Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Taxi and limo companies upset over competition from new ride-sharing tech companies. Go figure   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 56
    More: Obvious, limousines, Uber, private car  
•       •       •

1040 clicks; posted to Business » on 07 Mar 2014 at 10:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 08:43:45 AM  
And rightly so.

For some reason, the fact that Uber, Lyft etc are not paying for full liability insurance, nor paying for cab licenses, and their drivers aren't required to have the same licensing as cabs have, for some reason rankles the cab driving community.

This has been a raging war on my local town's forum in the past couple of months. Somehow, Uber has managed to capture the media and promotions dialog. They're just a startup (backed by Goldman-Sachs and a host of venture capitalists - deep pockets). They just want competition (without paying the same fees as cab companies). They're just providing a fair price (sure they are, they have less costs due to less fees and insurance).

Even the marketing name. They aren't cab companies - they are "Ride Shares."

Its become full on politics. I was push-polled on it this week. A New Yorker called up (heavy accent, told me he was calling from there) and wanted to know my opinion. Sample questions: "Do you favor breaking up the cab monopoly by using ride shares?" "If an election were held today, would you be in favor of opening up competition to other companies?"

After a few of these I pointed out to him only one side in this fight has the deep pockets and the incentive to hire people to do phone polling - and that's the side with the east coast bank backing its venture. He chucked. Then I pointed out that if an east coast bank-backed venture was going to be messing around in local Seattle politics, they at least should bother to hire local-sounding voices.

And then I hung up.

It's amazing. The cab guys do alright, some are assholes, some are great. Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.

A more suspicious fellow than myself might suspect they have paid opinion-shapers hitting all the forums and posting a constant barrage of one-sided opinion to win social media. Given that we've seen this is a thing in other political contexts.

There's been a ton of one-sided posting on it. Let's see if more happens. They never address the points of the "Ride Share" companies not paying the same fees as cabs or having the same licensing and insurance. Its always "I love Uber, Uber gives me great service, why should I be forced to use the cabs if I don't want to?"
 
2014-03-07 09:08:26 AM  
I used Uber for the first time in Dallas last weekend and LOVED it! They were on the spot when, the cars VERY clean and the drivers very friendly and professional. I highly recommend the service.

And if you use the promo code s2uaz you get a $20 credit on the first ride*.


*disclaimer: I get a credit too. When you sign up, you'll get a promo code to share as well. Tell your friends!
 
2014-03-07 09:24:36 AM  
My hobby used to be molesting and killing hitchhikers, but I had to give it up because everyone stopped hitchhiking, because too many hitchhikers were getting molested and killed.

I'm glad there are companies like Uber and Ryde to get people more confident about accepting rides from perfect strangers again. It makes practicing my hobby that much easier.

Use the promo code d8ryp when you sign up and I'll give you a special bonus for your first ride!

/The bonus is semen
 
2014-03-07 10:53:45 AM  

Generation_D: And rightly so.

For some reason, the fact that Uber, Lyft etc are not paying for full liability insurance, nor paying for cab licenses, and their drivers aren't required to have the same licensing as cabs have, for some reason rankles the cab driving community.


The insurance aspect of this, and subsequent civil liability, will lead to some kind of regulation. I bet if most of us actually read our insurance policies on our cars, we would see that operating a "for hire" car service is a violation of the policy agreement. Meaning if you get in a wreck, your insurance company can say, "Who, him? He's not our insured because he violated the TOS. He's on his own."

Seems to me a smart insurance company would try to look at the actuarial aspects and come up with a "rideshare service" rider to market.
 
2014-03-07 10:56:54 AM  
Sounds like it will become interesting when the first real case of an Uber-related car crash happens and there are injury cases etc to settle.  Then the insurance money will get behind taxis and that should be the end of it.
 
2014-03-07 10:59:30 AM  

Generation_D: And rightly so.

For some reason, the fact that Uber, Lyft etc are not paying for full liability insurance, nor paying for cab licenses, and their drivers aren't required to have the same licensing as cabs have, ...


If those are true, that's a mighty big legal risk, right? I recall the suit in Oakland/SanFran brought on by cab drivers not to long ago about 'licensing'...( I think). But not having full liability insurance is downright negligent in this case, isn't it? Or is your acceptance to use their transportation how they wave all liability in the case of your injury? Would that be legal?

That said, I'll be looking for these companies the next time I fly!
 
2014-03-07 11:26:34 AM  
Competition is bad for a "free market enterprise" capitalist America.


 snicker.
 
2014-03-07 11:31:24 AM  

Unobtanium: Generation_D: And rightly so.

For some reason, the fact that Uber, Lyft etc are not paying for full liability insurance, nor paying for cab licenses, and their drivers aren't required to have the same licensing as cabs have, for some reason rankles the cab driving community.

The insurance aspect of this, and subsequent civil liability, will lead to some kind of regulation. I bet if most of us actually read our insurance policies on our cars, we would see that operating a "for hire" car service is a violation of the policy agreement. Meaning if you get in a wreck, your insurance company can say, "Who, him? He's not our insured because he violated the TOS. He's on his own."

Seems to me a smart insurance company would try to look at the actuarial aspects and come up with a "rideshare service" rider to market.


Yellow Cab of Dallas paid off city council members in an attempt to get Uber banned. They brought up insurance and lack of printed reciepts and had Vice investigate.

Investigation by the local rag, however, showed Yellow Cab didn't carry the mandated insurance either.

Printed reciepts are still a huge issue.
 
2014-03-07 11:32:30 AM  

Generation_D: It's amazing. The cab guys do alright, some are assholes, some are great. Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.


Somehow?  How is this at all surprising?

Pros: Cheaper rides
Cons: Nothing relevant to the person receiving cheaper rides
 
2014-03-07 11:34:43 AM  

Generation_D: For some reason, the fact that Uber, Lyft etc are not paying for full liability insurance, nor paying for cab licenses, and their drivers aren't required to have the same licensing as cabs have, for some reason rankles the cab driving community.


Small nitpick, but Uber is a modernized sedan service.  The branch that handles rideshare is UberX.  I don't think the sedans are a problem, but there are some major issues that need to be worked out with the rideshare stuff.  The biggest in my mind are the lack of appropriate licensing and that most of the rideshare drivers are using residential insurance that's not going to cover them at all while they're on the clock.
 
2014-03-07 11:36:04 AM  

MooseMuffin: Generation_D: It's amazing. The cab guys do alright, some are assholes, some are great. Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.

Somehow?  How is this at all surprising?

Pros: Cheaper rides
Cons: Nothing relevant to the person receiving cheaper rides


Nothing relevant unless the Uber driver is in a wreck or does something to get sued, which is only a matter of time.

Then it's going to be this sh*t-storm of wtf did you allow them to compete for cab business without being insured like cabs are? We've nobody to hold accountable for driver liability...
 
2014-03-07 11:40:31 AM  

Generation_D: It's amazing. The cab guys do alright, some are assholes, some are great. Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.


And I think the reason cabs are losing on this front is that Uber is still too new for enough people to have dreadful experiences with it.  Anyone that's spent some time in a city knows someone or has personally dealt with a shiatty cabby in an ill-maintained cab that's using a broken meter or ridiculous route to run up the costs.  That's not yet true of these ride-sharing companies.
 
2014-03-07 11:43:24 AM  

mcreadyblue: Printed reciepts are still a huge issue.


I had a receipt in my email within minutes. I'm cool with that.
 
2014-03-07 11:57:40 AM  

Grapple: Sounds like it will become interesting when the first real case of an Uber-related car crash happens and there are injury cases etc to settle.  Then the insurance money will get behind taxis and that should be the end of it.


You're not the only one to bring this up, but as Uber is in many major cities - DC, SF, and Pittsburgh (though I might be thinking of Lyft) just off the top of my head - I can't help but wonder if Uber crashes have happened already. Frankly, I'd be shocked if they haven't.

So what has been the disposition of claims filed by Uber drivers? Is there just massive amounts of fraud because they didn't report that they were using their car for business when the crash happened? Are car insurance companies not investigating claims as they should be?
 
2014-03-07 12:08:10 PM  
How are printed receipts a problem?

Maybe things are more modern now, but when I used to take cabs on a regular basis, every time I asked for a receipt they handed me a printed receipt, but with no amounts filled in.

That was cool because I needed them for expense reports.

/I was honest though.  I could have maybe gotten away with a few dollars over the actual fare, but it wasn't worth it.  If I had gotten greedy, I would have been called on it.
 
2014-03-07 12:15:35 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I can't help but wonder if Uber crashes have happened already.


Uber sued over girl's death in S.F.
 
2014-03-07 12:35:38 PM  
At least in Canada, most residential auto insurance policies are void if it can be proven you were running it as a business (which most of these Ride-share things could easily be viewed as, from an insurance perspective.. you are getting paid to drive someone somewhere)

Now, the alternative "non-dispatch" Taxi companies,  like Hailo, are a whole other ballgame.

* full disclosure... used hailo, loved it.  Easy to hail and pay for a taxi with a smartphone..
 
2014-03-07 12:59:19 PM  
Regulate me, regulate me!

What's it to you if I want to get into a car that is probably uninsured?

Do you ask for a certificate of insurance from your friend every time you ride in their car?

I think it should be illegal for my co-worker to drive me to the airport for $20 or a meal to be paid later.  I mean, who is regulating his insurance.  He's not licensed as a cab!  Where's his medallion?

Won't somebody think of the politically connected medallion owners?!
 
2014-03-07 01:02:51 PM  
The death throes and screams of agony from dying business models always brings a smile to my face,
 
2014-03-07 01:06:13 PM  

Generation_D: And rightly so.

For some reason, the fact that Uber, Lyft etc are not paying for full liability insurance, nor paying for cab licenses, and their drivers aren't required to have the same licensing as cabs have, for some reason rankles the cab driving community.

This has been a raging war on my local town's forum in the past couple of months. Somehow, Uber has managed to capture the media and promotions dialog. They're just a startup (backed by Goldman-Sachs and a host of venture capitalists - deep pockets). They just want competition (without paying the same fees as cab companies). They're just providing a fair price (sure they are, they have less costs due to less fees and insurance).

Even the marketing name. They aren't cab companies - they are "Ride Shares."

Its become full on politics. I was push-polled on it this week. A New Yorker called up (heavy accent, told me he was calling from there) and wanted to know my opinion. Sample questions: "Do you favor breaking up the cab monopoly by using ride shares?" "If an election were held today, would you be in favor of opening up competition to other companies?"

After a few of these I pointed out to him only one side in this fight has the deep pockets and the incentive to hire people to do phone polling - and that's the side with the east coast bank backing its venture. He chucked. Then I pointed out that if an east coast bank-backed venture was going to be messing around in local Seattle politics, they at least should bother to hire local-sounding voices.

And then I hung up.

It's amazing. The cab guys do alright, some are assholes, some are great. Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.

A more suspicious fellow than myself might suspect they have paid opinion-shapers hitting all the forums and posting a constant barrage of one-si ...



While emphasizing the resources of Uber you are implying that the Cab companies are somehow at a disadvantage and that the sole target of the ire is the UberX service.  That's not the case at all.  In following the Chicago debate its become apparent that the major owners of taxi medallions in the city are, in fact, based out east (in fact the owner taking point on the issue is domiciled in Connecticut).  In fact, in the suit they launched against the city, they have leveled complaints against the TAXI portion of the service saying that Uber co-opts their cabs and hilariously enough are arguing that it's discriminatory because Uber favors owners of smartphones and therefore creates an "underclass" of non-smartphone users since taxi drivers using Uber won't respond to hails (which they argued without irony despite the experience of African-Americans...which I observed once again last night).  This is funny since, when it comes to liability, these same owners would emphatically argue that they aren't responsible for cab conduct since drivers are independent contractors who lease the cabs from the medallion owner.

In any event, I've dealt with both taxi radio dispatch services and Uber and the service offered by Uber was miles ahead of that offered by radio dispatch.  I've been caught in the rain, at a convention center, and told by radio dispatch to walk to a main road to hail a cab since they couldn't actually dispatch a cab to my location (which was a problem since I was with my disabled mother).  Conversely I can get a cab to come to me using Uber.  Frankly, after that horrific experience alone (let alone all the other crappy experiences with radio dispatch), the cab companies can go straight to hell.
 
2014-03-07 01:09:13 PM  
Approximately same as AirB&B.  No business liability insurance is the big one.  You get hurt in one of these cabs (or B&B's) and their insurance company will tell you to GTFO their office.  They are not insuring a business enterprise and are not responsible for commercial liability.  You will be on your own.  You can sue for and probably end up owning the wrecked cab and any other things you can win from a cab driver but I doubt that will cover your obligations.  Legal discovery can surely find the history of credit charge records for your cab as well as any relationship your car/driver has with their company so denying a commercial transaction took place won't fly.
 
2014-03-07 01:12:07 PM  

Generation_D: They never address the points of the "Ride Share" companies not paying the same fees as cabs or having the same licensing and insurance.


I agree with you and I will do anything to stop seeing stupid pink moustaches on cars.
 
2014-03-07 01:15:27 PM  

Generation_D: And rightly so.

For some reason, the fact that Uber, Lyft etc are not paying for full liability insurance, nor paying for cab licenses, and their drivers aren't required to have the same licensing as cabs have, for some reason rankles the cab driving community.

This has been a raging war on my local town's forum in the past couple of months. Somehow, Uber has managed to capture the media and promotions dialog. They're just a startup (backed by Goldman-Sachs and a host of venture capitalists - deep pockets). They just want competition (without paying the same fees as cab companies). They're just providing a fair price (sure they are, they have less costs due to less fees and insurance).


Maybe the cab companies should fight the gov't to reduce/remove the regulations placed on them rather than suck the gov't dick to force their competition out of business.

Oh wait, they're happy with their monopoly and their artificial supply controls they've implemented
 
2014-03-07 01:18:37 PM  

Generation_D: It's amazing. The cab guys do alright, some are assholes, some are great. Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.



Also, just wanted to point out that you are wrong on this front as well insofar as you think this provides a degree of protection to the public.  Yes the medallion is contingent on purchasing liability insurance that provides at least the minimum amount of coverage required by ordinance or regulation.  However, the DRIVER isn't subject to the same requirement and the current business model involves silo'ing medallions in individual shell corporations (isolating the medallion from other medallions and assets) and then leasing the medallion & car to an "independent contractor" which is also known as the driver.  Since the liability coverage only covers the actions, or the negligence, of the insured (e.g. the medallion owner) and there is no agency relationship between the medallion owner and the lessor driver of the taxi this arrangement effectively limits the liability of the owner to the mechanical failures of the vehicle.  Since the vast majority of accidents will be the fault of the driver this means that passengers are unlikely to recover from the liability insurance provided under the medallion...leaving the injured passengers, other drivers, and/or pedestrians to pursue the driver and whatever insurance he may have.
 
2014-03-07 01:29:01 PM  

Generation_D: Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.


I can't tell if you are serious or not but I'm going to bite anyways.  You have it exactly backwards.  The people who have been gaming the system have been cab companies and their drivers.  Not uber or lyft.

/real competition - how does that work?
 
2014-03-07 01:36:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: You're not the only one to bring this up, but as Uber is in many major cities - DC, SF, and Pittsburgh (though I might be thinking of Lyft) just off the top of my head - I can't help but wonder if Uber crashes have happened already. Frankly, I'd be shocked if they haven't.

So what has been the disposition of claims filed by Uber drivers? Is there just massive amounts of fraud because they didn't report that they were using their car for business when the crash happened? Are car insurance companies not investigating claims as they should be?


Uber enforces insurance just like taxi companies.  I happen to be in a Uber vehicle when hit the car in San Francisco.  They quickly exchanged insurance information and we were on our way.

It was a horrible experience and it drove me back to using taxi cabs for fear for my life.  Oh wait - no it didn't. Because the very definition of a bad experience is having to use a San Francisco taxi cab or ... shudder ... BART.
 
2014-03-07 01:42:49 PM  

pissnmoan: You get hurt in one of these cabs (or B&B's) and their insurance company will tell you to GTFO their office.  They are not insuring a business enterprise and are not responsible for commercial liability.



The commercial liability carrier for the cab company will deny the claim since the accident was not (as is the case in most accidents) the fault of the cab company due to the quality or condition of the cab but rather the fault of the driver who is an independent contractor.  Commercial liability insurance only covers employees of the insured and most cab drivers aren't employed by the cab companies.
 
2014-03-07 02:19:57 PM  
Humorous take on ride-sharing (from PBS of all places)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0vqW8EYLK8
 
2014-03-07 02:39:44 PM  
I recently attended a conference in Manhattan.  And along with the registration materials, came a coupon from a promotional rate ($60 or so) for a ride from Uber, to bring you in from JFK.  Of course, a yellow cab from JFK is about $60.  And when you really get down to it, do you want some dude in a Prius driving you around New York or do you want a professional?  I did not realize there was a political discussion around cabs.  I mean, they are cheap enough and take you wherever... and even into some unplanned mischief if you've got time.
 
2014-03-07 02:45:19 PM  

Two Dogs Farking: My hobby used to be molesting and killing hitchhikers, but I had to give it up because everyone stopped hitchhiking, because too many hitchhikers were getting molested and killed.

I'm glad there are companies like Uber and Ryde to get people more confident about accepting rides from perfect strangers again. It makes practicing my hobby that much easier.

Use the promo code d8ryp when you sign up and I'll give you a special bonus for your first ride!

/The bonus is semen


Is that really your promo code?  Because based on your description and the fact that your code is the license plate equivalent of 'date rape', I'm intrigued and want to subscribe to your newsletter.  Is there a bonus for signing up for your newsletter?
 
2014-03-07 02:46:47 PM  

gingerjet: Generation_D: Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.

I can't tell if you are serious or not but I'm going to bite anyways.  You have it exactly backwards.  The people who have been gaming the system have been cab companies and their drivers.  Not uber or lyft.

/real competition - how does that work?


Cab companies have to carry liability insurance, while Uber and Lyft only have the drivers' own liability. So its not fair competition.

Like I predicted, the Uber and Lyft shills are out in force. I really have to wonder who is paying some of you guys.
 
2014-03-07 03:07:41 PM  
Doesn't matter much. The insurance companies will put a stop to it very quickly. They'll remind their customers that they can't act as a commercial service. A few incidents will be in the news because a judge sided with the insurance companies and that'll be that.
 
2014-03-07 03:13:00 PM  

Russ1642: Doesn't matter much. The insurance companies will put a stop to it very quickly. They'll remind their customers that they can't act as a commercial service. A few incidents will be in the news because a judge sided with the insurance companies and that'll be that.


Doubtful.  If people cared about their personal insurance they'd have higher limits, buy flood insurance, and buy renters insurance.

But they don't.
 
2014-03-07 03:14:16 PM  

MugzyBrown: Regulate me, regulate me!

What's it to you if I want to get into a car that is probably uninsured?

Do you ask for a certificate of insurance from your friend every time you ride in their car?

I think it should be illegal for my co-worker to drive me to the airport for $20 or a meal to be paid later.  I mean, who is regulating his insurance.  He's not licensed as a cab!  Where's his medallion?

Won't somebody think of the politically connected medallion owners?!


Depends on the friend. If I drive someone's else's car I always check the registration and insurance. I don't need to find out after I get pulled over.
 
2014-03-07 03:16:13 PM  
Pretty much any method of transportation is better than using cabs in DC.

Uber? Yes.
Train? Yes.
Hired car? Yes.
Unicycle? Yes
Van full of puppies and candy? Yes.
 
2014-03-07 03:16:37 PM  

Russ1642: Depends on the friend. If I drive someone's else's car I always check the registration and insurance. I don't need to find out after I get pulled over


I mean as a passenger.  Do you ask to see their limits of liability when you step in their car as a passenger?  Do you run an MVR?
 
2014-03-07 03:16:54 PM  

Generation_D: Like I predicted, the Uber and Lyft shills are out in force. I really have to wonder who is paying some of you guys.


Nobody yet but you can by signing up for Uber and using promo code s2uaz! It pays YOU too! Thanks!
 
2014-03-07 03:22:41 PM  

Generation_D: Like I predicted, the Uber and Lyft shills are out in force. I really have to wonder who is paying some of you guys.


Yup. People who disagree with you are all shills. You've really got this whole "internet" thing down, chief.
 
2014-03-07 03:39:21 PM  

gingerjet: Because the very definition of a bad experience is having to use a San Francisco taxi cab or ... shudder ... BART.


MUNI buses can be a pain in the ass sometimes, but I never had a problem with BART or cabs in SF.
 
2014-03-07 03:42:02 PM  
Oh boy, I get to use slut vs. whore twice in a row.

Ride sluts, people who want to go somewhere and happen to let someone join in going the same direction. These could sharply cut into ride whore profits by providing the demanded service free or very cheaply.

What the argument is really about is brothel ride whore vs amateurs turning tricks.
 
2014-03-07 03:46:30 PM  

TheSwizz: Two Dogs Farking: My hobby used to be molesting and killing hitchhikers, but I had to give it up because everyone stopped hitchhiking, because too many hitchhikers were getting molested and killed.

I'm glad there are companies like Uber and Ryde to get people more confident about accepting rides from perfect strangers again. It makes practicing my hobby that much easier.

Use the promo code d8ryp when you sign up and I'll give you a special bonus for your first ride!

/The bonus is semen

Is that really your promo code?  Because based on your description and the fact that your code is the license plate equivalent of 'date rape', I'm intrigued and want to subscribe to your newsletter.  Is there a bonus for signing up for your newsletter?


blog.usnavyseals.com

/Lots of Semen
 
2014-03-07 03:57:11 PM  

Generation_D: And rightly so.

For some reason, the fact that Uber, Lyft etc are not paying for full liability insurance, nor paying for cab licenses, and their drivers aren't required to have the same licensing as cabs have, for some reason rankles the cab driving community.

This has been a raging war on my local town's forum in the past couple of months. Somehow, Uber has managed to capture the media and promotions dialog. They're just a startup (backed by Goldman-Sachs and a host of venture capitalists - deep pockets). They just want competition (without paying the same fees as cab companies). They're just providing a fair price (sure they are, they have less costs due to less fees and insurance).

Even the marketing name. They aren't cab companies - they are "Ride Shares."

Its become full on politics. I was push-polled on it this week. A New Yorker called up (heavy accent, told me he was calling from there) and wanted to know my opinion. Sample questions: "Do you favor breaking up the cab monopoly by using ride shares?" "If an election were held today, would you be in favor of opening up competition to other companies?"

After a few of these I pointed out to him only one side in this fight has the deep pockets and the incentive to hire people to do phone polling - and that's the side with the east coast bank backing its venture. He chucked. Then I pointed out that if an east coast bank-backed venture was going to be messing around in local Seattle politics, they at least should bother to hire local-sounding voices.

And then I hung up.

It's amazing. The cab guys do alright, some are assholes, some are great. Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.

A more suspicious fellow than myself might suspect they have paid opinion-shapers hitting all the forums and posting a constant barrage of one-si ...


There's a simple reason why Uber won the argument in DC so easily: cabs here suck.  The cab companies have fought innovation for years, they wanted to keep the zone system, they didn't want everything to be metered, they the didn't want to take credit cards, they refuse service to riders based upon race and final destination, they refuse to maintain their vehicles (have working AC),  Etc. Etc. Etc.  They've FINALLY been drug into the 21st century and have credit card machines, meters, and a non-discrimination policy that's supposed to be enforceable.  It only took 20 years.

Those that fail to innovate when they have a monopoly get screwed in the end.

fark em.
 
2014-03-07 04:05:19 PM  

aedude01: Generation_D: And rightly so.

For some reason, the fact that Uber, Lyft etc are not paying for full liability insurance, nor paying for cab licenses, and their drivers aren't required to have the same licensing as cabs have, for some reason rankles the cab driving community.

This has been a raging war on my local town's forum in the past couple of months. Somehow, Uber has managed to capture the media and promotions dialog. They're just a startup (backed by Goldman-Sachs and a host of venture capitalists - deep pockets). They just want competition (without paying the same fees as cab companies). They're just providing a fair price (sure they are, they have less costs due to less fees and insurance).

Even the marketing name. They aren't cab companies - they are "Ride Shares."

Its become full on politics. I was push-polled on it this week. A New Yorker called up (heavy accent, told me he was calling from there) and wanted to know my opinion. Sample questions: "Do you favor breaking up the cab monopoly by using ride shares?" "If an election were held today, would you be in favor of opening up competition to other companies?"

After a few of these I pointed out to him only one side in this fight has the deep pockets and the incentive to hire people to do phone polling - and that's the side with the east coast bank backing its venture. He chucked. Then I pointed out that if an east coast bank-backed venture was going to be messing around in local Seattle politics, they at least should bother to hire local-sounding voices.

And then I hung up.

It's amazing. The cab guys do alright, some are assholes, some are great. Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.

A more suspicious fellow than myself might suspect they have paid opinion-shapers hitting all the forums and posting a constant barrage of one-si ...


They have the machines, but a lot of them still play the "oh, my credit card machine is broken!" game.

Ok, free ride or I call the taxi cab commission!

Of course, you might run into this problem.
 
2014-03-07 04:11:27 PM  

TheYeti: aedude01: Generation_D: Ok, free ride or I call the taxi cab commission!

Of course, you might run into this problem.


I read about that in the post.  Jesus, I would have pressed charges.
 
2014-03-07 04:19:00 PM  
All well and good until the first accident and you find out the driver's personal car insurance doesn't cover the use of a car for business purposes.
 
2014-03-07 04:23:09 PM  

aedude01: There's a simple reason why Uber won the argument in DC so easily: cabs here suck.


I've driven in NJ, PA, NY, MA (for a bit), MD, VA through FL, IL (Chicago), even in Israel. Until I'd lived in DC for 3 months, I had never been cut off twice on the same block, and that by a cabbie.

// the second time, when I honked to alert him to the Pauli Exclusion Principle's warnings about his attempted action, he gave ME the finger
// yes, I know PEP applies to subatomic particles - at the macro level, two objects still cannot occupy the same physical spacetime coordinates
 
2014-03-07 04:45:15 PM  

Generation_D: gingerjet: Generation_D: Then along comes these startups that want to game the system, not carry insurance is the big one, not pay their taxi licensing fees, and SOMEHOW they've managed to completely win the online debate on it so far.

I can't tell if you are serious or not but I'm going to bite anyways.  You have it exactly backwards.  The people who have been gaming the system have been cab companies and their drivers.  Not uber or lyft.

/real competition - how does that work?

Cab companies have to carry liability insurance, while Uber and Lyft only have the drivers' own liability. So its not fair competition.

Like I predicted, the Uber and Lyft shills are out in force. I really have to wonder who is paying some of you guys.


That's pretty rich coming from someone whose Boobies reads like a cab company press release before a city council hearing.
 
2014-03-07 05:13:10 PM  

Generation_D: Cab companies have to carry liability insurance, while Uber and Lyft only have the drivers' own liability. So its not fair competition.

Like I predicted, the Uber and Lyft shills are out in force. I really have to wonder who is paying some of you guys.



I thought my responses were thorough enough that they'd at least merit some kind of acknowledgement.  Being labeled as a paid shill though is just lazy though...especially for someone who wrote a tract for the poor downtrodden cab companies.
 
2014-03-07 05:25:42 PM  
Generation_D:

Like I predicted, the Uber and Lyft shills are out in force. I really have to wonder who is paying some of you guys.

And more importantly, where can I get on board? Paid shilling sounds like a sweet gig.
 
2014-03-07 05:53:41 PM  

runwiz: All well and good until the first accident and you find out the driver's personal car insurance doesn't cover the use of a car for business purposes.


And that it violates the lease/financing agreement if you don't own the car outright.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report