I love that uber feels entitled to get the same deal as taxis. Wow. Like zero self awareness. Pay for medallions, get regulated, and all the other business that come with being a taxi and maybe you too can use the taxi lanes. Such BS.
Amazing, isn't it? They insist they aren't a taxi company, except when it suits them. What really amazes is the naked and highly public inconsistency. This isn't some subtle thing; it's roughly what you'd expect from a 6 year old who's trapped himself with a lie. Why are people falling all over themselves to give these simpletons billions?
Because they have a very compelling future and a really strong product. They evoke discussion on the economics of car ownership and have made transportation accessible/convenient for a lot of people who can't afford cars.
I feel there is a stereotype of Uber that it's mostly used by rich, spoiled, college students and young folk. I used to believe that as well, but since working on my own startup in the restaurant industry, I've seen how a lot of blue collar workers like chefs who really do rely on Uber for day-to-day transportation or supplemental income when their paychecks aren't enough.
As far as I can tell, the discussion is always around the latest petulant demand by Uber's execs for some special concession from the public or the state. I haven't seen much discussion of "the economics of car ownership", probably because most of the people "sharing" their cars are driving 98% Uber miles and 2% their own. It's not a carpool. It's not a car-sharing service. It's a taxi service, like any other, and everyone knows it.
It doesn't matter how we categorize Uber. (We can just call it a platform.) What is way more important is what Uber means to a customer. The average person in SF knows is that Uber is cheaper than a taxi, more plentiful in supply, and more convenient.
So it doesn't matter what the discussion is about, since the core product hasn't changed. It provides utility to both the avid users and occasional users like me. And that's why there are people giving these "simpletons" money.
Now with Uber, people who out of budget don't have to ever consider buying/leasing a car. Even those who do have cars are starting to see just how affordable it is to Uber around. http://blog.samaltman.com/uber-vs-car-ownership
As for people using their cars to drive "98% Uber miles", that's their decision. And it's a pretty logical one if you don't have a stable, decent-paying job to begin with.
- You already own the car and are going to be paying for maintenance and gas and DMV fees anyways, which isn't cheap. Since chances are, you're already living/driving around that area, you might as well just drive a few extra miles here and there to earn a few bucks.
- Cars depreciate fast. It's not like you will get substantial value when you resell if you've kept your mileage low. Maybe it's a few hundred dollars, but given the thousands you already paid for the car, you might as well drive it and earn money with it.
- Your car can become an asset if you can make it one via Uber. It can't be an investment if it's losing value as soon as it rolls out of the dealership. Otherwise, it'll just be sitting in your garage as a liability, collecting dust and you'll just be waiting for the eventual yearly bills from DMV/mechanic. Might as well go out and make money with it if you need to offset your costs.
You are right it doesn't matter how Uber is classified -- just the vehicles being permitted on to the section of Market Street in question.
If the vehicle is not one of the permitted kinds of vehicles, it gets ticketed.
Uber is really irrelevant. The original article title is link-baity. From what I have heard, they didn't even show up at the hearing and most of the public comment was in favor of the closure.
The other option which you conveniently omitted is car sharing, which became established in San Francisco in 2001 and has tens of thousands of vehicles available.
Generally the only trend I see in uber discussions are toxic derailments by people like you screwing up any discussion. It's obviously a good thing, saves drunk driving deaths and "designated driver" has become a thing of the past.
No, people blinding defending ride-sharing is the derailment. It's not about whether or not ride-sharing is a thing, it's about the legal gray area these companies operate in and the entitlements they claim with it. The concept is not the issue, the companies behind it are.
Not really, drunk driving deaths are saved, you should tell this story to parents who have had their kids die. I had 2 stories on my facebook feed recently about lives ruined due to drunk driving. Stop overstating the case.
What prevents drunk driving deaths is not driving while drunk. There are plenty of ways to avoid that. Decades before Uber existed, the big PSA push was "call a taxi!" Then the designated driver came into vogue. In large cities at least, almost no one drives to bars at all; the plan is always to use transit or taxis. Of course today even small towns have taxi services that trawl the bar areas around closing time, so you rarely even have to call (or have the bartender call for you). To the extent that Uber makes any difference here, it's solely by providing additional taxis, which any taxi company can do.
This might be the weakest defense of Uber I've ever read.
Not really, your ability to contemplate alternatives is reduced significantly, impulsive people and people with EF deficits by definition have a lowered ability to mentally represent alternate outcomes and are more prone to drinking, you cannot tell them to not drink because of how their brain processes choices and the economy of outcomes, if these people take an uber there and back they will be good and saved.
I have plenty of defenses, it is yours that is weak.
At no time did I suggest that people not drink. I suggested that the solution to drunk driving wrecks and deaths is that people not drink and drive. You've completely glossed over the relevant point, which is that people who have chosen to drink need to look for ways to get home that don't involve driving. A taxi service, like Uber, is one way to do that. There are many taxi services; any will do for this purpose.
Dude it is easily understood that drinking reduces executive functioning which by definition is your ability to contemplate alternative outcomes and makes you choose economically poor ones, so by definition they are very unlikely to think "I shouldn't drive" it reduces your ability to contemplate those outcomes. You are assuming some neurologically stable state that is not distributed evenly.
But if they took an uber there, they do not have the option to drink and drive either way. See Russell Barkley's last book for EF I can spam quotes if needed.
Not sure I agree. Whatever reason the city has to allow cabs on market should equally apply to uber or other mass transit. The reason they want to allow cabs could be because it optimizes transportation for the residents of the city if there is less car owners and more shared vehicles. That would apply to uber as well. It could alternatively be that the city believes professional drivers (those that do it for a living) are safer drivers than the average car owner. This would apply equally for uber as well. I can't think of a reason that the city would want to allow taxis but not ubers to use market.
In fact the only thing I can think of is that the city actually supports the crazy medallion monopoly we've built which is insane.
My guess would be enforcement. How do you identify uber drivers? If I sometimes drive for Uber but am not currently driving for them what stops me from putting up my amber sign when I drive there?
Those pink mustaches and glowing blue uber signs probab eliminate 90% of the fraud. Couple that with a few sting operations once every 6-12 months and I doubt there would be much fraud.
Uber claims to be "ride sharing" so no, they shouldn't be allowed, if personal cars aren't. If they want to be treated like taxis, then they can become taxis. Uber drives aren't supposed to be "professional drivers" so why do you think they are safer than other drivers?
Uber provides a superior version of the same service, getting more SF residents where they want to be, faster, cheaper. (Uber thus also better advances other civic goals like getting more private vehicles off the road, and eliminating wasteful parking.)
So why shouldn't Uber drivers have the same access to shared public infrastructure? We want roads maximally employed for the benefit of residents, not offered as a perk to narrow guilds.
Do you have zero self-awareness about how frivolously bureaucratic and obsequious your focus on "medallions" and "getting regulated" sounds? What's wrong with judging outputs, rather than politically-assigned credentials?
That's the problem with simply saying "taxis are regulated because of externalities, so they deserve special privileges". Taxis are among the worst, most aggressive drivers on the streets. Medallions mean there are less of them, which is good, but a better system is allowing companies like Uber to take over. Uber drivers are much better than taxi drivers in my experience.
My experience as a frequent bicycle commuter is the exact opposite. Taxi drivers are usually the most defensive and courteous drivers on the road; I assume it's because they know that they could be out of a job with one mistake. The only two serious incidents I've had with cars, on the other hand, were both caused by reckless Uber drivers.
I've never been to SF - but where I live Taxi drivers are usually the most ruthless drivers. Not the stupid "I have no idea what I'm doing" ones, but the ones who'll do everything to be quick, no matter the casualties.
