About 0.0000001%
But that won’t stop people from making that a huge flaw in Uber’s pricing model.
Taxis are, ultimately, part of the public transportation network; they’re there to ensure that people in a city can get around without a car or to places inaccessible by the rest of public transportation. And like the rest of public transportation, taxis are filthy, unpleasant, inefficient, and unreliable. On the other hand, it also means that they’re required to have fixed prices, a wide availability or routes, accessibility to people who don’t have smartphones or credit cards, etc.
They’re part of an artificial monopoly (consider the auction prices of medallions, for example, to indicate just how artificial that monopoly is) that results in higher prices for the consumer and poor service.
Uber, Lyft, etc. are not trying to supplant public transportation. Instead, they’ve found a smaller niche market that’s poorly served by the present system: tech-friendly people who want a more polished service without the wait times and unreliability, but don’t care about the fixed prices and wider availability of routes that taxis do provide. And if they do inexplicably wind up supplanting public transportation, great: People will have deliberately chosen to support a business they like over one they dislike. Hooray for capitalism.
Regarding the disaster scenario, perhaps Uber could revise their App to allow multiple customers to escape the danger in the same car. They could name this emergency function something catchy, like “Ride-Sharing.”
Yes. And the reason for that was because those unfortunates couldn’t afford the exorbitant Uber prices. :rolleyes:
You think that’s better than trying to make more rides available, by broadcasting the increased value of providing rides?
And value is the important point here - rides cost more at peak times precisely because they are more valuable at those times.
Or, “UberPool”.
I’ve used that before. It’s not uncommon for people at a train station I frequent to get an Uber when the train strands us (also, sadly, not uncommon this past winter :mad: ).
Sometimes we use Uberpool to split the fare automatically, sometimes you just trade cash and assume it ends up reasonably equitable. The way we generally form our pools is to announce loudly “F-this! I’m getting an Uber. I can take [N] people with me to [X place]” and we sort ourselves out.
IMO a much bigger issue, and one that has been touched on in this thread briefly, is the issue of insurance.
There is a court case going on right now in San Francisco where an Uber driver killed a six-year-old girl while he was logged into the app and driving around waiting to receive and accept a call. The driver has already been charged with manslaughter. Uber says their insurance is not responsible in this case because he wasn’t actually carrying any pasengers. The parents of the child are suing Uber, claiming they are responsible.
(To be fair, I have used Uber and I like their service, so I hope these problems can be sorted out in an agreeable way.)
This. I really wish the Richie Riches of the world would get it through their heads that not everyone has $20 to waste on saving our own lives from hurricanes. Some of us have to use that $20 on rice and beans to live.
Are there really people who rely on Uber and taxicabs to evacuate in the event of a hurricane? Don’t the authorities send in buses to evacuate people who don’t have their own cars? Are we just making up bullshit scenarios here?
Uber did, in fact, increase their prices at the time of the Australian hostage thing due to high demand. People who can afford it paying for cars leaving space for those who can’t on buses seems like a pretty good solution.
OK, but how often is this going to be an issue? Almost never, I think.
Taxis, at least in Seattle, are woefully under-insured. They are only required to cary $100,000, and that’s all they have. Not much if they kill or maim someone. I have no problem with Uber and taxis required to have $1 million policies.
Not in New Orleans!
Don’t most taxi/Uber drivers live in the same metro area that they work in? In case of a hurricane, won’t they be evacuating themselves and their own families?
I get the impression that most drivers are single, childless types who have the flexibility to go out Ubering whenever they like. That said, I think this “what about disasters?” stuff is silly. It’s not Uber’s job to save everyone in a disaster. I’m much more worried about their day-to-day operations, particularly as it pertains to liability issues.
::: blink-blink-blink :::
Excuse me, did you completely forget about the 15,000+ people left in the “Superdome” not only during but after Katrina? “Send buses into evacuate” my ass. 100,000 people were left in New Orleans despite the known risk of catastrophic flooding, the majority of which were poor, handicapped, without a vehicle, or all of the above. There weren’t enough buses, a lot of them ended up underwater, and it was an all-around clusterf***.
Here is a link that very briefly covers it. There a bunch more out there on the internet about this.
So no, not entirely hypothetical.
Sure, a few people stubbornly stayed because that was genuinely their choice. Tens of thousands stayed because they had no way to leave.
Again, not the usual circumstances. How many times are Uber or medallion cabs going to be the means by which people escape a natural disaster?
I agree with this.
Shame they weren’t given the chance to pay someone to drive them out, then. If only someone could come up with a way to connect them with drivers, at a price they both agree on.