Every time someone kicks Uber down, all it does is make me more sympathetic to their business. I've had nothing but expensive, shit service with no recourse or customer support from official regulated services. They operate like the government does in the film Brazil.
It's not evil government regulations that leads to Uber drivers being uninsured. It's private insurance companies who, aware of the greater risks, don't cover commercial driving as part of their regular insurance policies.
So it's a case of the free insurance market working correctly to price risk, and Uber coming in and shitting all over that and effectively asking for governments to legislate to exclude Uber drivers from the normal insurance market by allowing them to drive commercially without commercial insurance.
If Uber gets their way it would mean jacking up insurance prices for everybody and making the insurance market far less efficient. Why should wider society pay to insure Uber drivers just to make Uber more profitable?
> There are a number of insurance providers that offer policies for ridesharing. Uber recommends working with your insurance agent to find a plan that works for you.
> For US ridesharing partners only, please note that although the Rasier policy will act as primary insurance while you are using the Uber Partner app, keep in mind that all partners must also carry personal auto insurance.
while Uber is useful, let's not kid ourselves. they are just new middlemen replacing the old ones.
I just can't bear Uber arrogance as they think they can just violate local laws because they are "useful".There is no justification for that.
While there may be a specific mindset regarding the law in US, most European countries do not work that way at all. French regulators will come very hard on Uber if they think they can just ignore laws.
It's pretty impossible having a centralized dispatch service that anyone can join without there being a "middleman" of some kind. Someone's got to write the software and vet the drivers, after all.
I love Uber's arrogance. The local laws being violated are more often than not the product of regulatory capture, inefficient processes, and antiquated eras. The regulators have been whining like crazy about "unsafe drivers" and all sorts of other downright libelous nonsense that it takes nothing short of flouting the rules to disprove, to say "It turns out that when we ignore the regulators, the world doesn't actually end after all, and in some cases actually gets better" - a valuable lesson for business and everyperson alike.
No person with power likes being ignored, so you get actions like this. Petty tyrants, retaliating at the slight. That's how I see the governments in this case.
Uber is doing a productive thing and reduces the number of fatalities and drunk driving deaths. You are obviously stuck in some state of acute infantilism of perceiving dominance games when we should be talking about the results.
The result is Uber getting sanctionned over their predatory behavior in Europe. I don't care what Uber does since it's mostly illegal in France.
A private corporation does not get to make the laws. If they want to change the law they need to respect it at first place then join the democratic process ,end of story.
"they need to respect it at first place then join the democratic process"
Except clearly they don't. The democratic process is broken. Politicians have no incentive to change laws. Uber's modus operandi is to ignore those laws and build strong public support to force change. It works very well. Uber is happy. Joe public is happy. And politicians can pass new regulations shockingly quick when their job is on the line.
I sorrrrrt of see where you're coming from, but in my experiences Uber/Lyft are just way, way better in almost every way than the taxis they are replacing. Including safety. (Though it would be interesting to see stats on this; do they exist?)
If the reality on the ground conflicts with the theory behind the laws, the laws should change. Nothing wrong with helping to make that happen by a little calculated disobedience in my opinion.
There is absolutely justification. Local laws are unnecessarily causing harm to consumers. Uber is blatantly ignoring those laws to get consumers on their side. This leads to the laws changing.
Seattle's broken ass cab system proposed creating a ride hailing app a few years ago. They were stopped because no one was willing to update laws. Then Uber and Lyft came in. Those laws have now been changed and the old, broken system is being allowed to update to become slightly less shitty. It's still awful though.
Uber plays a dangerous game. They know the risks. They're willing to take them. I have zero issues with this. I do have issues with anti-consumer regulations that primarily exist to protect entrenched business owners.
Uninsured Uber drivers are causing harm to other road users. Uber is blatantly ignoring the law to make more money at the expense of the rest of society. This leads to Uber getting punished by the courts. No laws need changing.
Uber plays a dangerous game and knows the risks, sure. What about the consumers? They're getting into vehicles that are probably underinsured. Do they know the risks? If they are involved in some sort of accident, do they realize that Uber is going to wash their hands of the incident and point at the "independent contractor"?
I was in Orlando, Florida a couple of weeks ago, where the city government has outlawed charging less than a minimum per-mile fare some 3x what UberX charges:
Of course, UberX drivers are still out there saving people money over the virtual monopoly held there by big cab companies like Mears. From Uber's point of view, I can't see why not. Every ticket the city issues for being too cheap is a PR win for them.
that's what happens with long-term monopoly. although I don't use taxis at all, I grow more sympathies every time somebody fights them too. They're disruptive force, good for customers, bad for those unionized drivers afraid of competition. we as potential customers can only gain in more competitive environment.
"The service uses non-professional drivers who may not be licensed or insured, raising safety concerns. Some have poor local knowledge so potentially offer a poor customer experience."
Is this really common in France? To have an abundance of unlicensed and uninsured motorists? I thought that was against the law in most countries. I wouldn't think this would be a specific issue with Uber drivers if its the case where this is common.
Also, doesn't Uber use people who live the areas they drive in? How would they have poor knowledge of an area they live in?
It is, actually, an issue specific to driving businesses, and Uber is far more lenient than the law.
Uninsured and unlicensed drivers are normally very rare because many, many people in large cities such as Paris (where Taxis services thrive) very rarely drive. Companies such as Uber incentivize unlicensed and uninsured motorists to drive by making it profitable with seemingly far less control than existing businesses, hence the panic reaction and public debate on the matter.
Paris is relatively small but very dense, and can be maze-like. You can live in Paris and be completely lost a few hundred meters away from your place. Streets and directions are hard to follow and remember, and distances are skewed by traffic, one-way-streets, pedestrian zones, bus lanes and cycle lanes. Some streets open and close depending on the hour of the day/night or the season. It can seriously be a mess and you simply can't assume you're going to be a decent professional Parisian driver just because you live in Paris.
Lastly we all have a proper ID, so it's absolutely viable not to have a driver's license at all (provided you don't drive). Driving itself in Paris is generally a time-sink and a money sink. You only drive when you don't have a choice. For me, that's only when I'm on holiday away from the city.
Insurance is another matter, and yes it's illegal to drive an uninsured vehicle, and you also need a special license to drive for profit.
Should that service become popular, You may very well start to see recently arrived immigrants ( or even illegal ones) being exploited by mob-like networks to operate as cab drivers.
But at the moment, i highly doubt that's the main scenario, by far.
I honestly don't understand what Uber is trying to accomplish with the integration of non-professional drivers into it's taxi platform.
It's devaluing their actual taxi service. By failing to address the serious safety concerns head on they're opening themselves up to litigation that they don't need and also removing trust in the overall brand. All for what, getting more drivers, you've got to ask, is it worth it?
I've always picked the cheapest option in Uber and I've never gotten a bad ride. I very frequently get bad rides with Taxis, the most common being when you call them and they never show up because they just pickup someone else without and repercussions. An Uber driver would get rated out immediately for that. That require a very high rating. So I honestly don't understand why you are against them having more local drivers. There are definitely underserved areas outside the major cities.
Serious question: What exactly are the safety concerns? Both driver and customer are easily identifiable since they both connect using the Uber app, so it would be really stupid for either of them to commit a crime during the ride. If you mean non-professional drivers having accidents in traffic, I think that shouldn't be that much of a concern since everyone with a drivers license should be able to get through traffic safely.
The safety concerns are that working as an Uber driver on domestic car insurance invalidates the insurance, so if they do hit anyone they won't be able to pay for the damage and injuries.
everyone with a drivers license should be able to get through traffic safely "which is why there have been no car accidents at all involving licensed drivers since the introduction of the system!"
> There are a number of insurance providers that offer policies for ridesharing. Uber recommends working with your insurance agent to find a plan that works for you.
> For US ridesharing partners only, please note that although the Rasier policy will act as primary insurance while you are using the Uber Partner app, keep in mind that all partners must also carry personal auto insurance.
>The safety concerns are that working as an Uber driver on domestic car insurance invalidates the insurance, so if they do hit anyone they won't be able to pay for the damage and injuries.
Fair point, I was more thinking about accidents and assaults, not the aftermath.
>which is why there have been no car accidents at all involving licensed drivers since the introduction of the system!
I'm not saying that an accident isn't possible, just that it isn't much more likely than if you'd drive yourself or use an ordinary taxi service, especially since an Uber driver would probably get kicked out of the system if he didn't drive safely.
How much do you want to bet if I stole a driver's phone the app would stay logged in and I could pretend to be them? A phone is much easier to take than a car.
Even with a picture, I could just wear stuff that obscures my hair, etc. so they wouldn't get a good look to the difference.
The exact same argument applies to someone who steals an actual, licensed taxi, and I don't think people worry about fake taxi drivers when they get a cab.
I agree, but people are warned about unlicenced cabs and many cab companies in UK will send an SMS with details of the car - make, colour, licence plate number - when you book because there was a problem of unlicensed cabs with radio scanners taking passengers before the real cab got there.
So you're going to steal a driver's phone, appropriate a car of the same make and model, and color, then replicate a plate, before the app requires you to sign back in (every 3 or 4 days or so).
Uber also displays the license plate number of the car and the vehicle make/model in the app when you make your order. This provides an additional level of verification if you have security concerns.
Faking Uber would be easier. Admittedly, iirc, these people were scammed relatively easily and at less of a threshold than pretending to be an Uber drive would require.
Interesting, maybe it isn't that far-fetched after all, though the risks of doing this by impersonating an Uber driver seem a little too hight to convince scammers.
Hadn't thought of that, though that seems like a very unlikely scenario, since you would also need the car. And driving around in a stolen car with a stolen phone probably won't work for long and will probably get you caught just as fast as an actual Uber driver who assaults someone.
I think commercial insurance covers some special cases. Like medical payments for passengers regardless of accident fault, with very high maximums. States generally don't require a super high level of coverage for ordinary drivers.
There are likely more assaults in normal cabs then Uber.
1. You know the driver in uber. It's registered before they pick you up and send to your phone. Not so with a taxi
2. Uber tracks your GPS and the drivers. They know who's in the car (driver and passenger). Not so with Taxi
3. Drivers are rated on uber. A couple of bad ratings and they're out. Not so with taxi.
4. Uber requires no cash. Many taxi drivers don't except cards or will pressure for cash. No cash on you = less reason for assault.
So no, there is no proof that Uber has more assaults than normal taxis. So far there is only proof there are some assaults in uber and no records are kept about taxi assaults so we don't know. Searching for "cab driver assault" though brings up many many hits
1. You know the driver in uber. It's registered before they pick you up and send to your phone. Not so with a taxi
You notice that card with a number, usually carrying a photo of the driver, prominently placed in just about every official taxi, just about anywhere on the globe? There's usually also information, prominently posted, on how to file an official complaint if your cabbie does dodgy stuff. In addition you have accurate fare information posted, which doesn't suddenly jump by factor 6 because a company can make more money. (I know their argument and happen to think it's bullshit)
2. Uber tracks your GPS and the drivers. They know who's in the car (driver and passenger). Not so with Taxi
So that Uber can use this data for sleazy blog posts, or to strong arm journalists that they don't like? This alone is such a gross privacy violation that I will never, ever use this company.
3. Drivers are rated on uber. A couple of bad ratings and they're out. Not so with taxi.
Taxi drivers are vetted, licensed and insured. Good luck to reclaim potentially hundreds of thousands of Euros for hospital costs from your Uber driver. Because his insurance will sure as hell not pay. The drivers 5 star rating will help you exactly zilch if such a situation occurs.
4. Uber requires no cash.
We're taking about using Uber in Europe, which (depending on the country) is far less a credit card based society than the US. In addition the "less reason got assault" argument is spurious, at best. Apart from the fact that this very, very rarely happens in most European cities a potential assailant doesn't know if you carry cash or not.
While I agree that assaults by Uber drivers are rare (even though they are pretty poorly vetted unless it becomes a pr problem) the insurance argument and Uber's callous disregard for the privacy of their customers are deal killers for me.
Numerous? This article cites a few isolated cases among the 100+ million rides per year facilitated by Uber. Even if you assume incidents are under reported, assaults and rapes are clearly extremely rare outlier events here.
Have you had much experience with UberX (I assume roughly the equivalent of UberPOP) in a city where it's prevalent?
How "professional" do you have to be to drive a car from point A to point B via GPS? Anyone who's even a little terrible at it is likely to get rated out of the system.
This. I receive far more "professional" service from Uber than I do from my local taxi service because Uber drivers are actually held accountable for their behavior, meaning:
-They show up when they say they will and do so quickly
-They take my preferred method of payment (credit card) without question
-They are transparent about the route they are taking and they don't try to screw me over
-The cars are clean and reasonably new
-The drivers don't talk on the phone the entire time or listen to music
-They don't drive like maniacs to complete the trip as quickly as possible
I can safely say none of these things about local cabs where I live.
Who determines who professional and not professional? Likely a government regulation. Is this regulation to onerous that it unfairly impedes entry into the market?
I do not know European regulations very well, but in America far too many jobs are bound to regulation and certification requirements than is reasonable
>Who determines who professional and not professional?
It isn't difficult. You're "professional" if you are charging people for transportation services. And if you are doing so, your standard car insurance isn't going to cover you in the case of an accident.
This isn't some case of over-reaching government; if you kill or maim someone while driving from point A to point B, the likelihood of which increases as a professional driver spending more time on the road, you need to ensure that you can cover associated costs of said disaster.
People fail to see that at least part of the reason Uber is able to be cheaper than a taxi service (much like AirBnB is cheaper than hotels) is that they are skirting a requirement that taxis have: sufficient insurance.
I travelled in an UberPOP during a recent trip to Paris last month. The driver asked that I sit in the front seat because police had been pulling over private cars with passengers in the back, trying to catch unlicensed cab drivers.
