Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlwaysBCoding | Hacker News Reader

This is a pretty big deal. As short-sighted and destined to fail as the current backlash against Uber is (see the cease-and-desist order issued in Virginia this week), it becomes a different narrative altogether if you can show that Uber saves lives. Any correlation with a decrease in DUI's is going to be hard momentum to counteract. If Uber can show definitively that highway safety increases in Uber cities, it's very compelling evidence that they should be in every major city regardless of existing taxi laws.

Although lobbying for increased highway safety has gotten us some atrocious national policy in the past (the 21 drinking age) - it would be nice to see it be used for a good cause here and give more cities modern transportation options.

View on HN

> If Uber can show definitively that highway safety increases in Uber cities, it's very compelling evidence that they should be in every major city regardless of existing taxi laws.

No, it's evidence that cities should increase the availability of taxis or taxi-like services in general, not Uber specifically. In fact, due to more stable pricing, I'd expect Lyft to do better than Uber, and normal taxis to do even better.

Why would normal taxis do better? (Currently in SF) they're more expensive, the cars are less-well-maintained, and the drivers are often... I won't say "rude", but... less than pleasant to deal with. Not to mention the dirty looks you get when you want to use a credit card, and just the hassle of payment and tipping. Their dispatch services suck (they say 20 minutes and most of the time never show up), and hailing a taxi is a pain.

Simply increasing the availability of taxis won't fix those problems.

If operating a taxi was $250k cheaper (the price of a medallion in SF) you get Uber's results.

Most of uber's "advantages" stem from the fact taxi medallions get leased for about $1k/month that uber's contracted drivers don't pay.

And not exploiting their drivers, and having a gay-friendly employment force, and having rated drivers, and having trip itinerary transparency, and not having to cruise as much, an having visibility over where other drivers are to improve coverage...

Some of that is good and true, but trip itinerary transparency and rated drivers don't necessarily make for a good ride...

4 of 5 of my Uber rides in the last two weeks had 4.8-4.9 star drivers that didn't know the intersection I wanted to go to in SF. They all searched directions to/from: Sutter/Stockton, 20th/Valencia, a block from Market/Church, and 4th/Howard - all of those being non-trivial streets in one form or another (especially Market St, really, you're asking me for directions to Market St, that's like asking me where the Strip is in Vegas). Not to mention I'm not sure why they keep asking for directions too, since it's not like a cab I'll never see again overcharging me through my own fault - if I have a problem I will contact Uber and they will fix it (also a good thing!). One guy even asked for instructions, disregarded them, got stuck in traffic without ending the ride early, and made me and my husband late for an appointment that we would have been 5-10m early for if he didn't space out - helloooo 1 star rating. Oh, and half the time, I will get drivers with so much cologne on that I feel sick.

Say what you will about the terrible state of cabs in SF because it's all true and then some, but I think both cabs and Uber have a lot of _different_ problems to work out. A 5 star driver is not someone who has to enter in "Market and Church" in a GPS, it's not someone that poured half a bottle of cologne on themselves that morning, and it's most definitely not a person that fucks around driving in the direction they were explicitly told not to go in.

Some days I am jealous of NYC and London and other cities where I've had excellent experiences with cabs and Uber just adds a small layer of luxury/convenience on top of that if I choose. SF used to be that way with Uber a few years ago but not so much anymore - the price decrease and choices are nice but I wish I could get quality too - both Uber Black and UberX are just meh now.

The rating inflation could be lyft's fault. The lyft system is specifically inflated: 1 & 2 are really bad rides, 3 is "bad enough that you never want to be matched up again", 4 is "needs work" and 5 is "good". If you have an excellent ride, it's 5 + tip. However, deactivation is ALSO inflated, Lyft wants only 4.5 + drivers (after a certain number of rides). Passengers crossing between Lyft and Uber could be skewing the statistics of driver ratings.

As a lyft (and uber, from time to time) driver with 9 years of living experience in San Diego, there are times when I know exactly where the destination is but I am not sure of the "best" way to get there, or I am worried that there are multiple ways to get there and having the GPS decide gives it an "objectivity" that CYA's me for 'dispute resolution' purposes.

And both lyft and uber have been expanding like crazy recently, so having a 4.8 or 4.9 could be the law of averages in small numbers working against your experience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com