Outpricing your competition by making a loss/no profit is a nasty tactic, especially when your competition can't compete at a loss (for whatever reasons) and then goes out of business, only for the surviving business to then rise their prices to whatever point they want, given that there is now no competition.
Is Uber less expensive than regular cabs?
My experience in Uber so far has been uniformly excellent and my experience in regular cabs has ranged between ok and dismal. I think I would probably be willing to pay around a 25% premium to use Uber over a regular cab.
The traditional taxi operators haven't needed to care about customer experience for so long, that I'm not sure they can change.
Uber in NZ also operates much closer to a Taxi too, drivers must have a P endorsement, which allows you to commercially charge passengers, and requires you to pass a test and have a govt run background check, and have a clearly visible govt issued ID card while carrying passengers.
Most of the drivers for uber are therefore former taxi drivers, who drive for uber because it pays better and gives better flexibility.
* U&L don't own the cars, so they don't need to enforce a price floor to stay n business. If the drivers in one city saturate the market and driving becomes unprofitable, U&L lose some rev-share, but no capital investments.
* Taxi companies are required to disclose their costs on the outside of their car (in most jurisdictions), meaning it can't change often like U&L's dynamic pricing and it also acts as a price floor where U&L don't have one.
* Also, U&L can hire more drivers than the fixed number of taxis in any jurisdiction defined by the government, thus moving the city higher on the supply curve and driving down the cost below what taxi companies need to cover their expenses. * More efficient (less down-time driving around)
* People use their own cars (no need to buy/maintain taxis)
* Less overhead (no need for managers, dispatchers, etc)
* No taxi medallions
* More popular, so more rides
* Subsidized by VC money (Okay, kinda snarky, but legitimate)
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/SF-jury-finds-Yellow-...
This article is pretty old at this point (2014) and I don't know if the situation has changed for the better. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/As-Uber-Lyft-Sidecar-grow...
Ignoring the people with disabilities, as they are more expensive to service is one (problematic) way to lower costs.
In my city one of the options (besides SUV, black car, etc) is for persons with disabilities. The app seems to have some options to switch between requesting a driver with a wheelchair-compatible car and the city's own paratransit service. I've never used it myself, so I can't comment on the implementation.
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/10/07/background-checks-cen...
http://www.cnet.com/news/ubers-background-checks-dont-catch-...
U/L do carry insurance for their drivers when they're driving a passenger, and it's probably more than the regular cab companies carry (which is why SF Yellow cab is going bankrupt: they weren't insured for enough for one of their incompetent drivers, according to the article). Also, U/L have deeper pockets than any local cab company/coop, so civil suits will net higher payouts too if it came to that.
As for health insurance, from what I've read a lot of cab drivers aren't full-time employees either, so they also don't get health insurance, or benefits.
In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail."
By that logic, stop visiting the doctor, using seat belts, or any safety device known to man because it can fail for some non-0 fraction of the time.
> U/L do carry insurance for their drivers when they're driving a passenger, and it's probably more than the regular cab companies carry (which is why SF Yellow cab is going bankrupt: they weren't insured for enough for one of their incompetent drivers, according to the article)
http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2015/02/09/uh-ohuber-has-...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/ubers-yawning-insurance...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrycampbell/2015/10/07/why-are...
> Drivers can answer no and effectively lie to their insurance company (while also committing insurance fraud) but still receive coverage, or they can say yes and they would be immediately denied coverage. Additionally, they could even be dropped from their policy for disclosing that they are a rideshare driver.
> Since it’s not really in Uber’s best interest to disclose the lack of collision coverage during Period 1, many drivers don’t discover that they’re not covered until it’s too late. I’ve been researching rideshare insurance options in Nevada since Uber went live and spoken with hundreds of Uber drivers yet we haven’t been able to find a single insurance carrier willing to insure rideshare drivers. Some carriers offer a commercial policy but the cost is prohibitive at $3,000-$5,000 a year.
> Meanwhile, risk-averse insurance companies have been excruciatingly slow to adapt to this new and innovative form of transportation. I maintain an up to date list of insurance options by state for Uber drivers on my site and you’ll notice that Nevada is not currently on that list. There literally isn’t a single option for drivers which unfortunately is somewhat typical. A majority of states in the US still don’t offer a rideshare friendly personal insurance or hybrid policy for Uber drivers which means a whole lot of drivers are forced to lie to their insurance carriers or find a different line of work.
There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state.
In fact there is an entire business built around the fact there are massive holes in that policy:
https://www.metromile.com/uber/
> Traditional auto insurance policies may not provide clear coverage for drivers who participate in ridesharing programs. The partnership between Uber and Metromile means you’re insured 24/7, whether you’re using your car for personal use or driving with Uber. Now, Metromile offers complete clarity to Uber driver partners.
The difference with Uber is the driver gets fucked instead of the Taxi/Uber company.
> As for health insurance, from what I've read a lot of cab drivers aren't full-time employees either, so they also don't get health insurance, or benefits.
I'm not even going to bother with this one. I've pointed out enough holes already.
You say this like it's a bad idea to hire people who were convicted of felonies who've served their time and are now out of jail.
> There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state.
> In fact there is an entire business built around the fact there are massive holes in that policy:
That "entire business" is "an auto insurance company". Funny that. You see "massive holes". I see "the market at work". Do you wish to force insurers to take on risks that they can't take in a fiscally responsible way?
Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft and Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while transporting a fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the time that they pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating their vehicle. [0][1][2]
As with all things political, it will take far too long for this to become the policy everywhere, but it's pretty much inevitable.
To analogize: just because many Red States like Alabama refused to accept no-strings-attached Federal subsidization of Obamacare premiums for their poor, and refused to use no-strings-attached Federal money to expand Medicare to cover those who fall into the "Medicare gap" doesn't mean that those programs are bad, or a disaster. It's just a fact of life that many politicians love to play football with other people's livelihoods.
[0] http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/05/29/a-look-at-farmers-new-in...
[1] http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/10/12/lyft-drivers-car...
[2] http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Fatal-accident-tests-...
Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. Did you not bother to read the link to the drunk girl who stupidly got into a car with one of these guys?
One of the main arguments proponents make about these services is driving people who have been drinking home and people in strange places home.
"Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there are clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired passengers." isn't even close to saying "HEY NO ONE HIRE FELONS".
If you want to engage in childish strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the problem I'm discussing, go troll someone else.
> Anyway. In CA, folks who drive for nontraditional taxi services like Lyft and Uber have access to (and are required to carry) coverage while transporting a fare, coverage between the time they accept that fare and the time that they pick up that fare, and all other times they are operating their vehicle. [0][1][2]
> But drivers have been incurring all sorts of risks when they use their personal vehicles for TNC work. During Period 1, Uber and Lyft do not offer collision (coverage for when the policyholder is at fault), comprehensive (for fire, theft and other damage), underinsured motorist coverage or medical payments. (They also do not offer those coverages for the succeeding periods, unless drivers carry them on their personal policies).
> The new insurance is offered by Farmers as a supplement — called an endorsement — to drivers’ personal auto policies, and it will cost an additional 8 percent of their premium. A smaller insurer, MetroMile, already offers individual ride-service insurance, but it’s exclusive to Uber drivers. That insurance costs a base rate plus a per-mile charge.
Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some bizarre reason(?)
The drivers themselves need to buy supplemental insurance or there is a gap in coverage during Period 1.
Wow.
Bro. A couple of things:
Humans who would launch unjustifiable assaults against other humans come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them are convicted felons. Most of them are not. A proper background check [0] discovers with a relatively high degree of certainty whether or not one is likely to assault another (among many other things).
It often takes a very, very long time before one can seal a felony conviction. "The guy who can't find solid work because he did a dramatically stupid thing a decade ago, despite the fact that he's a dramatically different and dramatically better guy now than he was then" is kinda archetypical.
A prior felony conviction, along with the degree of one's success at rehabilitation is just another datapoint to be considered in a proper background check.
> "Hey this one situation is risky, we shouldn't let them do X because there are clear instances of bad things happening because they pick up impaired passengers."
You say that like regular cabbies with clean records aren't not-infrequently accused of theft, assault, and swindling. :/
> Yes, your article agrees I'm correct despite you arguing with me for some bizarre reason(?)
Heh. You said:
> The difference [in regards to insurance coverage] with Uber is the driver gets fucked instead of the Taxi/Uber company. [1]
From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward about the limits of their insurance.
You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies. Perhaps their policies in regards to disclosure of this information have changed recently, but everything I've read that was actually published by the companies in question was straightforward and clear.
[0] I know what such a thing is because I was subject to one in a former life.
[1] Amusingly, you said this right after you mentioned that Uber had done the legwork required to find an insurer that was willing to insure commercial drivers making use of their personal vehicle during the time that they're not driving for Uber.
...yet you don't want Uber to do proper background checks. Okay.
That makes no sense and you basically admit I'm correct then go on and on about something else.
> From what I can tell (and from what I've read in the Uber driver recruitment letters I've been getting in the mail), Uber et. al. are straightforward about the limits of their insurance.
Once again, you aren't countering my argument in any way shape or form. You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay."
> You all-but-explicitly claimed that nontraditional cab companies were making it difficult to understand the limits of their insurance policies
You clearly don't understand what I've written at all and I'm going to stop here because its pretty clear you are attacking strawmen and patting yourself on the back for it for some bizarre reason.
Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :)
From the sound of it, it's you who's interested in forgoing proper background checks, and just blackballing everyone who's been convicted of a felony:
> In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail."
Think through your statement:
* You -obviously- strongly disagree with Grishnakh's assertion that background checks are frequently going to be insufficient to root out everyone who would harm another human while driving them around... especially when they've recently arrived in the country.
* You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.".
* This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable.
If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check. [0] Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people.
> You are saying "Well, yes the burden is shifted to drivers and that is okay."
Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage.
> You clearly don't understand what I've written at all...
No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written. :)
[0] But, frankly, the same level of scrutiny should be applied to everyone... you never know who's an antisocial scumbag that just hasn't been caught yet.
I literally said otherwise:
> In other words, "Hey, Uber hires known felons and its okay because I can think of a scenario where background checks fail."
Aka "We should continue to use background checks as prescribed by the locally democratically elected authority even tho they can fail in some scenarios."
That isn't a statement on the accuracy of those background checks and only a complete idiot would come to that conclusion.
> * You express that disagreement by rephrasing his statement as (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Because background checks fail, it's okay to hire convicted felons who've served their time and are now out of jail.".
> Yes, because its a good idea to put them in a position of power right after they are out of jail. [Sarcasm]
Its a specific discussion of people who are in positions of power.
> * This implies that you feel that blanket prohibitions on employing people who've been previously convicted of a felony are acceptable.
1) People who fail standard and normal background checks because of felonies when attempting to get a job that places them in a position of power.
2) You keep re-stating what I say to make it apply to a broader context than what I actually say which is simply arguing with a strawman, yet again.
> If one wants to perform a more-thorough-than-usual background check on folks convicted of a felony, charge them more to perform the check.
It is usual and standard to have a background check performed by fingerprinting to the standards of the city of Houston when engaging in services regulated by the city of Houston.
Once again, you seem to argue against a strawman for no apparent reason.
> Sure, but that wasn't the core of your argument. Your argument's core was that Uber et. al. were being dishonest and/or intentionally deceptive about the limits of their coverage.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
> There are some pretty significant gaps in that coverage that shift the burden to drivers, depending on the state.
That was the argument. The context was in relation to Taxi companies. Yes, the insurance burden is shifted and you just agreed with it.
Congratulations.
> No, I do. I can read both the text and the subtext of what you've written. :)
1) You've admitted my argument that part of the cost savings is by shifting the some of the burden from Uber/Taxi company to drivers for insurance.
2) You admit I'm correct that they should use normal and customary background checks used by the local democratically elected authority.
3) You've basically agreed my argument is fundamentally sound and 100% correct. Or you are lying in your most recent post.
4) Your entire attack on my argument is from the angle of re-writing my argument to attack a strawman.
> Heh. When did I say that? I bet you can't provide a quote... because I neither said it, nor implied it. :)
Actually, you did even in your most recent post.
Given "proper" background checks in the context of skirting local regulations is determined by the locally democratically elected authority (the city of Houston) by arguing against that position, you literally said:
> Do that, rather than instituting a policy that ends up being -at best- dramatically classist, -at worst- dramatically racist, and -at all times- dramatically damaging to the folks who've reformed themselves and are now decent, honest, useful people.
1) You can't actually invalidate how Houston is handling this without accusing Uber of being racist, classist, and dramatically damage to felons who have reformed.
2) This is due to the main difference is the fact Houston wants people fingerprinted and Uber didn't comply.
3) You ignored the actual flaw in my argument (Houston would have cleared the driver I used as an example in their background check) to accuse me of being racist, classist, etc.
Congratulations. I just proved it using standards of evidence you are.
applauds
And when it comes to things like insurance and background checks, Uber is worse than the Taxi companies in many areas. [e.g. Houston ]
Maybe it's time to deregulate the Taxi business and see how things go. If there's a big problem, reintroduce regulations that make sense.
However, we don't live in Minority Report. You do not and cannot know if someone is going to commit a crime, regardless of their past actions. Discarding "innocent until proven guilty" is also an atrocity, that shouldn't be allowed to happen.
While difficult to accept, it really is impossible to compare two atrocities and declare one is more important than the other.
On a different note: Improving realtime safety, inside of an Uber, is something you will get unanimous support for. If what you're looking for is Uber combined with http://www.companionapp.io/ that is worthwhile and I hope Uber prioritizes this feature next over all others.
Infact, if anyone reads this and has the appropriate connections to get this idea into the hands of Uber's executives, it is really worth Uber's time to get safety right. Allowing women/children(even men) to opt-in to pre-set a designated "Companion" on trips taken between 8pm-8am(configurable) is worth investing the three or so dev months it would take them to build this out.
Yet it can be somewhat prevented with background checks.
http://www.khou.com/story/news/2014/07/18/11680790/
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/exclusive-broo...
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/07/former_yellow_ca...
AFAIK, Uber does do a background check for drivers in the US.
They do a cheaper less effective version than is required for cab drivers in many areas (e.g. Houston)
http://www.khou.com/story/news/2014/07/11/11254424/
Overall, I wonder if the crime rate among Uber rides is more or less than the crime rate among Taxi rides?
Yes. They've known about their products causing climate change for decades. They should be liquidated.
> agriculture companies
Some, not all.
> and all the large banks
Only the ones that are "too big to fail" or those engaged in illegal activities.
It takes an infinitesimal amount of land if you were going to use solar alone [1]. There is enough wind power potential in the US midwest, from North Dakota to Texas, to power the entire US 4x over [2]. There's enough generation capacity to move 77% of light vehicles in the US over to electric immediately. There's plenty of energy to go around.
Fun fact: The latest budget bill that passed at the end of 2015 had one of the largest subsidies (ITC production tax credit) for solar and wind generation installation ever.
[1] http://cleantechnica.com/files/2015/05/Land-art-AreaRequired...
[2] http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/Enabling-... (page 6)
Edit: why do you think its that small? Yes, because noone paid it when it was larger.