commercial/livery coverage and your passengers are covered against perils.
The background check thing is even easier. Do you want your wife picked up and driven around by a convicted rapist? For the want of Uber spending the massive sum of like $20?
Precisely, because you don't pay the guy that gives you a lift when you hitchhike, but you do pay to an Uber driver.
Once there's money involved, we are no longer talking about an agreement between gentlemen, but about a commercial transaction, and those require regulations because the incentives are different, and money does weird things to people. A driver maximizing profits has no incentive in, say, checking his brakes regularly (money spent + car immobilized for some time), while a random driver does ("yeah, I'll take a cab for a couple days, no biggie").
Your general point is sound, about the profit motive leading to riskier behavior, but the application to that specific case is questionable. Drivers have the right incentives on brake checks, regardless of profit, by virtue if the fact that they're in the car and would lose control!
It would be more correct to say that the incentive problem here lies in uncompensated danger to other drivers, which for-profit drivers may be willing to ignore when tempted by money.
I think the biggest difference between your one off paying to hitchike with a single car and Uber drivers is that Uber drivers have in essence become common carriers.
Additional safeguards to common carriers make common sense to me, since you are now holding yourself out to the public, and not taking one-off or by arrangement only rides.
Kind of like the difference in regulations for airplane charter vs an airline.
The hitchhiker example and just paying one-off car rides is different than someone that advertises and holds themselves out to the public.
I think I would be weeping for humanity if these checks and balances vanished. Yes it is onerous, but sometimes they serve a purpose. If it stops one unfortunate event it is worth it in my books. Also, I am tired of this disrupt everything meme.
People replying seem to be missing the point a bit; taking a kind of low view of my knowledge.
I realise fully that insurance and laws and various other things make this situation different. What I'm saying is that this is an odd and nonsensical situation.
If I hitch at the side of the road I can get into a completely random car with a random driver with no trace, digital or paper, and this is not illegal (UK) and shouldn't be IMO.
But if I do the same and pay for the privilege suddenly apparently we have to start worrying about the risk of rape and badly maintained cars and so forth.
One poster asked whether I'd want my wife to get in a car with a convicted rapist.
My wife is an autonomous human being... she can hitch, or hitch and offer to pay, or hold signs up offering a few pounds for a lift, or use Uber, or a licenced taxi company. "Safety" is a variable she can consider whilst doing so.
I don't want my basic interactions with others governed by 'background checks' carried out by the state. If you do, fine. Why do you need to force me?
(I should say that I don't really respect Uber as a business because I feel OSS should be able to do this peer to peer, but that's rather beside the point).
It frustrates me because the safety argument is basically a variant on 'think of the children'. It's difficult to argue against without considering what you lose in the process.
Background checks and licensing and road worthy tests and other regulation tilt the playing field away from me and you and towards wealthy business owners.
What is so wrong with me deciding to jump in my car now and drive people home for a fee? Not a rapist, not a pedophile, just plain jane boring old me? I would like to hear the argument against that, the one that doesn't involve appealing to scare stories of the 1 in 10000 bad cookie.
If my recent experience is anything, Uber needs some serious regulation.
I live in SF, and was flying out of OAK. I had used Uber only once before, a long time ago; but this time, I suggested to the wife that we use Uber again. We had to leave SF at 7:15AM - 7:30AM or so.
Around 7:15 I pulled up the app, and saw that there were several cars around (as they usually are). I requested an UberX; punched in the destination. A driver quickly accepted, and Uber said he'd be there in < 5 minutes. A couple of minutes later, I get the notification that the driver cancelled. OK, I tried again. Same thing again: driver accepts, and then a minute or two later, cancels. This went on for 4-5 times. Now, time is getting tighter, and I have a large suitcase; and cabs don't come around in my alley. I tried Uber again, and this time Uber says: "Surge pricing in effect! Rates are 1.5X". I knew what was going on; but I had to accept out of desperation. What do you know? A driver quickly came over and we were on our way. The driver did say that some drivers may not have wanted to go to OAK because traffic back would have been bad.
But here's the thing: a licensed cab cannot refuse to take you to your destination! Uber seems to be set up to take advantage of riders with their "surge pricing" scam.
This experience left a bitter taste in my mouth, and I made sure I installed Lyft for the ride back.
If you live in NYC, cabs always refuse people to go to Brooklyn/Queens/Unwanted destination, eve though it is illegal to do so. The usual excuse: I am going out of my shift, and can't go that way. (this can be legit, but often it is not).
Next time don't enter your destination address, so the driver doesn't know where you go, and once you are in the car it is much harder for them to refuse you.
Lyft (as far as I know) won't show the driver your destination until the ride is started. It's intended to save time in allowing the driver to bring up directions and not as a decision point for them to decide if they want to take the ride or not.
I have been living in NYC for ten years. I use cabs constantly. This has happened to be exactly one time. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I think the idea that this is common for NYC cabbies to do is really outdated.
More anecdata: this happens to me continually. I have successfully reported at least half a dozen drivers in as many months for refusing to go to bushwick.
fellow bushwick resident here, I can confirm no yellow cabs want to go to brooklyn. many cabs also will lock their doors to prevent you from getting in, until after you've told them your destination.
Had this happen a lot in Chicago too with normal cabs.
if the market was really busy and I wanted to go 3 miles away from the crowds, sorry the cabbie had to end his shift and couldn't take me. If it was a nice and quiet night, I would get the same ride no problem.
This is an edge case, and you can think of it as a side effect coming from living in SF, where everybody has to deal with bay bridge problems. I understand your frustration but I would split the blame 50-50 between the city for not providing transportation, and Uber to not red flagging this problem and offer a special solution for this.
BART os not even remotely close to be good, but it is lightyears away from being great. The only thing that is consistent about BART service is the interruption. It is kind of funny how people from US see BART as a great service while people from Europe or other places with excellent public transportation see it as rather expensive and bad. Just one minor example why I refuse to use BART: if I was using it i had to combine with a bus service. The bus service is leaving exactly 1 minute sooner than the BART comes in to the station making sure you have to wait additional 20 minutes. This makes my commute exactly 1 hour (each way) while using BART, while if I am driving it is exactly 20 minutes. The pricing difference is insignificant, does not justify the lost time. If BART was that great, we would see significantly less traffic on 280/101 in the commuting hours.
I get that you had a bad experience, but the response to every bad experience should not be regulation. "Surge pricing" is no more a scam than any other market-based pricing mechanism.
To be clear, I'm mixed on Uber overall, and I do think they need some regulation, but not with regard to pricing, coverage, or response time. Those are good fits for self-regulating markets. I'm more concerned with things like knowing that when I get in to an Uber, I'm covered by the proper insurance if I end up in an accident on the way to my destination.
> "Surge pricing" is no more a scam than any other market-based pricing mechanism.
Surge pricing on an unknown fare (metered) is actually quite ridiculous.
For contrast, when I order a Lyft line in Manhattan, it gives me an exact price quote (not an estimate, but the exact quote) before I order the ride, taking all surges into account. This means I have perfect knowledge of what the price is going to be before I decide whether to take the ride[0].
Uber has consistently refused to implement price quotes, to the point where they have literally jeopardized their existence in at least one city because of it: all of the legal problems they have in London would be avoided if they provided price quotes in advance.
Uber has been really clever to frame the controversy as a debate about whether the cabbies should have to take an exam. But the fact that medallion cabs in London have to take the street exam is all moot, because if Uber provided price quotes in advance, they would be classified as a different kind of car service which doesn't have to take the street exam in the first place.
Instead, Uber would rather launch a coordinated PR and legal campaign against the entire medallion cab system in London, just to avoid implementing an incredibly user-friendly feature.
[0] This feature may not be in all locations yet (in fact, I don't know if it even works if the destination is in another borough), but it's clear to me that this is at least where Lyft is headed, whereas it's clear that Uber is committed to not providing price quotes.
> but it's clear to me that this is at least where Lyft is headed
The opposite is actually clear to me. Lyft in SF previously had the functionality you describe Uber in Manhattan having. You put your destination in, it gives you an exact price, you decide whether to call it. When Lyft Line (the carpooling variant) was introduced, that feature was actually removed, and now with a standard Lyft ride there is no way to know your fare in advance (though there is now with Lyft Line).
In a similar vain, Uber gives a max fare on Uber Pool (so you know at most what it will cost, guaranteed). Uber also does do fare estimates on UberX and other rides. I've heard from a few drivers that they may have avoided giving exact fares in advance on UberX and others because people tend to want to use them a little bit more flexibly than get from point a to b (Stop and pick up a friend on the way, for instance).
Point of all of this being, it's not clear to me that either company is committed to providing or not providing price quotes. I think we're still in the early stages of experimentation, with features being added and removed and changed between locations all the time, and I don't think we can yet characterize what either company is committed to doing or not.
> Point of all of this being, it's not clear to me that either company is committed to providing or not providing price quotes.
Point taken. I'm willing to believe that Lyft may not be committed to providing price quotes. But there's at least ambiguity there, whereas it's very clear that Uber does not want to provide exact quotes. If they did, they would have in London and avoided the expensive, multi-year legal and PR battle that they're engaged in there.
How much do you think this protracted battle has cost them over the years, both explicitly (PR firms and lawyers) and implicitly (opportunity cost of lost revenues from additional rides)? Whatever it is, it's a high number, and Uber has decided that not providing price quotes is worth even more[0].
> Uber also does do fare estimates on UberX and other rides.
An estimate is simply lead-generation for them, not a quote. They are not committing to charge me the price they estimate. As the consumer, I still do not know what the ride will actually cost until I am already on the hook to pay for it.
[0] It's not even a tough actuarial problem to solve at Uber's scale, which is why it's such a glaring omission, in addition to the example from London.
> I do think they need some regulation, but not with regard to pricing,
Would you rather have a service which charges more to (say) black passengers than white? Or which charges more to go to a poorer part of town a rich part?
The regulation I'm talking about is not being able to discriminate based on the type of passenger or destination.
That wasn't clear from your original post. You're also being disingenuous in your argument. No, of course I do not support discrimination on the basis of race or economic class.
Race is not equivalent to "type of passenger or destination" though. The latter is a much more vague definition. Like it or not, things like distance, roadway accessibility, and desired route impact the cost of a fare, and regulating that away isn't something I openly accept as the best solution.
The thing is, there is a huge correlation between race and destination in nearly all major cities. Drivers tend not to want to travel to outer/poorer areas because (1) they are less safe, (2) there are more minorities, (3) they are less likely to be able to pick up a fare for a return trip. So, cabbies used to discriminate based on destination. And, because these destinations correlate with race so well, they'd discriminate based on race as well. So, NYC and other cities have outlawed a taxi driver's ability to discriminate based on destination. Companies like Uber, however, discriminate based on destination and, thus, race.
> The thing is, there is a huge correlation between race and destination in nearly all major cities.
Exactly. You're at a bar in SF near closing time (2AM) and need a ride to Hunters Point or Bayview? Suddenly, "surge pricing" is in effect! However, if you need a ride to Pac Heights or the Marina? No problem! This may not seem like discrimination based on economic class/race, but it sure is.
There are fare components for mileage and time, which should deal with distance, roadway accessibility, and desired route. Needing surge pricing to get them to pick someone up in Oakland should not be necessary.
If someone isn't willing to sell to you for the price you are wanting to buy at, you have to offer more, or go without... that's how surge pricing works.
Just as the opposite works, if nobody is going to buy at your price, you have to come down, or you will lose business... ideally you will meet in the middle via market pricing. The rates are centered around competition with other sources for similar services. There is competition and market driven pricing, I don't see the problem.
I gave up on Uber for airport rides. For LAX it's not unreasonable to request a 4:00 am ride for a 6:30 flight, which quite often comes up with "No cars available" anywhere except their most expensive tier.
Wingz is a cheaper replacement for UberX and Blacklane is a cheaper replacement for Uber Black, both have to be arranged though.
that's strange -- as far as i know, the uber driver will only know your destination after they pick you up (so they cannot do this kind of thing). uber's feature page also say that https://www.uber.com/features -- "After pickup, we show the driver where you’re going..."
I also spoke with the drivers I used here in são paulo and they said the same thing: they only get the destination after the pickup and they only get my first name -- uber now is using a 3rd party service that proxys my phone so the driver won't have my personal number.
from my experience, it uses the driver's phone gps + the place you asked to be picked + your phone's gps. and yeah, it could totally be gamed, but i think people should email uber whenever this happens since those drivers are scumbags.
i emailed them before regarding problems with drivers and the customer support team is always good (twice i had problems with drivers doing longer routes when smaller ones were better and once i had a problem with a driver that accepted my request but never showed up).
(btw, i'm not an uber employee, i just like the service and use at least twice a month)
Sorry, that's not possible. Drivers are not shown the destination until they begin the ride - the point where it begins billing you, and begins showing your pickup location in the map they email you immediately concluding your ride.
This is not an automatic process that can go wrong. And indeed, for anyone who has used Uber any number of times, this is immediately obvious.
Perhaps your driver surmised from your suitcase where you were going?
Too often our knee-jerk reaction is to want the government to get involved.
But based on your experience, you are probably
a) not going to trust Uber again, at least for this sort of ride
b) choose a competitor / traditional cab to get you to OAK
c) tell all of your friends / HN about your crappy experience, leading to reduced reputation for Uber
The end result is that Uber will no longer get your business and perhaps others' business will go elsewhere too. Uber is being punished for its bad behavior by the market. Getting the government involved would likely put Uber out of business (hence the article) or make rates way higher and essentially no different than a traditional cab.
> Uber is being punished for its bad behavior by the market.
I love it how libertarians believe everything will be fixed by a mythical "market". I'm sorry, but if we had left it to the "market", we'd still have separate "white" and "colored" toilets. We'd have no gay marriage. We'd have no voting rights act.
The regulation I'm talking about is not being able to discriminate based on the type of passenger or destination.
I'm sorry but your destination is not the same as your race, sex or disability. If a business doesn't want to drive you somewhere, that's not discrimination, it's business.
Uber doesn't do the discriminating. Anyone who drives for uber technically is an Independent Contractor. I.E. They run their own business... separate but in partnership with Uber.
They can refuse based on Destination, but not anything that is forbidden by Law. Such as Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Handicap, etc... There was a notice to Uber drivers sent from Uber, stating that any driver that gets complaints about not accepting customers that have a service animal, they will end their partnership with that driver.
I agree, the Market can't fix anything, even in a Libertarian world, there is Government. But they should only be there to define the rules of the Game, not control the moves everyone decides to make.
I do agree, just the market would have not made everything all peachy, you do need to set some rules. But its just the limit and overreach of those rules is up for some debate.
KBI background checks, when Uber already does their own. (In a state that is VERY VERY VERY well armed) A State that doesn't support Gay Marriage, that up till 2006 had laws stating black people couldn't live in certain cities. (seriously...)
Just remember... its Governments that ban Gay Marriage, not markets, Governments decide who can and cannot vote, not markets.
It's also governments that require adherence to civil rights laws, not markets. Governments were required to step in to disallow landlords and service providers from discriminating based on race, sexuality, disability, etc when a free market otherwise allowed them to do so. There are two sides to the coin.
>I'm sorry, but if we had left it to the "market", we'd still have separate "white" and "colored" toilets. We'd have no gay marriage. We'd have no voting rights act.
That's the most absurd thing I've read today. Literally all of these things are the result of oppressive laws passed by the government in the first place. What does marriage have to do with the markets?
Uber driver cannot see the destination precisely to avoid a situation like this.
Even when you enter it, it takes a while to transmit that information only after you get into the vehicle, which leads to these awkward stares "where are we going today?" - "oh, I thought I had it entered in the app" - "oh, hold on then, it takes a minute to update".
Arguably, destination disclosure is a boon to consumers in some situation - you might get a discount on a late night ride from SFO if you're heading towards San Jose, where the driver lives (and was going to drive to anyways) as opposed to Walnut Creek, etc.
I completely agree with your social justice agenda here. But as a historical matter, most forms of invidious discrimination have had to be be enforced by government regulations (for sure, that is the case for why gay marriage used to be illegal) rather than by the market. The market (as a historical matter) does tend to break down patterns of prejudice, because most producers would like to sell to as many customers as they can, and most buyers will shop for the producer who will treat them with respect. The former Jim Crow segregation laws in the south had to be vigorously enforced by the formal justice system and by terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan precisely because many businessmen there would have been happy to serve all their potential customers on an even-handed basis if the law had allowed them to do so.
I'm more concerned with why uber/lyft/etc are so popular.
They wouldn't be as big as it was if the existing system wasn't literally awful, as someone in SF -- if I wanted a '''real''' taxi, it has a chance to not bother coming several hours later more than anything. And then intentionally taking roundabout routes just to fuck me out of even more fare.
And at Santa Ana Metrolink, I had 'taxi' drivers effectively try stealing my bags, throwing them into their vehicles, and trying to drag me along while I was waiting for uber/lyft. Maybe in cities where there is significantly more regulation, enough licences, and no corruption Uber would not be nearly as popular.
Personally the main reason I hate cabs, especially in SF, is that most of them feel dirty, old, and not well maintenanced. When you sit inside everything is kind of rattly and broken, things are sometimes duct taped together, the whole car gives you a grimey feeling.
I've never once had that with Uber. All cars are fairly new and super shiny. When I sit in an Uber I always feel the car is well maintained and clean etc. There's no grimeyness.
And when I call an Uber, I know when it's coming. After the ride is done, I get a receipt that shows the exact route and so on. It's really neat.
Cabs on the other hand are a black hole. I call a cab and it's theoretically on the way, but I have no way of knowing and there's no indication on how far it is and when it's coming. After I pay for it, the money goes into a black hole and other than a small piece of paper that I lose after two minutes, there is no indication of it happening or how much I paid.
I also get harassed about using cards with the cabs, I rarely carry cash (for good reason considering the neighbourhoods I go through), and it's always a "ITS BROKEN CASH ONLY GO TO ATM AND MAKE SURE GIVE ME TIP"
The trick for that: When you are about to enter the cab, ask "Do you take [type] cards?" And then skip that cab if they say they don't. It's magical how the potential of losing a ride suddenly fixes broken card machines.
> a licensed cab cannot refuse to take you to your destination!
They "cannot" but they have done it to me many times in several cities. I also once had a cabbie try to strongarm me into giving a ridiculously huge tip (~100%) "because I won't be able to get a fare all the way back." Not to defend Uber here, but it's not like the cab regulation totally fixes this.
I've had the same thing happen to me a couple times, always seemingly on the way to the airport even. It's really frustrating. In those situations, I generally switch to Lyft and get picked up without cancellation. Unfortunately this isn't an option in places Lyft has pulled out of due to regulations like Houston that Lyft has pulled out of due to similar regulations by and thus only Uber remains.
This is one of the unfortunate side effects of a car service pulling out of a city like Lyft did in Houston. Now only Uber remains which, despite its flaws, is light years ahead of the standard yellow cab service.
I've taken Uber to OAK and other airports from SF dozens of times.
You had a spot of bad luck with cancellations—they're in fact extremely rare, and I've taken hundreds of trips. On top of that, drivers cannot see your destination when a request is made. Go ahead and ask them.
The point of contention here seems to be insurance: Uber already provides insurance that covers the driver while they are carrying passengers, but Kansas wants them to have commercial insurance that covers drivers 24/7.
To me, this seems to speak volumes about the viability of Uber's business model in the long run. If they can't compete because additional background checks and insurance are needed, is it really a $40B company?
If this is the case, Uber is being either colossally stupid or both colossally stupid and colossally evil here.
You see, big businesses actually love regulation. It raises the barrier to entry and prices smaller competitors out of the market.
The only companies who don't like regulation are a) small businesses who risk being priced out of the market and b) monopolists or near-monopolists, who have no competitors left to price out of the market.
For Uber to throw their hands up and walk out of a market over regulation means that either they think like a small player or they think like a monopolist. If it's the former... well, they're a $40B company, and they should start acting like one; it's a sign of terrible incompetence that a $40B company is acting like a "poor, oppressed mom-and-pop". If it's the latter, then they're just plain evil, and they should be stopped before they actually become a monopoly. They're also being stupid, too, because they're not a monopoly yet, and Lyft is now going to eat up the Kansas market.
You make some great points, however I question how big the Kansas market really is. I'm from a 150,000 person city in the Midwest, and there might be 5 taxis operating in town. Kansas has a few bigger cities, but the demand for personal drivers in the Midwest isn't like it is on the coasts.
Sure, the market isn't all that large, but the means, methods, process required to serve it are the same ones that will absolutely be needed to cope with all the different markets, rules, and authorities out there.
A billion dollar level company can and should be doing this.
As in you mean there is little additional cost to enter the market? Sure, I'm just saying if they miss out on serving a small market, it's not going to have a huge negative impact.
But, the systems needed are important. Simple, dry runs now can prototype them, buy good will, potentially have an impact on regulations to come.
Also, UBER. That's not ordinary, or dull, or tepid. It's UBER. Cherry picking, dodgy behavior to avoid compliance, and other sketchy things seem inappropriate for such a valuation.
As someone that's from Wichita, I can say that the market is very small in terms of utilization. Most of the people who could afford Uber either own a car or have sufficient access to public transit to their satisfaction. The rest of us slobs who have to nickle/dime our wages are stuck with less than optimal transportation regardless of Uber's presence in the state or not. Basically, Wichita and other Kansas cities are huge for their population. Wichita along is about 8x7 miles if I remember right. And this excludes suburbs and outlying communities in and out of the county. KCMO is a bit more packed in from what I remember, but not by much. So, for Uber and its drivers to make money they'd need a relatively steady volume of riders to and from places of work and shopping. In Wichita, that's pretty hard to sustain since our employment centers are split up between downtown and East/West Wichita (Cessna, Spirit, Hawker-Beech, and etc). The rest of the employers are along the northside but they're not exactly high wage payers (Does Coleman do any work out there anymore aside from the gas bottling plant?). All in all, Wichita would suck for Uber regulations or no.
It's not that they couldn't afford to do the additional background checks and insurance it's obviously a statement they are making and that statement fits right into the 'Randian' views that Travis Kalanick has already been accused of. He thinks that Kansas will come crawling back after Uber is gone but more likely competitors that are willing to deal with regulation (that is probably righteous) will fill the gap.
Their long term goal is to rely on self-driving cars, not drivers. So background checks for drivers and commercial insurance for drivers won't be an issue.
* owning the fleet with up-front capital requirements
* buying insurance
* owning the parking facilities for such fleet
* operating filling/charging stations for such fleet
* providing maintenance for the fleet on an ongoing basis
* operating car washes
What exactly is Uber's competence in such setup, and why are they in a dominant position to achieve this when compared to, let's say, Hertz, ZipCar, a local car dealership, or some mom-and-pop operation that bought two self-driving cars to rent them out on a busy intersection?
"Kansas lawmakers want to make sure drivers have insurance that covers the times when a driver has no passengers — and is therefore not covered by business insurance — but is behind the wheel of their work vehicle — and is therefore not covered by personal insurance either."
It's outrageous that there could even be a situation where someone is driving on the road but not covered by insurance. Looking at comments under the article, it's like people don't understand the implications of this.
It really is incredible how the opinion of Uber has dropped. I used to love Uber - and still do love the Uber service - but now I can't stand the company. I used to buy in to the whole corrupt taxi industry narrative, but now I feel like a fool for believing it (even if it was true at the beginning). It's a shame that there's no alternative, at least that I'm aware of, to UberEXEC/UberLUX.
I feel like Uber could have been a great, albeit smaller, company had they concentrated on their upmarket service. Aiming to be cheaper than taxis is just a race to the bottom - but there are many people who are willing to pay more in exchange for a better experience.
Honestly I think 99% of the reason people use Uber and Lyft are the phone apps. If "real" cab companies had an app, I seriously doubt Uber and Lyft would've made such headway. (At least in most cities - I realize there's occasionally specific, localized issues with existing "real" cab companies.)
Yes, in Brazil we have phone apps for calling regular taxis, and at least in the big cities, it's great. You end up with all the regulation that regular taxis have, plus the apps normally have a rating system, so drivers end up caring much more about the quality of the ride.
Uber is having an extra hard time to compete here.
At one end, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the state to require more insurance coverage for Uber drivers since there will be more risk involved than a regular driver.
Background checks required by state? That's Uber's job to decide, and they do it anyway. If Uber doesn't do background checks, and there are incidents (even a small number) it will hurt their business at the end of the day. It's in their best interest to do the background checks in the manner they please.
This is a weird situation where Uber doesn't want to "employ" it drivers and pay for w/e is needed for them to do business, but at the same time their drivers require them to provide them with everything to do their job and now their source of income (employer) left the state and them jobless.
I wish we were provided with more details like how much this background check/insurance would cost. They already do both (Uber does a background & provides commercial insurance coverage) so honestly this half-written articles do nothing but make people even MORE confused on how Uber REALLY does business.
> If Uber doesn't do background checks, and there are incidents (even a small number) it will hurt their business at the end of the day.
I really hate this mode of thinking. What's wrong with preventing incidents?
A background check isn't going to weed out 100% of muggers, rapists, or Enron Executives - but it will likely reduce the number of muggings, rapings, and fraud.
Your argument is basically "There's no need to inspect restaurants - if people die of food poisoning, the business will suffer."
Well, yeah - but how about we take some simple precautions to stop people getting hurt?
Privacy issues and companies making hiring decisions on non-work-relevant personal life choices.
Do you support background checks for all jobs? Nothing you said is specific to Uber. But there's a reason companies can't ask if you have children, etc.
I'm female, and on top of that, I'm part of a group that is exceptionally vulnerable to hate crimes. I'm glad I work at an company where I don't have to worry about a co-worker being a known rapist.
All right. Well I wish you the best, but be careful. If someone has served their time in prison then that should be the end of the punishment. Common sense restrictions are fine, but they should be eligible for most jobs. It's utterly cruel to pretend someone's punishment is over, then throw them onto the streets with no assistance and near-zero chance of having a life again. By all means keep people locked up if a crime is truly bad enough, but if they've served their time then they've served their time.
You're conflating the background check with extra-legal justice. They're not the same. The issue of re-introduction of convicts who have served their sentences is a problem of the State as the State is one who does the punishing.
If you refuse to hire someone based on past crimes, that's extra-legal justice. When it becomes widespread enough, the State has two choices: stop said discrimination, or be complicit in it.
So, I should be required to hire someone at a daycare center even if that person was a child molester (unrepentant)? I'm not trying to lure you in the "think of the children" trap, but it's an honest question in light of the potential jobs a person could obtain. If said ex-con child molester was to get a job somewhere else like in meat packing or IT that's different. But if they were to waltz up to a daycare center and apply knowing full well their conviction would show up on the background check, you really think they should get the job?
I'm all ears, but don't expect me to accept your conclusion.
That's a particularly bad example to argue from, since that is clearly not an example of extra-legal punishment, since child molesters are generally legally forbidden from working with children even after any prison terms is complete, and legal daycare centers often have a positive legal obligation to conduct background checks and exclude such offenders.
So, excluding those offenders from isn't extra-legal punishment, its simply legal punishment.
This is, of course, different in critical ways from the general case of excluding convicts from hiring pools.
It may not be the best example, but it's an example that highlights the fact that if there's anything in a person's history that could be considered a legitimate risk to the workplace employees, property, and the like then you can't conclude this is a punishment. In the case of Uber, if they did the prescribed background checks in Kansas and they found a percentage of their drivers have been convicted of a DUI and are operating under phony licenses. Would you say it's extra-legal punishment for Uber to kick them off their service? I would think not, but we could narrow the problem to any conviction for a DUI within five years or any conviction for narcotics within the same time span (I think it's actually seven years such convictions still appear on your background check, but I'm not sure either way). Do you think it's extra-legal punishment in that context as well? If so, why should any firm take on the added risk of an ex-con with either of those charges? Can you prove their behaviors at present are consistent with safe driving practices?
That's really what's at stake here for Uber. Taking on a risky driver isn't in their best interest, but they off-load that risk onto the driver and the public at large (externalizing the cost of those drivers habits onto the larger public while internalizing all the profits for their shareholders) which means we're the ones who have to pay the cost of the risky drivers that operate under Uber. If they paid for the risk involved, then I'd have no problem with them operating anywhere. But as I see it, if they're going to play around the legal system which has similar requirements for other industries, this seems to me that they should be subjected to the same legal requirements or that the same legal requirements be nullified for every firm in every industry in the United States (I doubt that will ever happen).
I don't see anyone saying anyone should be required to do anything. I see someone stating that when private discrimination on the basis of status assigned by the State exists and is widespread, the State either actively intervenes to prevent the discrimination or is facilitating the discrimination.
You can't refuse to hire someone for race, or family status. It would be reasonable if you couldn't refuse to hire someone for a crime they have already completed a sentence for (unless it's relevant to the job). There already exist some state laws of this sort, especially for crimes that have been expunged.
Friendship is unrelated, and you wouldn't even know if they were a felon.
And non-felons are capable of horrible crimes too. They weren't born felons.
As if one need any more evidence as to what a shit-pile of a company this is. But the majority of this site's audience doesn't care. They don't need a car anymore! They're disrupting things and have a slick app!!!!
Well that's obnoxious that the insurance companies would play hot potato and not cover the 5 minute pickup windows.
But how much is insurance for that period going to cost? Is Uber even going to notice the difference?
Or is the problem that a 'work vehicle' is going to have no insurance the entire time it's being driven around? Even when it's not actually being used for Uber? Now that sounds unfair to make Uber pay for.
There's a difference between a 5 min leisure drive and a rush to a hot spot or surge location (such as a sports game that's about to end) to pick up a passenger, because of the driver incentives. Insurance companies are very aware of this, and this causes the price premium between personal and commercial insurance.
If you're rushing to pick up a passenger you have insurance from Uber. (I looked that up to make sure after making the above comment.)
Rushing to a hot spot seems like a flawed argument, you can do that while totally off the grid. App closed, phone off. That's probably going to get you more money, too.
You could have four of these apps open at once, do you need quadruple insurance?
The app requires no interaction, and you perform no actions for the app until it notifies you about a pickup and Uber's insurance kicks in.
If the purpose of rushing is to engage in commercial activity, I could see how insurance companies would claim that it constitutes commercial activity by itself. It just seems like a higher risk profile.
> Rushing to a hot spot seems like a flawed argument, you can do that while totally off the grid.
This part I agree with, if the driver has arrived at a pick up point due to inside knowledge of relevant details, and was not guided there by the app, it's a personal ride.
I think any time the app is open, though, you can make a reasonable argument that the driver is guided where to go. However, in the US it only matters what the judge/jury says if/when such case hits the court.
I can't really say anything about this situation. But I can definitely attest to my current relationship with Uber, and my previous relationship with Kansas.
I grew up in Kansas. Many times, the government attempted to teach me Intelligent Design and I was always given the option of opting out of being taught Evolution.
Sodomy is still illegal for any non-strait married couple. While not enforced, it is still a Class C Misdemeanor. Just the to let everyone know the governments feelings on homosexual couples.
Only 17 counties are allowed to have liquor stores, and there are 28 counties that are completely dry. (Dry counties have on average more drunk driving crashes compared to wet due to people driving further for a drink)
Thanks to the DARE program there, I grew up thinking Marijuana was more dangerous and addictive than Meth or Cocaine. (Meth is a much bigger problem in Kansas)
The legal system there is very much Guilty till proven innocent, they bully people into signing plea bargains.
I can attest... Kansas is backwards. So, I left too.. to Colorado.
Uber on the other hand, has been nothing but a blessing. Its fantastic. My girlfriend and I love it. Its cheaper than a cab here in Denver. Cheaper than driving (due to parking costs). My girlfriend and I have always felt safe.
If you disagree with Uber. Go live in Kansas for 22 years and tell me the state isn't backwards.
"Kansas lawmakers want to make sure drivers have insurance that covers the times when a driver has no passengers — and is therefore not covered by business insurance — but is behind the wheel of their work vehicle — and is therefore not covered by personal insurance either."
How is this a bad thing?
So, in other states, drivers are not covered when they are driving to make a pickup?
142 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] threadUber pulling out of Kansas makes half of the KC metro area impossible to work in. I'm curious if this will have a major impact on Uber's future in the entire city.
I've got a lot of reservations about calling Uber/Lyft a "job" in the first place; in fact I have a lot of problems with these "sharing economy" apps-calling them jobs when really you're just subcontracting labor on the cheap while the business side collects massive investments and benefits for the full-time employees.
It's like when you drive by a Dominos Pizza {substitute with the chain of your choice} and they have signs "make $15/hr"; you'll maybe make $15/hr on an incredibly busy day or a sudden surge in ride requests, but what's the mean? Is $15/hr the mean? If not, you don't get to advertise "make $15/hr".
I said it once at the start of all of these talks two years ago: It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that "disruption" in so many startups more recently means less "disruption with the goals of bringing about much needed substantive change to local regulation" and more like "give my company special treatment to operate". And it's a hard pill for cities to wave off when the population centers are all clamoring for an alternative to taxis.
okay I'm done ninja editing.
I think any customer would prefer background checks for drivers. Being defiant against them is just bad PR.
Background checks cost $20, or if you go through a channeler because you want your results in a couple days, you can pay $50.. This is a tiny price to pay for the safety of thousands of passengers, not to mention it wouldn't cost them anything, as they could defer the cost to the drivers as a part of the application process.
Trying to skimp out on insurance also goes further to show a wanton disregard for passenger safety.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2015/04/23/kansas...
Uber + Lyft just relaunched here in Portland. Drivers are required to have valid business licenses and pass a background check too. Everyone is very happy with the changes. (except our local taxi commission, of course)
The requirements involve documented regular maintenance and insurance coverage that would include passengers, not sure what's the business logic behind opposing them.
They want to have no costs to doing business, and to reap all the profits.
But I get what you're saying - at that point the profit opportunity diminishes somewhat. The upfront cost of it also discourages casual drivers who only planned to do some weekend work.
Hairdressers and other similar jobs are indeed regulated in this way - you dont want your ear getting cut off do you?
The only reason this conversation is being had instead of the conversation about background checks on your mechanic is because one sector is unionized. If you don't understand that you don't understand the politics of the situation. Great rebuttal though - shows what we're up against.
Basically it seems to me that regulation has the effect of forcing lifestyles upon people. You can't just sell people things, you have to be a Thing Seller and devote yourself to that regulatory environment and then you can sell some of the people some of the things.
Bonkers.
With Uber, as soon as you get out of the car, it's possible that the driver suddenly has no insurance in effect, until the next passenger gets in.
The answer is simple. You pay a little more for commercial/livery coverage and your passengers are covered against perils.
The background check thing is even easier. Do you want your wife picked up and driven around by a convicted rapist? For the want of Uber spending the massive sum of like $20?
Once there's money involved, we are no longer talking about an agreement between gentlemen, but about a commercial transaction, and those require regulations because the incentives are different, and money does weird things to people. A driver maximizing profits has no incentive in, say, checking his brakes regularly (money spent + car immobilized for some time), while a random driver does ("yeah, I'll take a cab for a couple days, no biggie").
It would be more correct to say that the incentive problem here lies in uncompensated danger to other drivers, which for-profit drivers may be willing to ignore when tempted by money.
When you hitch hike (or pick someone up) you and the other party are taking a mutual risk together.
But if money is exchanging hands I, and I'm going to bet most people, would want the risk factor removed.
Additional safeguards to common carriers make common sense to me, since you are now holding yourself out to the public, and not taking one-off or by arrangement only rides.
Kind of like the difference in regulations for airplane charter vs an airline.
The hitchhiker example and just paying one-off car rides is different than someone that advertises and holds themselves out to the public.
I realise fully that insurance and laws and various other things make this situation different. What I'm saying is that this is an odd and nonsensical situation.
If I hitch at the side of the road I can get into a completely random car with a random driver with no trace, digital or paper, and this is not illegal (UK) and shouldn't be IMO.
But if I do the same and pay for the privilege suddenly apparently we have to start worrying about the risk of rape and badly maintained cars and so forth.
One poster asked whether I'd want my wife to get in a car with a convicted rapist.
My wife is an autonomous human being... she can hitch, or hitch and offer to pay, or hold signs up offering a few pounds for a lift, or use Uber, or a licenced taxi company. "Safety" is a variable she can consider whilst doing so.
I don't want my basic interactions with others governed by 'background checks' carried out by the state. If you do, fine. Why do you need to force me?
(I should say that I don't really respect Uber as a business because I feel OSS should be able to do this peer to peer, but that's rather beside the point).
It frustrates me because the safety argument is basically a variant on 'think of the children'. It's difficult to argue against without considering what you lose in the process.
Background checks and licensing and road worthy tests and other regulation tilt the playing field away from me and you and towards wealthy business owners.
What is so wrong with me deciding to jump in my car now and drive people home for a fee? Not a rapist, not a pedophile, just plain jane boring old me? I would like to hear the argument against that, the one that doesn't involve appealing to scare stories of the 1 in 10000 bad cookie.
I live in SF, and was flying out of OAK. I had used Uber only once before, a long time ago; but this time, I suggested to the wife that we use Uber again. We had to leave SF at 7:15AM - 7:30AM or so.
Around 7:15 I pulled up the app, and saw that there were several cars around (as they usually are). I requested an UberX; punched in the destination. A driver quickly accepted, and Uber said he'd be there in < 5 minutes. A couple of minutes later, I get the notification that the driver cancelled. OK, I tried again. Same thing again: driver accepts, and then a minute or two later, cancels. This went on for 4-5 times. Now, time is getting tighter, and I have a large suitcase; and cabs don't come around in my alley. I tried Uber again, and this time Uber says: "Surge pricing in effect! Rates are 1.5X". I knew what was going on; but I had to accept out of desperation. What do you know? A driver quickly came over and we were on our way. The driver did say that some drivers may not have wanted to go to OAK because traffic back would have been bad.
But here's the thing: a licensed cab cannot refuse to take you to your destination! Uber seems to be set up to take advantage of riders with their "surge pricing" scam.
This experience left a bitter taste in my mouth, and I made sure I installed Lyft for the ride back.
Next time don't enter your destination address, so the driver doesn't know where you go, and once you are in the car it is much harder for them to refuse you.
if the market was really busy and I wanted to go 3 miles away from the crowds, sorry the cabbie had to end his shift and couldn't take me. If it was a nice and quiet night, I would get the same ride no problem.
I get that you had a bad experience, but the response to every bad experience should not be regulation. "Surge pricing" is no more a scam than any other market-based pricing mechanism.
To be clear, I'm mixed on Uber overall, and I do think they need some regulation, but not with regard to pricing, coverage, or response time. Those are good fits for self-regulating markets. I'm more concerned with things like knowing that when I get in to an Uber, I'm covered by the proper insurance if I end up in an accident on the way to my destination.
Surge pricing on an unknown fare (metered) is actually quite ridiculous.
For contrast, when I order a Lyft line in Manhattan, it gives me an exact price quote (not an estimate, but the exact quote) before I order the ride, taking all surges into account. This means I have perfect knowledge of what the price is going to be before I decide whether to take the ride[0].
Uber has consistently refused to implement price quotes, to the point where they have literally jeopardized their existence in at least one city because of it: all of the legal problems they have in London would be avoided if they provided price quotes in advance.
Uber has been really clever to frame the controversy as a debate about whether the cabbies should have to take an exam. But the fact that medallion cabs in London have to take the street exam is all moot, because if Uber provided price quotes in advance, they would be classified as a different kind of car service which doesn't have to take the street exam in the first place.
Instead, Uber would rather launch a coordinated PR and legal campaign against the entire medallion cab system in London, just to avoid implementing an incredibly user-friendly feature.
[0] This feature may not be in all locations yet (in fact, I don't know if it even works if the destination is in another borough), but it's clear to me that this is at least where Lyft is headed, whereas it's clear that Uber is committed to not providing price quotes.
The opposite is actually clear to me. Lyft in SF previously had the functionality you describe Uber in Manhattan having. You put your destination in, it gives you an exact price, you decide whether to call it. When Lyft Line (the carpooling variant) was introduced, that feature was actually removed, and now with a standard Lyft ride there is no way to know your fare in advance (though there is now with Lyft Line).
In a similar vain, Uber gives a max fare on Uber Pool (so you know at most what it will cost, guaranteed). Uber also does do fare estimates on UberX and other rides. I've heard from a few drivers that they may have avoided giving exact fares in advance on UberX and others because people tend to want to use them a little bit more flexibly than get from point a to b (Stop and pick up a friend on the way, for instance).
Point of all of this being, it's not clear to me that either company is committed to providing or not providing price quotes. I think we're still in the early stages of experimentation, with features being added and removed and changed between locations all the time, and I don't think we can yet characterize what either company is committed to doing or not.
Point taken. I'm willing to believe that Lyft may not be committed to providing price quotes. But there's at least ambiguity there, whereas it's very clear that Uber does not want to provide exact quotes. If they did, they would have in London and avoided the expensive, multi-year legal and PR battle that they're engaged in there.
How much do you think this protracted battle has cost them over the years, both explicitly (PR firms and lawyers) and implicitly (opportunity cost of lost revenues from additional rides)? Whatever it is, it's a high number, and Uber has decided that not providing price quotes is worth even more[0].
> Uber also does do fare estimates on UberX and other rides.
An estimate is simply lead-generation for them, not a quote. They are not committing to charge me the price they estimate. As the consumer, I still do not know what the ride will actually cost until I am already on the hook to pay for it.
[0] It's not even a tough actuarial problem to solve at Uber's scale, which is why it's such a glaring omission, in addition to the example from London.
Would you rather have a service which charges more to (say) black passengers than white? Or which charges more to go to a poorer part of town a rich part?
The regulation I'm talking about is not being able to discriminate based on the type of passenger or destination.
Race is not equivalent to "type of passenger or destination" though. The latter is a much more vague definition. Like it or not, things like distance, roadway accessibility, and desired route impact the cost of a fare, and regulating that away isn't something I openly accept as the best solution.
Exactly. You're at a bar in SF near closing time (2AM) and need a ride to Hunters Point or Bayview? Suddenly, "surge pricing" is in effect! However, if you need a ride to Pac Heights or the Marina? No problem! This may not seem like discrimination based on economic class/race, but it sure is.
Just as the opposite works, if nobody is going to buy at your price, you have to come down, or you will lose business... ideally you will meet in the middle via market pricing. The rates are centered around competition with other sources for similar services. There is competition and market driven pricing, I don't see the problem.
Wingz is a cheaper replacement for UberX and Blacklane is a cheaper replacement for Uber Black, both have to be arranged though.
I also spoke with the drivers I used here in são paulo and they said the same thing: they only get the destination after the pickup and they only get my first name -- uber now is using a 3rd party service that proxys my phone so the driver won't have my personal number.
i emailed them before regarding problems with drivers and the customer support team is always good (twice i had problems with drivers doing longer routes when smaller ones were better and once i had a problem with a driver that accepted my request but never showed up).
(btw, i'm not an uber employee, i just like the service and use at least twice a month)
This is not an automatic process that can go wrong. And indeed, for anyone who has used Uber any number of times, this is immediately obvious.
Perhaps your driver surmised from your suitcase where you were going?
I am of two minds on surge pricing. I certainly don't like it, but I don't think it is a scam so much as normal economics.
Too often our knee-jerk reaction is to want the government to get involved.
But based on your experience, you are probably
a) not going to trust Uber again, at least for this sort of ride
b) choose a competitor / traditional cab to get you to OAK
c) tell all of your friends / HN about your crappy experience, leading to reduced reputation for Uber
The end result is that Uber will no longer get your business and perhaps others' business will go elsewhere too. Uber is being punished for its bad behavior by the market. Getting the government involved would likely put Uber out of business (hence the article) or make rates way higher and essentially no different than a traditional cab.
I love it how libertarians believe everything will be fixed by a mythical "market". I'm sorry, but if we had left it to the "market", we'd still have separate "white" and "colored" toilets. We'd have no gay marriage. We'd have no voting rights act.
The regulation I'm talking about is not being able to discriminate based on the type of passenger or destination.
They can refuse based on Destination, but not anything that is forbidden by Law. Such as Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Handicap, etc... There was a notice to Uber drivers sent from Uber, stating that any driver that gets complaints about not accepting customers that have a service animal, they will end their partnership with that driver.
I agree, the Market can't fix anything, even in a Libertarian world, there is Government. But they should only be there to define the rules of the Game, not control the moves everyone decides to make.
I do agree, just the market would have not made everything all peachy, you do need to set some rules. But its just the limit and overreach of those rules is up for some debate.
KBI background checks, when Uber already does their own. (In a state that is VERY VERY VERY well armed) A State that doesn't support Gay Marriage, that up till 2006 had laws stating black people couldn't live in certain cities. (seriously...)
Just remember... its Governments that ban Gay Marriage, not markets, Governments decide who can and cannot vote, not markets.
That's the most absurd thing I've read today. Literally all of these things are the result of oppressive laws passed by the government in the first place. What does marriage have to do with the markets?
Even when you enter it, it takes a while to transmit that information only after you get into the vehicle, which leads to these awkward stares "where are we going today?" - "oh, I thought I had it entered in the app" - "oh, hold on then, it takes a minute to update".
Arguably, destination disclosure is a boon to consumers in some situation - you might get a discount on a late night ride from SFO if you're heading towards San Jose, where the driver lives (and was going to drive to anyways) as opposed to Walnut Creek, etc.
If you're going to snark you should at least pick a good example.
They wouldn't be as big as it was if the existing system wasn't literally awful, as someone in SF -- if I wanted a '''real''' taxi, it has a chance to not bother coming several hours later more than anything. And then intentionally taking roundabout routes just to fuck me out of even more fare.
And at Santa Ana Metrolink, I had 'taxi' drivers effectively try stealing my bags, throwing them into their vehicles, and trying to drag me along while I was waiting for uber/lyft. Maybe in cities where there is significantly more regulation, enough licences, and no corruption Uber would not be nearly as popular.
I've never once had that with Uber. All cars are fairly new and super shiny. When I sit in an Uber I always feel the car is well maintained and clean etc. There's no grimeyness.
And when I call an Uber, I know when it's coming. After the ride is done, I get a receipt that shows the exact route and so on. It's really neat.
Cabs on the other hand are a black hole. I call a cab and it's theoretically on the way, but I have no way of knowing and there's no indication on how far it is and when it's coming. After I pay for it, the money goes into a black hole and other than a small piece of paper that I lose after two minutes, there is no indication of it happening or how much I paid.
They "cannot" but they have done it to me many times in several cities. I also once had a cabbie try to strongarm me into giving a ridiculously huge tip (~100%) "because I won't be able to get a fare all the way back." Not to defend Uber here, but it's not like the cab regulation totally fixes this.
This is one of the unfortunate side effects of a car service pulling out of a city like Lyft did in Houston. Now only Uber remains which, despite its flaws, is light years ahead of the standard yellow cab service.
Isn't that effectively what you're looking for?
You had a spot of bad luck with cancellations—they're in fact extremely rare, and I've taken hundreds of trips. On top of that, drivers cannot see your destination when a request is made. Go ahead and ask them.
Or, they are mixing an agenda (low to no regulation) with business, choosing to leave a market rather than operate in it's rules.
You see, big businesses actually love regulation. It raises the barrier to entry and prices smaller competitors out of the market.
The only companies who don't like regulation are a) small businesses who risk being priced out of the market and b) monopolists or near-monopolists, who have no competitors left to price out of the market.
For Uber to throw their hands up and walk out of a market over regulation means that either they think like a small player or they think like a monopolist. If it's the former... well, they're a $40B company, and they should start acting like one; it's a sign of terrible incompetence that a $40B company is acting like a "poor, oppressed mom-and-pop". If it's the latter, then they're just plain evil, and they should be stopped before they actually become a monopoly. They're also being stupid, too, because they're not a monopoly yet, and Lyft is now going to eat up the Kansas market.
Sure, the market isn't all that large, but the means, methods, process required to serve it are the same ones that will absolutely be needed to cope with all the different markets, rules, and authorities out there.
A billion dollar level company can and should be doing this.
As in you mean there is little additional cost to enter the market? Sure, I'm just saying if they miss out on serving a small market, it's not going to have a huge negative impact.
But, the systems needed are important. Simple, dry runs now can prototype them, buy good will, potentially have an impact on regulations to come.
Also, UBER. That's not ordinary, or dull, or tepid. It's UBER. Cherry picking, dodgy behavior to avoid compliance, and other sketchy things seem inappropriate for such a valuation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-...
A lot can happen in 5 years - I am not expecting self-driving cars to be a mass-market reality before then, if only due to the speed of legislation.
* owning the fleet with up-front capital requirements
* buying insurance
* owning the parking facilities for such fleet
* operating filling/charging stations for such fleet
* providing maintenance for the fleet on an ongoing basis
* operating car washes
What exactly is Uber's competence in such setup, and why are they in a dominant position to achieve this when compared to, let's say, Hertz, ZipCar, a local car dealership, or some mom-and-pop operation that bought two self-driving cars to rent them out on a busy intersection?
It's outrageous that there could even be a situation where someone is driving on the road but not covered by insurance. Looking at comments under the article, it's like people don't understand the implications of this.
I feel like Uber could have been a great, albeit smaller, company had they concentrated on their upmarket service. Aiming to be cheaper than taxis is just a race to the bottom - but there are many people who are willing to pay more in exchange for a better experience.
How about blacklane.com or limos.com? Both are aggregators for existing car services and allow you to specify a general class of cars.
Uber is having an extra hard time to compete here.
Get ready for updated regulations in many areas where Uber is doing business now.
At one end, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the state to require more insurance coverage for Uber drivers since there will be more risk involved than a regular driver.
Background checks required by state? That's Uber's job to decide, and they do it anyway. If Uber doesn't do background checks, and there are incidents (even a small number) it will hurt their business at the end of the day. It's in their best interest to do the background checks in the manner they please.
This is a weird situation where Uber doesn't want to "employ" it drivers and pay for w/e is needed for them to do business, but at the same time their drivers require them to provide them with everything to do their job and now their source of income (employer) left the state and them jobless.
I wish we were provided with more details like how much this background check/insurance would cost. They already do both (Uber does a background & provides commercial insurance coverage) so honestly this half-written articles do nothing but make people even MORE confused on how Uber REALLY does business.
I really hate this mode of thinking. What's wrong with preventing incidents?
A background check isn't going to weed out 100% of muggers, rapists, or Enron Executives - but it will likely reduce the number of muggings, rapings, and fraud.
Your argument is basically "There's no need to inspect restaurants - if people die of food poisoning, the business will suffer."
Well, yeah - but how about we take some simple precautions to stop people getting hurt?
Privacy issues and companies making hiring decisions on non-work-relevant personal life choices.
Do you support background checks for all jobs? Nothing you said is specific to Uber. But there's a reason companies can't ask if you have children, etc.
Yes. Yes, I do.
I'm female, and on top of that, I'm part of a group that is exceptionally vulnerable to hate crimes. I'm glad I work at an company where I don't have to worry about a co-worker being a known rapist.
I'm all ears, but don't expect me to accept your conclusion.
So, excluding those offenders from isn't extra-legal punishment, its simply legal punishment.
This is, of course, different in critical ways from the general case of excluding convicts from hiring pools.
That's really what's at stake here for Uber. Taking on a risky driver isn't in their best interest, but they off-load that risk onto the driver and the public at large (externalizing the cost of those drivers habits onto the larger public while internalizing all the profits for their shareholders) which means we're the ones who have to pay the cost of the risky drivers that operate under Uber. If they paid for the risk involved, then I'd have no problem with them operating anywhere. But as I see it, if they're going to play around the legal system which has similar requirements for other industries, this seems to me that they should be subjected to the same legal requirements or that the same legal requirements be nullified for every firm in every industry in the United States (I doubt that will ever happen).
Because refusing to be friends with a rapist is also "extra-legal justice" according to your logic.
Friendship is unrelated, and you wouldn't even know if they were a felon.
And non-felons are capable of horrible crimes too. They weren't born felons.
But how much is insurance for that period going to cost? Is Uber even going to notice the difference?
Or is the problem that a 'work vehicle' is going to have no insurance the entire time it's being driven around? Even when it's not actually being used for Uber? Now that sounds unfair to make Uber pay for.
As somebody above pointed out, such accident already happened http://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Family-of-SF-girl-killed-by... although I don't know if it carries any statistical significance when you count all the Uber rides in SF.
Rushing to a hot spot seems like a flawed argument, you can do that while totally off the grid. App closed, phone off. That's probably going to get you more money, too.
You could have four of these apps open at once, do you need quadruple insurance?
The app requires no interaction, and you perform no actions for the app until it notifies you about a pickup and Uber's insurance kicks in.
> Rushing to a hot spot seems like a flawed argument, you can do that while totally off the grid.
Maybe my original example was misleading, but Uber app points an idle driver towards the areas of increased demand (and surge pricing) by color-coding them http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/s...
> App closed, phone off.
This part I agree with, if the driver has arrived at a pick up point due to inside knowledge of relevant details, and was not guided there by the app, it's a personal ride.
I think any time the app is open, though, you can make a reasonable argument that the driver is guided where to go. However, in the US it only matters what the judge/jury says if/when such case hits the court.
I grew up in Kansas. Many times, the government attempted to teach me Intelligent Design and I was always given the option of opting out of being taught Evolution.
Sodomy is still illegal for any non-strait married couple. While not enforced, it is still a Class C Misdemeanor. Just the to let everyone know the governments feelings on homosexual couples.
Only 17 counties are allowed to have liquor stores, and there are 28 counties that are completely dry. (Dry counties have on average more drunk driving crashes compared to wet due to people driving further for a drink)
Thanks to the DARE program there, I grew up thinking Marijuana was more dangerous and addictive than Meth or Cocaine. (Meth is a much bigger problem in Kansas)
The legal system there is very much Guilty till proven innocent, they bully people into signing plea bargains.
I can attest... Kansas is backwards. So, I left too.. to Colorado.
Uber on the other hand, has been nothing but a blessing. Its fantastic. My girlfriend and I love it. Its cheaper than a cab here in Denver. Cheaper than driving (due to parking costs). My girlfriend and I have always felt safe.
If you disagree with Uber. Go live in Kansas for 22 years and tell me the state isn't backwards.
How is this a bad thing?
So, in other states, drivers are not covered when they are driving to make a pickup?