None of this would be a problem if everyone would just own their own damn car like a normal person.
I own several cars, and use Uber when traveling to places like San Fran, NYC, DC, etc. I don’t always want to rent a car, if I’m just going from my hotel to a meeting. I hate cabs in most cities.
One could walk. One could take the bus. One could book a closer hotel. One could do any number of things other than engage a gypsy cab.
All beside the point. None of these rape stories include statements from a cab company executive threatening the reporter and the reporter’s family for writing the story.
This wouldn’t be a problem if you’d just stay home like a normal person.
Sorry, my comment was an allusion to the thread the OP linked to.
Where in your New Delhi Uber driver rape story was there a threat to the reporter or their family?
OP, did you steal my Uber uber alles, or is it so obvious that anyone would think of it?
Yeah, never mind, I know, geddoudahere.
I live in one of the states that has extremely tightly regulated cab service. It’s also the state with the highest per capita drunk driving fatalities. That’s mostly because it’s a rural state, but I do strongly believe that the absolutely abysmal taxi service in all the cities is a contributor. Getting a cab around bar closing time is going to usually be a multi-hour affair even on a weeknight, let alone a weekend or holiday. (And for the most part public transit is limited and shuts down early.)
From the cab company’s point of view, there’s no point hiring more drivers and buying more cars to accommodate the occasional surges since they’re not competing with anyone. If there were even rival traditional cab companies allowed there would at least be some pressure to compete on quality of service, not just running the barest level of service that maximizes profits. Something like Uber would be a godsend, but for now it’s illegal and can’t operate here. There is a bill in the legislature to change that, so my fingers are crossed!
And you mention pollution. In my city there was a lengthy court battle a couple years back between the entrenched Yellow Cab franchise in town who were still running nothing by Chevy Caprices (huge ex-cop cars that are at the newest 1994 vintage) and a startup that wanted to run Prius taxi cabs. They finally got the go ahead to operate in a very limited capacity, so thanks to the regulations most taxi rides are still given in 15 MPG cars with very old emissions control systems. You still can’t reliably get a ride from either at 2:00 AM.
I agree that “something like Uber” would be an improvement over the way you describe the status quo. That something like Uber, however, should not be Uber.
Uber is very much like Uber. Most people are very happy with it, those who are not, can take a cab.
Or they could just own their own damn cab like a normal person. :mad:
What exactly are you proposing that’s like Uber but not Uber?
I think the basic point is that the car/ride-sharing app model is an extremely good way to get around the peak demand issues that plague traditional taxi services. I think your objection is that you think since the drivers and cars aren’t specifically licensed like taxis there’s less oversight. I think you’re making a flawed assumption there. For the most part, taxi licensing is more about the government trying to fiddle with the economics of the taxi business to achieve whatever specific goals it was trying to achieve 50 or 60 years ago when the rules were set up, not about assuring quality/safety of drivers or cars in any but the most basic sense.
I just figured you were Uber uber alles allies.
There’s no reason “traditional taxi services” can’t use an app model.
Hell, here’s one that probably works in your city.
There’s nothing wrong with having an app. The app is not the basis of my objection. The basis of my objection is that Uber drivers are not licensed like taxi drivers, they are not insured like taxi drivers, their vehicles are not held to the standards that taxis are, they are not vetted or supervised like taxi drivers are, they do not offer guaranteed consisten fares like taxis do, and they operate outside of regulatory schemes specifically designed to limit the number of taxis on the road.
Look I don’t use Uber. Not even sure if it’s offered here, but just using an app isn’t the issue. It’s that Uber has a model for responding to peak and slack demand times. Something traditional cab companies seem to not give a shit about.
It’s not Uber that’s the problem here, it’s that the regulatory system is not keeping up with the times due to entrenched interests (surprise, surprise).
That’s just hailing a cab online. It’s not going to make extra cabs materialize when there’s none to send.
The problem with peak demand is that it doesn’t make sense for a cab company to buy extra cars and hire extra drivers for occasional spikes in demand. The ridesharing apps by changing the prices with demand can in effect bring in extra cars in when they’re needed, which the traditional cab companies can’t.
Also, FTR, Uber has a $1 Million insurance policy that covers their drivers when they’re carrying customers (cite), which I think is pretty comparable to what most taxis carry.
And that model is commonly referred to as “price gouging”, which we as a society decided sometime around a century ago it was in the best interest of the consumer (that’s you!) to prohibit.
And yet the consumer appears to like the service. Go figure.
How about that DeNiro, though?
It won’t materialize Uber drivers that don’t exist, either.
And the average junkie has nothing but good things to say about his dealer.
Is that an argument for legalization?