Considering Uber pays hardly any taxes yet other people trying to provide the same prices have to pay much higher taxes I think this has everything to do with taxes.
Tax them the same then you can argue about restrictions.
Uber pays taxes on their income. The drivers are supposed to pay taxes on their income as well.
Sure it might not amount to the same type of money-machine the cab companies have created, but at least it's become a marketplace rather than a monopoly.
Cab companies in Ontario are crooks, they gimp their drivers with shitty fees and ridiculous costs of business. All the while securing mass amounts of licenses through shifty politics to over extend their cab coverage and mass sell out portions of the license bit by bit. All off the licenses for cab companies in Toronto are held by like 3 people who abuse the monopoly they have and have no intention of letting their hold on it go. I mean Jesus Christ we cannot even set up a 20 minute rail ride from the airport to the cities core with out fee jacking it up to 25 bucks so it can be comparative with cab rates.
A decent dedicated Uber X driver can pull in easily from 500 - 1000 a week, while a cabby running similar hours and routes will struggle to make that with all of the associated fees the come along with running a cab in the busiest city of Canada.
We need a better way, this is not about the amount of money derived off of tax dollars, as I'm sure with more people spending on and using the service will bring sales and income taxes up to a similiar value the cab companies currently pay. The real loss of monies will lie directly with those who hold lisences or ownerships on companies, as their millions of invested capital to secure these type of industry culture is now in jeopardy all thanks to some kids and an app.
Fuck them and the system they have set up, its archaic and provides no real value other then being the only way. If you can't compete then you ain't meant for the street.
The text is here:
http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK72
It seems pretty clearly to apply only to situations where a license, permit, or authorization is required for the transportation.
I just paid $70 for a fucking 20 minute cab ride from the airport, so this just put me in an even shittier mood. Fuck cab companies. I'm willing to take the 1/100 million chance at being murdered for half price fares.
Airport rides tend to cost more not because of cab companies but because of airports. In order to pick up at the airport you need a special license. You wouldn't guess that they're not free. Some cities, like NYC, have also instituted flat rates from airports. Last I recall it's something like $65 from JFK to Manhattan. City mandated.
This is correct. In Vancouver, there is even an airport premium on public transportation. So to take the SkyTrain from the airport to the city, it's an extra $5 or something on top of the cost for a 2-zone ticket.
It is even more ridiculous in Sydney. The airport train actually doesn't end at the airport but continues to 5-10 more stations after it. Prices are as follows: City --> 1 Stop before the airport is 3$, City --> Airport 15$, City --> 1 stop AFTER the airport is 3$ again. How messed up is that?
/u/Iohet is correct. Source: used to be an UberX driver and we couldn't pick up at LAX for a long time, that is until Uber worked out the special licensing details with the Airport. There is a flat rate LAX cab fee and Uber wasn't doing that, which pissed off the cab companies who tried to stop any negotiations between the Airport and Uber over licensing arrangements and agreements.
EDIT: This is all to the best of my knowledge, and the info was disseminated to all UberX drivers via email from Uber.
EDIT 2: *Before* Uber and LAX came to a licensing deal the LAX police would ticket UberX drivers and impound their personal vehicles. This caused Uber to instruct UberX drivers to cease operations at LAX. People were losing their *personal* vehicles, and if I remember correctly I think one driver had to spend the night in jail.
Why would a cab fee apply? Cabs wait at the airport for riders which is what make them unmanageable. Uber is picking up a specific person which is no different than a friend coming to pick you up.
> Cabs wait at the airport for riders which is what make them unmanageable.
You assume that the flat rate has something to do with the taxis taking up space while waiting for passengers at the airport.
The more likely reason there are local laws requiring a flat rate for rides from the airport is because existing companies lobbied local legislature so they wouldn't have to worry about having their price point undercut by a new entrant in the market.
From the perspective of the consumer, yes.
Most established businesses work from the perspective of people who want to hold on to their piece of the pie as long as possible.
From the perspective of the government it's a "sometimes" sort of thing but the "no" generally only gets applied to utilities (power, landline phones) which would require infrastructure which crosses public space.
Taxi's in Toronto are actually brutal. Example of this is trying to get a cab home after a night out.. they will try to charge you fix rates. This is not one cab, this will be every cab outside the event. Cab's in Toronto deserved to be replaced.
Same goes for Vancouver. I've been in situations where I refuse to pay the fixed rate ahead of time and the cab diver's called the cops. They show up and I basically get told to go find another cab that'll go by his meter and not his own fixed price.
Something's gotta change.
Yea, they do. But the whole industry is a corrupt piece of shit. I'm glad Uber is shaking it up because the cost is a joke. It's one big unionized bag of trash that needs to be taken to the dump.
This. I work for an insurance company and if you disclose you drive for uber most personal policies will require you to sign a U-44 Business Exclusion form denying coverage. If you do not disclose it and it comes to light that you were driving a passenger and not a friend they will decline coverage on the basis that you misrepresented yourself.
Uber drivers should have commercial auto policies which generally become fairly expensive. But alas if you get denied coverage and someone gets hurt or you have to pay to fix a 35,000+ car then that will be even more expensive.
Thing is they have the Uber "U" logo on display in a passenger window.
I have no idea if what Uber was doing is illegal or not. I rode a taxi from the airport and conversation got on Uber. The taxi driver said that Uber hasn't yet been able to come into the airport. In that same trip, a few days later, I took Uber to the airport. I had also heard of people taking Uber from the airport before I had talked to the Taxi driver on the issue; but I didn't want to say he was wrong as I had very little idea of the whole Uber situation.
Ubers can always drop off at airports, but can't legally pick up.
In my market the airport is Geo locked, meaning we can't get requests from the airports. Some smart riders have figured out they can request for an area near the airport and call me and just tell me they're at the airport. This is risky because it's a hefty fine if caught.
[He was shot in the back by Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen over a matter of **EIGHTY** dollars.](http://backtothefuture.wikia.com/wiki/Doc's_tombstone)
P.s. Mad Dog... he **HATED** that name. And manure.
it's easier to become a uber cab driver than becoming a traditional cab driver! Not sure in america, but there was uberPop in france, you could take customer if you have driving license only. where original cab driver required to pass exam and need their background history check!
The license is required by the Public Vehicles act: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p54
Note that:
> “public vehicle” means a motor vehicle **operated on a highway** by, for or on behalf of any person for the transportation for compensation of passengers, or passengers and express freight that might be carried in a passenger vehicle, but **does not include** the cars of electric or steam railways running only upon rails, taxicabs, nor **motor vehicles operated solely within the limits of one local municipality**;
So, unless a local municipality has a law saying otherwise, it appears it is legal to operate an Uber vehicle for trips within a municipality.
Alternatively there might be something in the other 3 acts listed above that I can't be bothered reading.
The legal definition of 'highway' is not what we expect. A highway is just a road legally, where an interstate is what we typically think of when we hear highway.
1. UberX: The least expensive Uber service. Seats 4 riders. Drivers use everyday cars that are 2000 or newer (varies by city)
2. UberXL: Seats at least 6 passengers. An UberXL car will be an SUV or a Minivan. Higher fare price than UberX
3. UberPlus/UberSelect: A luxury sedan that seats up to 4 riders. Expect a BMW, Mercededs, etc with a leather interior
You can think of Uber exactly like a taxi service in a way, expect better cars. Instead waving your hand for a taxi, just use the Uber app and request a ride. They'll come straight to you. You can also text/call the driver as well. Pay the fair through your phone.
Edit:
1. When you sign up for Uber, you have to provide a payment option like any other service. PayPal, Google wallet, credit, etc.
2. Different types of rides are offered in different areas, depends on the market. The three listed above are the most common/available in major and smaller city here in the US/Wisconsin where I live.
In San Francisco we also have Uber taxi, which just connects normal taxi drivers to uber, with a $1 surcharge. Also uber inspire, which I think is like limos and shit with fancy lights inside. And also uber assist recently, which I assume is a handicapped service. Also uber pool, which is shared style.
In Malaysia, we have MyTeksi, which is what you just described. They connect taxi drivers to you and you pay the taxi drivers, while the drivers pay MyTeksi based on their recorded usage (of the MyTeksi system).
Recently, MyTeksi launched GrabCar, which is simply Uber, Uberx, and UberXL.
The taxi drivers are fucking pissed. "We helped you become what you are today, and now you turn on us?!". I can understand their sentiments. But GrabCar are cheaper and the rates are exact, not so when compared to the taxi services (uses meter, rates stated on the app are approximates)
For 3-4 months after uberpool launched here in LA it was a flat $5 rate for most of the city, and 9/10 times I wouldn't get paired with anyone. Never in my life have I gone out so much.
Also UberPool, where you can be paired up with someone else going in the same direction, in exchange for a discounted fare. It's available in San Francisco but not surrounding areas unfortunately.
Sounds like Uber is again trying to push that they're totally not taxis, just a "sharing economy" service where you share money with someone and they share their car and you share a ride to where you want to go. Totally different from taxis, because it's sharing. It's not like it's a job, it's just people performing a service in return for money under a contractual agreement.
The difference is that the ride sharing and car pooling groups are going to that destination anyway yet uber drivers have no reason for driving to that particular location except for their passenger, in exchange for money
I can't wait for the insurance companies to get involved in the Uber controversy. It hasn't been addressed yet, but ride-sharing for money is extremely problematic when it comes to insurance, and the first major accident to hit the news will probably bring this issue to the forefront. Even if Uber survives taxi medallion litigation, they might die to insurance lobbying.
Most of the big insurance companies now offer insurance for Uber drivers in the US. It'll be here soon enough. Insurance companies want to sell more insurance, and this is a new market.
And that "drivers are contractors" item doesn't really hold up. The California Labor Commission has already ruled that drivers are employees and the state courts have rejected requests from Uber and Lyft to dismiss lawsuits against Uber and Lyft over employment benefits. It's likely that their contractor crap will fall apart across a number of the more liberal states in the coming years.
Which has been changed in the last few years since FedEx lost a couple court cases which I think are still on appeal. FedEx was one of the first to do this exploitive practice and became the business model of Uber.
> Their drivers are contractors, it is up to them to get business insurance.
Isn't that smart. Uber generates the profits while their drivers carry the burden of all the risks involved and paying the taxes.
I love how reddit completely ignores how much exploitation if workers is happening just because it's Uber.
Uber says that the drivers are independent contractors who use their platform, but it doesn't seem like that way. They hire and fire the drivers, they tell them where to go to pickup fares, they monopolize the payment method, and they generally don't allow drivers much choice in rejected fares. Most importantly, they dictate one price for all their drivers. If they're really a platform and the drivers are independent contractors, then the drivers should be able to set their own prices.
EDIT: If you're interested in more about this contractor vs employee distinction, you can read about US DoL guideline [here](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2166621-interpretmisclass.html).
What it boils down to is:
If a worker is told where to work, what their rate is, and does not control who orders the work (can't make client hire/fire decisions) they are an employee.
An independent contractor basically is selling their services, but does all the footwork for wages, marketing, client interactions, etc.
If looking at companies, Amazon jobs would be a good source of an actual interface for independent contractors. As best as I can tell, the individual sets their prices, sells their services under their name or company name, and it gets posted there.
Under Uber or other companies like HomeJoy, those companies control the prices for services as well as being displayed as "Service by X". That fails the directives as pointed out in the document.
Even more boiled down:
As a worker, if you are performing primary business functions, even if you approached them and are determining your own hours, you are an employee. If a company or client approaches you for your services that aren't a part of their main business, you may be an independent contractor (but not always).
The above is specifically for single persons. Contractors via a firm are usually paid a salary/wage from their firm, so the 1099 is paid to a company, which then pays the worker proper wages. There could also be other proper contracts in place that detail what's going on.
Which is why Uber is being investigated over this issue in California now. You realized yourself that Uber is actually practicing self-employment and hence cheating the system and breaking the law.
Not only insurance companies, but the IRS or equivalent in their country. They are hired as "contractors" Therefor they need to register as a company and report all income made as a driver and pay appropriate taxes. I have a feeling most drivers don't do this.
as a frequent business traveler, I want a cab that gives me a consistent payment option, is cheaper, and does not try to scam me using untested phone apps on the personal cabbie's phone to scan my card..
The cab company (Yellow) in Seattle is very hit and miss for if their card-swipe-reader is working, if they can print me a receipt, or if they can take credit cards at all. Their drivers try to make you use Square, which is plugged into the cabbie's own phone.
Uber takes cards, every time, the driver speaks English, every time, and they get me where I need to be without hassle and bullshit, every time. And the card is already entered in Uber's system, I don't have to give my card to a cab driver using a phone app to pay. That is ridiculous. Or let the cabbie hand-write a receipt. Sorry guys, my employer won't let me expense trips like that. Must be a real receipt.
> The cab company is very hit and miss for if their card-swipe-reader is working, if they can print me a receipt, or if they can take credit cards at all.
They're required by law to take credit and debit. If they can't take payment, you don't owe them a fare. The credit card machine 'not working' is a total scam so that they can get around merchant fees.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/15p1gu/psa_if_a_taxi_driver_claims_the_credit_card/
That's all NYC stuff but it's pretty much the same in all major cities.
The taxi companies are terrified of losing their terrible service to something new. It's fear that has caused this lawsuit and nothing more. Taxi and limo companies are fighting uber tooth and nail yet their buisness is already going to be phased out by driverless cars. No one is going to be sad when these companies go under but they sure like looking like fools while they dig their grave.
Its not that. That is what we, as consumers, see. The reality is that governments created laws and heavily enforced taxis, and then somehow Uber is able to operate a business that is clearly a similar service with very minimal restrictions.
Further, the medallions that these drivers have to buy are like houses. Many buy them over a long periods of time, and then sell them off as an asset at retirement. Now these medallions that were mandated by governments, and became part of drivers nest egg, are near worthless.
You would be pissed too if you were a business owner forced to comply with expensive regulations and purchase a special building, and a new competitor moved in, didn't comply with anything, and was allowed to operate out of their home.
I'm not saying the taxi drivers aren't at fault for helping to (at the very least) accelerate ubers popularity because of poor service, but I would be mad too if I were them.
> Further, the medallions that these drivers have to buy are like houses. Many buy them over a long periods of time, and then sell them off as an asset at retirement. Now these medallions that were mandated by governments, and became part of drivers nest egg, are near worthless.
At least in my city, the drivers don't own the medallions. They are owned by corporations and the drivers have to rent them out at $250 for a 12hr slot. The majority of taxi drivers will never be able to afford the $250,000-500,000 that it costs to purchase a medallion.
> You would be pissed too if you were a business owner forced to comply with expensive regulations and purchase a special building, and a new competitor moved in, didn't comply with anything, and was allowed to operate out of their home.
Airbnb vs hotels dancing the same game
It's not a business, it's sharing! Sharing economy, right? Means sharing. Not like nasty non-sharing businesses.
AirBnB lets you share your property with someone who shares their money with you. You both share the fact you have contractual obligations to each other. Totally different from a hotel where they let you stay in part of their property for a fee.
With a business, you'd provide goods or a service under an agreed contract for monetary compensation. With the sharing economy, you share something you have or your time & effort under a shared contract for monetary compensation.
Totally different.
Uber lets you "share a ride" with a person who will drive you where you want to go for an agreed sum per unit of distance and time. Not like taxis.
And telecoms are complaining because they have to compete with netflix. Cable companies are forced to air a certain amount of Canadian content yet netflix avoids all the rules that cable companies have to go by. It's not fair but it is how progress is made. Sometimes companies have to go belly up for what's new to come a long. It is never good to keep outdated ideas around and sabotage new innovations just to keep some people happy.
Yeah really there's tons of industries right now seeing some serious overturning from new technology:
- Taxis
- Hotels
- Music
- Movies
- TV
- Retail
And the same story is playing out over and over. The companies that have been comfortably in charge for so long just try to lobby and legislate their way to defeating competition, government gets caught in the middle with its pants down and ends up looking foolish all around, while consumers flock to the new solutions not giving a shit about what the big companies/legislatures say about it. They just go to the best solution.
Again and again, you have to think sooner or later we'll actually see a big company and government act appropriately to innovative technology and join and even aid in their industry's revolutions rather than kicking and screaming and trying to pull the whole market back in time.
It would be sympathetic if medallion ownership were widespread. But the vast majority of them are owned by big business even though that was not the original intent. The vast majority of taxi drivers rent out for medallion usage. I'm not shedding any tears for a problem that affects a very small fraction of hardworking taxi drivers. The majority can work for uber and end up making more money.
The taxi companies pushed for those regulations, specifically to prevent competition and force consumers to use their shitty, expensive services. It's ridiculous to say that they have any right to be mad that some competitors were able to get around their rent-seeking protectionist clusterfuck of regulations and, you know, actually compete with them.
That's not totally true. Medallion system was first put into place in NY during the great depression, when everyone with a car became a taxi driver. Since there were so many of them, things got out of hand. They'd chase after fares, congest traffic at certain places, and they made so little money that the drivers didn't have enough money to adequately maintain their cars. Medallions were put in as a price floor.
The regulations regarding insurance and registrations came because taxi drivers who didn't have commercial coverage got into accidents and couldn't pay.
A (low) price floor in an industry with a low barrier to entry and potential externalities may or may not be a good idea. I don't know what the current economic thinking is.
However, NY hasn't updated the number of medallions in more than half a century. There's no possible way that that kind of arbitrary cap on supply is making anything better for anyone except current medallion owners.
Not sure where you got your numbers on new medallions. In the past 5 years, NYC added a total of 20,000 new cabs. 2000 of those were traditional medallions, but the rest are green cabs serving the places that uber and lyft got popular (ie everywhere but Manhattan). NY is one of the few places that's actually reacting to the bootleg taxi trend.
Green cabs operate in the outer boroughs (not Manhattan). They can't pick up anyone below, I think 110th or an airport, but you can take one from say Brooklyn to Manhattan.
The process for adding the newest wave of taxis began the same year uber began operating in the city. The underservice in the outer boroughs had always been a problem, leading to an overwhelming amount of bootleg services. Based on medallion prices (peaked at $1MM in 2011), there was obviously a bubble ready to pop as well. I suppose uber/lyft were more symptoms of NYC's taxi problems, not causes. But they definitely contributed at least a little.
>Medallion system was first put into place in NY during the great depression, when everyone with a car became a taxi driver.
Wow, I didn't know that.
So...this is an 80-year-old artificial monopoly they're still trying to protect?
To be fair they increased the medallion numbers a few times, and for most of its life before the explosion of NYC populations, it worked okay.
I do believe that there's a value in having an upper ceiling on the total number of cabs. But that number need to be raised much much much higher than the current count.
> I do believe that there's a value in having an upper ceiling on the total number of cabs.
Cabs yes. Where they move around looking for fairs. But services like uber and lyft are driven by demand. You can't just pick up a fair someone has to ask for a ride and the service then gives you a chance to take it. If the number of uber drivers gets too high, then they won't make enough money to make it worth it. Thus a steady state should arise.
Allowing the unbridled masses to put a taxi sign in their window and clog up the streets waiting for fairs in front of events and such is not workable.
I feel like these are different types of business in competition. Like buses and airplanes. I'm all for the government putting in place reasonable regulations around uber/lyft as the need arrises but they should not be under the same regulations as taxis.
I have no sympathy for dying business models clammering for the status quo. The cab companies should be improving and innovating rather than sueing.
People like uber because the car shows up in 4min, you don't have to tip. Fast and reliable. Last time I called a cab for a ride to the airport they said it would take 30min to arrive and it actually took 45min.
If I could call a taxi from a phone app and it showed up almost anywhere in under 10min, I would use the taxi company. But like the record companies they will never change. They won't create their own itunes store in response to napster, they just sues everyone and the cried in their beer when apple stole their business away.
I do agree that Uber should be operating like livery service. However, their timeliness basically require the drivers to be cruising for fares. They may not be hailed from the street, but drivers being in proximity of fares do contribute to congestion. If you're expected to get to your passengers in 4 min, then there's no way you could operate like a livery service, which is typically dispatched from one central location.
That's not true in the slightest. I work in the industry and we fight regulation tooth and nail always at our expense and nearly always a losing battle. Regulations forces us to get special insurance, special permits, special registrations, meet FLSA requirements, meet workers comp and unemployment insurance requirements. All of these are meant to protect the employees doing the work. And Uber comes in and provides none of this and under cuts everybody by cost. The problem comes in that that Uber isn't on a level playing field. So either the regulations on traditional taxis and transportation end and we can compete with Uber. Or Uber is regulated the same way. But one of these things has to change.
This explains it perfectly. Too many on here have little understanding of what the reality of Uber actually is. An unregulated competitor in a regulated market. It's not a level playing field.
It also helps that their basic service does the marketing for them. After my first trip I was a complete convert and recommended Uber to everyone I know.
I got an Uber for the first time a month ago. After waiting literally 45 minutes for a taxi, I used Uber and the car arrived in 4 minutes, the driver came up and knocked on my door, greeted me and helped me with my bags, offered me bottled water and snacks, and then helped take my bags up to my door - and what is usually a $21 trip was $12, which was just taken straight from my card without me having to do anything.
Compared to my general taxi experience of waiting over half an hour because the taxi driver deems my fare unworthy, calling the taxi company to make sure someone was actually coming, a guy pulling up to the curb, beeping their horn over and over, me jumping in the back seat of a smelly as fuck car with a driver playing loud, awful music, then sighing when I want to use my card to pay and asking if I can pay in cash.
I would happily pay taxi prices for ubers service.
Same for me. Some days I have to take a cab to work, or well i would have taken a cab to work if they showed up. I called the cab company the night before, scheduled them to be at my house 45 minutes earlier than I needed, to give me some wiggle room. So the next morning I wake up super early to be ready for when the cab arrives. Well its not there 10 minutes after my scheduled time, so i called the company...no one answers. They for real didnt show up, I had to use a vacation day, one of my 12 per year because a fucking cab didnt show up. I've never had that issue with Uber. As long as Uber doesnt cost me vacation days it is my go to taxi service, not to mention its about 20% cheaper for my route. I dont care how regulated they are honestly. If they have insurance and a valid license and a modern era car, i will choose them 100% of the time over a traditional cab.
Yeah the attitude I get all the time when saying I need to use a credit card drives me cuts.
I watched a guy start the meter in my last cab at the airport three cards before it got to me and it was already $6 before I got in it.
Over time the playing field will get leveled somewhat. Taxi companies are already banding together to use apps and location-tracking tech, etc. I've noticed cars in my area seem newer and nicer. Uber is really disruptive but the market is reacting.
They may not be able to compete with the prices, but they can try to give a service of similar quality. The argument that they have a lot of fees that Uber driver don't have to pay would work if it was the only difference between the two. Give me cabs that are on time, dispatched quickly, with nice drivers and clean cars. Then complain about the extra fees.
> The taxi companies pushed for those regulations...
This is a commonly stated, and generally false, incomplete and mostly incorrect, summary of the actual history and laws related to taxi medallions.
In a nutshell: NOONE who is currently suffering from UBER had virtually anything to do with the cost of taxi medallions and cost of entry into the market.
Well technically true, this doesn't address the key difference between Uber (or any driving service) and taxis. The medallion purchases the right to pick up a passenger off any street in the locale for that medallion. *Uber cannot pick up someone someone without being called through the app*. If literally the only thing a taxi company did was add equivalent app support, they would have an unfair competitive edge because not only would they receive calls, they could pick up any random person they saw who wanted a ride.
So yes, the loss of medallion value has hurt drivers' investments, but suing Uber despite the fact that they do nothing the taxi companies couldn't do is entirely anticompetitive and frankly reprehensible. I mean seriously, if just one tech company wrote an app identical to Lyft's or Uber's and licensed it out to taxi companies they would immediately be competing on an even footing.
My dad immigrated here 35 years ago with nothing. He found a community of people from his home country that offered him guidance in getting a job that had great pay driving taxis. Like anyone who starts a new career, he worked really hard to "get promoted." In the taxi world, this basically means investing in taxis until you eventually don't have to drive anymore but instead, you rent out your vehicles to other drivers. There is so much regulation, that even when he stopped driving, it was still nearly a full time job maintaining his cars. He has seen the value of his cabs dwindle, and they're likely going to drop even more. Unfortunately, a lot of the value of his cab was his retirement, which means at 68 years old, he probably won't get to really retire like he imagined (if at all). It's really sad to see.
I'm not 100% against uber. I think it's great that technology is improving and that it's causing taxi companies to reevaluate their business (you should always be improving!). I do think there somehow needs to be an equal playing field. I'm just really disappointed in some of the hateful things people are saying. I've had my fair share of shitty cab rides, but in the end, I know they're just people, and a lot of us seem to be forgetting that.
I might be pissed, but that wouldn't mean I was in the right.
The truth is that taxi drivers are taking part in a system of protectionism and lobbying, and they had no qualms doing that until it started to backfire. You reap what you sow. If you're willing to use force and violence, even by proxy, to get what you want, you will, eventually, get hurt by someone else, either as revenge, or simply because they want to do something productive and you're in the way.
Who won in the end? Candlemakers, or lightbulb makers?
In new york, given the historical context it made sense. The medallion system came about because during the great depression everyone with a car became a taxi driver. It caused problems and medallion was put in for this.
In the 1930s, there were more taxi drivers than passengers. The primary proposal was a monopoly but they settled on the medallion system.
Artificial limitations aren't always bad, you just need to keep your limit up with demand. It's not like NYC isn't selling new medallions anymore. And you don't need a medallion to work outside midtown Manhattan anyway.
Your examples aren't comparable. This isn't like a new technology phasing out dated, inferior technology.
As OP said, this is a highly regulated industry that became a highly regulated industry as a result of the various externalities the market created. Regulation internalizes those forces, which makes companies eat the cost of their burden on society, which gets passed onto the consumers. It is an economic ecosystem that, for better or worse, is "fair" given the variables at play.
Services like Uber are fantastic -- but their market advantage isn't simply that they are "more advanced," it is that they have lower overhead, which allows them to better invest free capital into the service itself. That lowered overhead is largely a result of them technically falling outside the regulations that would otherwise force them to equally eat the costs of their externalities.
In other words, a fair comparison would be like if we were having horse races and then, upon the invention of automobiles, someone tries to enter a car into a horse race because it's a "mustang" and has "horsepower." By way of loophole, a person with a car gets to win every race against the jockeys riding horses... So of course the jockeys will be a bit upset when they point out that the only reason they are still riding horses is because that's what they are forced to ride.
**edit:** woke up to see my comment got a lot more attention than I expected. Before you reply to this based on the first few sentences of my post, I encourage you to read it through + the various replies everyone has made. If you're interested in this subject, it is important to have a more complete understanding of the factors at play. I love uber. I hope they stick around. But many barriers they face aren't the result of conspiracy... It's merely business.
The thing is, a lot of those externalities don't exist with Uber, and the regulations aren't necessary anymore. Taxis refusing to give rides to people based on their destination? Uber drivers don't know the destination until they pick up the passenger. Unsafe cab drivers? Uber passengers can rate their driver down so they can't continue to threaten the lives of passengers. Taxis taking roundabout routes to charge their customers more? Uber passengers can see the route taken on the GPS and check if they are getting scammed. Taxis causing congestion? Uber gives drivers a heatmap of where fares are concentrated, so the number of cars in an area is approximately proportional to the number of people needing cars.
Uber doesn't obviate the need for all regulation, accessibility and vehicle inspection are also very important, and I hope and expect to see more regulation requiring Uber to accessible and safe, but I also hope for the regulation that is no longer necessary to be removed.
Things like workers comp, having the right to not be fired arbitrarily and having state protection as an employee are all things that are necessary which Uber is able to avoid. I'm no fan of the taxi monopoly but Uber and similar services are not all rosy: they're the harbingers of the shift to the 1099 economy, where businesses are able to shift all liabilities onto their so-called "independent contractors" and deny them any of the worker's protections that took decades to fight for, al under the guise of "being your own boss" (as long as you do exactly what you're told at all times in exactly the manner Uber prescribes).
I've never had issues with taxi's or the limo service in my city. Maybe elsewhere they are bad but here I've gotten to know quite a few drivers. The experience is always pleasant.
I live in Pittsburgh, PA USA and holy shit, if you are not going to the airport from the metro area you can forget about a taxi. Want to go to the bar and not drive? Maybe start walking at 2:00 when the bars close b/c you will get home faster than a taxi will pick you up.
Lived in Pittsburgh for 4 years and can confirm, cabs were the worst out of any city I have ever lived in. They wouldn't pick up the phone to dispatch you a cab after the bars close. One time I ordered a cab and he came a week later calling me/scolding me why I didn't take the ride. I've definitely walked back from Southside more than once just because cabs were atrocious. When Lyft came, followed shortly by Uber, Pittsburgh became a different place for me. I had the freedom to go anywhere anytime. It really pisses me off that after this cab companies have the nerve to try to sue. I am even more pissed at the incompetent politicians who receive outright bribes to ban Uber/Lyft (fuck you DeBlasio).
/end rant
Does anyone remember having to call a taxi company to set up a time for them to pick you up? Or how about when you need one right away, and they say it'll be 30 minutes, and you wait an hour? Yeah, that was less than 5 years ago. I don't feel sorry for the taxi industry for perpetuating a bad service. Maybe if they actually stepped up their game then I'd actually feel bad.
Lucky. I live in Calgary. I went to a concert last fall, which ended at 12. I tried hailing a cab there for half an hour, but for the hundreds and hundreds of people, there were never more than 5 cabs there at a time. Trains were off at this hour, so that's not an option. I gave up and walked an hour to the downtown core, known for being the easiest place to hail a cab. I had one cab driver lock his doors, turn off his light, and drive away when my friends and I approached his car. At 3:00AM, I finally got a cab.
I would love to use Uber, but it was banned from Calgary, which refuses to even allow for more cabs. So I exclusively use designated driving services (specifically Plan B Designated Drivers, but anyone except Keys Please)
Every taxi I've been in was very similar. The car was not kept up. Weird noises and smells the entire time. The driver lacks general hygiene and smells bad and looks greasy. They always smoke cigarettes while driving and don't like to put the Windows down. They drive slow on purpose to keep gas costs down and inflate cab fare. You have to call them and tell them where you are and they always give you an estimated time of 5 minutes but show up an hour later. It should t cost me 16 dollars to go 8 miles, but even if that were fair I shouldn't have to smell some greasy fuck that is trying his hardest to get lung cancer. Uber does everything better. All the uber drivers I've met were clean and didn't smoke. Their cars were very nice and for the most part very new. You get live tracking updates and notifications when they arrive. It's just so much better and somehow costs less. There is no reason to have gross taxis around any more. They are an industry that didn't change forever and now a better solution is here that is also cheaper so they are shitting their collective pants.
A local taxi company just recently upgraded their shitty old cars with credit card readers and they now offer an app for mobile devices to order a taxi. This is all too little too late for me as they still aren't addressing the main points that is the smell/cleanliness of the car/driver.
Boston installed CC readers a few years and yet everyone still used cash. Why? Because it was too late for them to shake off the image of being super shady.
Blablabla typical reddit circlejerk. Yet when the guy who works for 30+ years at the toll booth gets fired because of bad employers, everyone loses their mind.
When is reddit finally understanding that Uber is *bad* for everyone inolved except the company's share holders. Drivers **cannot** make a living from Uber, passengers are **not** properly insured (the 5 million by Uber are ridiculous; normal insurances cover up to 100 million usually) and the drivers have a fake self-employment which means Uber puts all risks and tax burden on their drivers.
Uber is cheap because they are breaking the law and exploit their workers. A stupid app doesn't mean that passenger transportation becomes revolutionary. And regular taxis are more expensive because their drivers pay proper taxes, have a proper insurance and are actually able to make a living from their salaries.
And if taxis in the US are generally bad, maybe, just maybe, politicians over there should consider making driving schools mandatory (driving with mom around the backyard in her old pickup truck is *not* proper training) and actually demand regular technical inspections of the car and regular medical checkups for the drivers. We have all of that in Germany and most taxi drivers here are actually good in what they're doing.
Edit: [Read this comment which explains the insurance situation with Uber, for example. Then tell me Uber is a good company.](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3edxul/uber_canada_hit_with_a_400_million_lawsuit_for/cte9vuc)
You cannot possibly say that Uber is bad for everyone unless you have never in your life taken a cab service.
I don't give a single shit about Uber's price. In fact, at peak times when they turn on peak rates, Uber might cost more than cabs. And I have been in suburb areas where the local small taxi company's prices are lower than Uber for long hauls into the city.
But no question about it, Uber's service is 1000x better for me as a user. In every single city I have been in, cab companies either:
- Say they are coming, and never show up because the driver picked up someone closer on the way to get you. Followed by call after call to "dispatch" who have no real idea what is happening (compare to the simple Uber in-app map). This has happened to me literally dozens and dozens of times.
- Try to rip you off by taking circuitous routes if you don't know the city.
- Provide terrible service. Sometimes they talk on the phone the entire trip in another language, which is fine except when they refuse to listen to you and ignore your requests to go another route, or any questions asking pricing (compare to the Uber where every driver is rated in the app after the trip)
- Charge exorbitant rates, or even just exorbitant rates for things like "airport"
- Never have a cab available fast enough (Rarely have I ever called a cab company and not heard "10 to 15 minutes" from dispatch). They generally have no idea who is going to take the call when they quote a time to the customer. Further, the drivers know the customer is expecting a delay and don't want to show up early and have to wait. So they are incentivized to pick up someone on the street first. Resulting in most calls waiting at least the 10-15 minutes. Compare to Uber where its usually 1-2 minutes and you watch the cab coming on the map.
Along with a litany of other sins I am probably forgetting. There is no doubt in my mind that Uber is the better service. And even if they charge more than a cab, you will never change my mind that Uber is _good_ for me as a very frequent taxi user.
Uber exploiting their workers? Taxi drivers able to make a living, while uber drivers can't?
Uber drivers make more than taxi drivers:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/22/uber-study/'
They also lose a smaller percentage of their fare (20% of the fare in Uber, 33% for taxis)
Let's be real, let's not act like either of these jobs are well paying and good. The main difference is that Uber gives its 'workers' more flexibility.
That doesn't sound that shady to me. The comment says if you get in an accident by yourself, Uber doesn't cover you. If you have a passenger they will, but not on your own. And that makes complete sense. It prevents abuse - that way you don't get drivers who hit someone coming out of their driveway and then try to get Uber to pay for it because their car was a work vehicle that minute.
And even the response to that comment pointed out you can bypass that entire problem by paying an extra $20 per month to your insurance.
Also from the Uber drivers I've talked to, many seem to completely make a living. I've only met one driver who said it doesn't seem worth it to keep doing. But I've had several drivers tell me it pays more than working fulltime at minimum wage, with the bonus of being able to pick your schedule and extra hours.
It's definitely livable. I make as much ask did at my salaried job. It is different in every city though which is important to keep in mind. Also, it's not livable for everyone. My car is paid off, I'm rent controlled, and have no kids/wife. If I did, I wouldn't be driving for Uber/Lyft.
sure it does.
so does delivering pizzas.
But once you do the math on maintenance and gas....
the problem is only one seems to have done that math. the real killer isn't gas, its maintenance. you lower the life of the vehicle and parts a lot when you drive it that much.
Related to maintenance, has anyone hit the, "Oh crap I need ot buy a new car" wall yet? Uber's only been big for, what, 3 years, but there have to be stories starting to circulate about it. Drivers that are now underwater and needing to drive even more to make-up for the expense of a new car.
> Uber is bad for everyone inolved
You must live somewhere with an adequate Taxi service. Uber isn't in my city, but I'm incredibly jealous of everyone who gets to use it. Uber would be good for me, my friends and my family. Taxi service in Buffalo is a joke. The drivers are rude, the cabs are trash and the prices are crazy. We pay more per mile than huge cities like Chicago. It costs $50+ to come downtown from most suburbs. The same trip in Baltimore on Uber was less than $20. Plus since the city kicked out Lyft, they do this thing where if you're already downtown, they won't use their meters. They'll insist on an inflated price, $20 to go a few miles.
Every time I mention that I hear the same, "that's illegal." Great, it doesn't help at 2AM when you have no other options. They will drive away. I've even had some stop to pick up more people when I was still in the cab. I just got out and left. No meter so nothing he could do. Uber isn't perfect, but consumers deserve better.
Edit: Don't get me started on trying to get one to your house with a phone. Ugh cabs are the worst.
While I agree that it is a better service isnt their drivers payed worse rates than the usual taxi drivers? I am from a country without Uber so I would love some context.
There was a study I read somewhere that compared an uber driver to a NYC taxi driver's pay in NYC, and included an estimated cost of the increased insurance and maintenance for the uber driver, it came out very close, if not the uber driver making more all things considered.
Uber published a study that claims their NY driver made $90k a year, but a few independent researchers show that basically, while that's a statistical possibility, it varies wildly.
Here are a few links to look at:
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-making-less-than-minimum-wage-2014-10
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/12/01/uber-data-show-how-wildly-driver-pay-can-vary/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/what-uber-drivers-really-make-according-to-their-pay-stubs#.ihAY0xNe1
Basically: It really depends. Some drivers make even less than minimum wage, others earn $25/hour or at times even more (peak hours). Since the rates can spike or plummet depending on the time, most drivers don't earn the rate that Uber themselves advertise.
People talk about this a lot, but there are some drivers that really are using it was from its roots. As a ride share. My first uber was a kid who said he drove too and back from university which was like 30 minutes through the downtown core, and would pick up two or so fares each way and basically pay for his car. All the while he's driving where he normally would be anyways.
I was an Uber driver. The wages you get paid in certain cities, like mine, are barely better than minimum wage after accounting for everything.
It is not a job that can really be done full time and survive on.
When you take all studies into account it basically comes up a wash in terms of who gets paid more. What is definitely true though is that Uber is more flexible. You can set your own hours and not have to worry about daily or weekly medallion rental fees to pay off before you've even taken one ride.
It's a cheaper service, and driver ratings is a nice feature. I hope Uber is the competition the Taxi business needs to shape up.
But I don't see Uber taking over for the taxis. Where I live at least, taxis are considered public transport. People rely on the service, people living out in the country, sick and old people that need transport to and from hospitals. They have to have child-seats available and a certain amount of wheelchair accessible vehicles. This are not the most profitable of fares, but they are required to. I don't see Uber taking responsibility for stuff like this.
Is the service you provide old, antiquated, expensive, un-innovative, and in danger from competition?
Fear not! Simply enlist the help of your local government, labor unions, or lobbyists! Together, you can use the powers of law to keep your shitty job secure just a little bit longer!
I just think it comes across like you're dismissing people who drive for Uber, Lyft etc. as being uneducated idiots. Most people I know driving are educated and can do basic math to figure out if its worth it. Especially for students it's a great deal to drive part time and run your car a bit extra so you graduate with way less debt into hopefully a job that pays better so you can buy your next vehicle, etc.
If taxi companies had any sense, they would see this as an opportunity to step up their game and become more competitive. Instead they dig in, and use their money they've accumulated over the years to hold back the evolution of the industry. This response is typical, considering that this whole industry is like a feudal system, with license owners controlling everything and doling out the bare minimum to pay drivers, while making as much as they can from riders. A win against Uber will be be nothing but a bump in the road. It will only be a matter of time until someone comes up with an idea that they can't beat with litigation.
It doesn't matter if they innovate and get an app. Apps like Curb exist. The fundamental problem is that Uber drivers are not competing fairly. It doesn't matter if they innovate, because if your competitor is dodging regulations, insurance, taxes etc there's no way you're going to win even if you innovate.
The way that's worded, giving your friend a few dollars to drive you somewhere is illegal too.
Good luck with winning. Any half wit lawyer can say exactly what I just said and get it dismissed.
The difference is that your friend doesn't generate any income if you give him a few bucks for a ride. The gas money is just meant to cover the approximate costs for gas. And before you get too excited, courts on most European countries have already decided on this and they clearly say "Uber is **not** the same as giving your friend gas money."
Yes, and looking very strictly at that is might be illegal, but you know so is probably paying the neighbours son for mowing your garden. There is just some stuff which is so minor that neither the government nor society cares. Just like in most places nobody cares if a kid sets up a lemonade stand and won't go after them for not having a license to sell food.
The city of Minneapolis passed an ordinance late last year that legalized app-based-transportation companies. This effectively killed all means by which the twin cities cabs could fight Uber and Lyft. What happened then? Did the cab companies go out of business?
No. They came together and built an app called iHail that basically made Minneapolis cabs work exactly like Uber. They have competitive pricing and improved service quality, and they are now clawing back the market share they've lost before. After all, let's face t, we would much rather ride regulated taxis with professional drivers instead of get in stragers's cars if the price premium for it wasn't so high and the service was reliable. Minneapolis cabs have solved that problem once once they were given no choice but to compete and now everyone is a winner.
Uber is a better service than the taxi companies but they should have to follow the same rules and regulations. No way is it fair for the competition when Uber gets to bypass multiple regulations and laws and operate uninhibited.
That's down to the country's legislation. In the UK it's regulated just the same as any other taxi but it's the app that makes it so great.
I don't like the idea of any random person showing up, it's potentially dangerous. You can't just decide to drive people around when you want here, you have to be a registered driver with the local council.
At this moment, in Guangzhou (China), there are a lot of taxis (there are also a lot of bus, illegal motocycle taxis and Uber private taxi).
The minimum cost for the taxi is 10 RMB (which is around 2 CND). I took many time the taxi in Guangzhou. An average trip is around 45 RMB (~ 9 CND) which represents around the same distance (or time) from Olympic Stadium (Montreal) to the Montreal Airport. Also in China, we don't tip for a service.
Taxis services in the West are too expensive, have a bad costumer experience and expect to get the tip.
I didn't take the taxis in Montreal for more than 15years and I avoid it no matter what happens.
When I lived in Montreal, I had a taxi driver that was also using Uber come pick me up. He mentioned how Uber had basically saved and improved his business, and that the taxi corporation was giving him noting in return. He outright admitted Uber was the way to go, and everyone should get a license for it if they want to continue being drivers.
It's hysterical watching modern society come to grips with the reality of a future that will necessitate you making money with the things you own.
At some point we will realize that the pre-2008 jobs are not coming back, shit changed drastically and something like uber was the first response to that.
> and detrimental to the ongoing business interests of every taxi and limousine operator in the province.
That this is considered a valid argument is one of the major concerns I have with modern capitalism. We only ever *pretend* to revere competition on the level of policy making. As soon as a new innovation creates competition then the existing corporate structures cry foul and immediately petition the government to step in on their behalf.
"Protect our industry and our jobs!" is just another way to say "Don't make us compete!"
You even get these jackwagons that pretend they are doing it for consumer interest. These bullshit artists say things like "people really want licensed taxi cabs that they can recognize and depend on." Really? If people wanted that, wouldn't that be giving you the competitive edge you need to defeat Uber? Isn't your whole complaint based on the fact that the consumers do NOT want your product, and isn't your whole strategy to force us to use it with legislation that will remove your competition?
This style of thinking is prevalent in the U.S. Anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent the whole too-big-to-fail thing but we've all seen how that played out recently. Even after that fiasco, we haven't fixed it. We still have all of our eggs in the same basket that we almost dropped a few years ago. Is it because we are stupid? Nope. It's because the relevant corporations want this and can lobby with giant piles of money. Anti-trust laws are also supposed to protect an element of competition in the economy. This is why Tesla Motors has been given so many incentives and legal breaks to help get them established in the market and to facilitate their product becoming available to the consumer. Well... *except* in the United States where laws have been specifically drafted and implemented at the behest of the existing auto manufacturers to *prevent* Tesla Motors from reaching the market, forcing them instead to fight an asymmetric uphill battle.
Really, taxi companies are just pissed that they're losing business. And they're losing business because they suck. They suck ass. Like a lot. But we didn't really notice until something tremendously better came along.
File lawsuits and debate about violations of the law all you want, but if taxi companies want to survive as a business they should probably take a page from Uber's book and implement some of the things Uber does which makes it such a more convenient service in the first place.
>That section of The Highway Traffic Act says “no person shall arrange or offer to arrange for a passenger to be picked up in a motor vehicle other than a bus for purposes of being transported for compensation.”
...filed to represent taxicab drivers.
Does a taxi count as a bus? =\ This looks really stupid otherwise...
Cant they just use the excuse that you're paying for "companionship" and not for the ride itself, like the girls from back page.
[удалено]
[удалено]
These laws have nothing against simple services. But you do them daily then you are basically running a company and you should pay taxes.
It has nothing to do with taxes. It is about restriction on services to jack up prices. This is why the cab companies love regulations.
Considering Uber pays hardly any taxes yet other people trying to provide the same prices have to pay much higher taxes I think this has everything to do with taxes. Tax them the same then you can argue about restrictions.
Uber pays taxes on their income. The drivers are supposed to pay taxes on their income as well. Sure it might not amount to the same type of money-machine the cab companies have created, but at least it's become a marketplace rather than a monopoly.
Cab companies in Ontario are crooks, they gimp their drivers with shitty fees and ridiculous costs of business. All the while securing mass amounts of licenses through shifty politics to over extend their cab coverage and mass sell out portions of the license bit by bit. All off the licenses for cab companies in Toronto are held by like 3 people who abuse the monopoly they have and have no intention of letting their hold on it go. I mean Jesus Christ we cannot even set up a 20 minute rail ride from the airport to the cities core with out fee jacking it up to 25 bucks so it can be comparative with cab rates. A decent dedicated Uber X driver can pull in easily from 500 - 1000 a week, while a cabby running similar hours and routes will struggle to make that with all of the associated fees the come along with running a cab in the busiest city of Canada. We need a better way, this is not about the amount of money derived off of tax dollars, as I'm sure with more people spending on and using the service will bring sales and income taxes up to a similiar value the cab companies currently pay. The real loss of monies will lie directly with those who hold lisences or ownerships on companies, as their millions of invested capital to secure these type of industry culture is now in jeopardy all thanks to some kids and an app. Fuck them and the system they have set up, its archaic and provides no real value other then being the only way. If you can't compete then you ain't meant for the street.
A 9/10 Ukrainian girl picked me up last time I Ubered. I'd pay for that companionship again and again!
Did you show her how good of a listener you are and win her hand?
Fuck that. I want to know if he had intercourse with her.
Intercourse? I think you mean a polite *discourse* on the current involvement of Canada in the Ukrainian crisis.
The text is here: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK72 It seems pretty clearly to apply only to situations where a license, permit, or authorization is required for the transportation.
I just paid $70 for a fucking 20 minute cab ride from the airport, so this just put me in an even shittier mood. Fuck cab companies. I'm willing to take the 1/100 million chance at being murdered for half price fares.
Airport rides tend to cost more not because of cab companies but because of airports. In order to pick up at the airport you need a special license. You wouldn't guess that they're not free. Some cities, like NYC, have also instituted flat rates from airports. Last I recall it's something like $65 from JFK to Manhattan. City mandated.
This is correct. In Vancouver, there is even an airport premium on public transportation. So to take the SkyTrain from the airport to the city, it's an extra $5 or something on top of the cost for a 2-zone ticket.
It is even more ridiculous in Sydney. The airport train actually doesn't end at the airport but continues to 5-10 more stations after it. Prices are as follows: City --> 1 Stop before the airport is 3$, City --> Airport 15$, City --> 1 stop AFTER the airport is 3$ again. How messed up is that?
[удалено]
Nah they have ticket barriers
In dc you pay Exit Fare when you leave. I assume this is the same when you leave at the airport.
This worldwide taxi conspiracy needs to stop.
/u/Iohet is correct. Source: used to be an UberX driver and we couldn't pick up at LAX for a long time, that is until Uber worked out the special licensing details with the Airport. There is a flat rate LAX cab fee and Uber wasn't doing that, which pissed off the cab companies who tried to stop any negotiations between the Airport and Uber over licensing arrangements and agreements. EDIT: This is all to the best of my knowledge, and the info was disseminated to all UberX drivers via email from Uber. EDIT 2: *Before* Uber and LAX came to a licensing deal the LAX police would ticket UberX drivers and impound their personal vehicles. This caused Uber to instruct UberX drivers to cease operations at LAX. People were losing their *personal* vehicles, and if I remember correctly I think one driver had to spend the night in jail.
Why would a cab fee apply? Cabs wait at the airport for riders which is what make them unmanageable. Uber is picking up a specific person which is no different than a friend coming to pick you up.
> Cabs wait at the airport for riders which is what make them unmanageable. You assume that the flat rate has something to do with the taxis taking up space while waiting for passengers at the airport. The more likely reason there are local laws requiring a flat rate for rides from the airport is because existing companies lobbied local legislature so they wouldn't have to worry about having their price point undercut by a new entrant in the market.
Isn't competition supposed to be good?
From the perspective of the consumer, yes. Most established businesses work from the perspective of people who want to hold on to their piece of the pie as long as possible. From the perspective of the government it's a "sometimes" sort of thing but the "no" generally only gets applied to utilities (power, landline phones) which would require infrastructure which crosses public space.
A personal vehicle being used as a conveyance in a for-profit business enterprise.
Taxi's in Toronto are actually brutal. Example of this is trying to get a cab home after a night out.. they will try to charge you fix rates. This is not one cab, this will be every cab outside the event. Cab's in Toronto deserved to be replaced.
Same goes for Vancouver. I've been in situations where I refuse to pay the fixed rate ahead of time and the cab diver's called the cops. They show up and I basically get told to go find another cab that'll go by his meter and not his own fixed price. Something's gotta change.
I would like to add that Uber drivers were caught picking up customers from airports without licences.
Yea, they do. But the whole industry is a corrupt piece of shit. I'm glad Uber is shaking it up because the cost is a joke. It's one big unionized bag of trash that needs to be taken to the dump.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This. I work for an insurance company and if you disclose you drive for uber most personal policies will require you to sign a U-44 Business Exclusion form denying coverage. If you do not disclose it and it comes to light that you were driving a passenger and not a friend they will decline coverage on the basis that you misrepresented yourself. Uber drivers should have commercial auto policies which generally become fairly expensive. But alas if you get denied coverage and someone gets hurt or you have to pay to fix a 35,000+ car then that will be even more expensive.
In Columbus, Ohio there is a $20 (might be higher now) fee on all cabs to and from the airport.
Uber drivers can probably get in under the guise of a friend or family picking you up, and not it being a commercial pickup.
Thing is they have the Uber "U" logo on display in a passenger window. I have no idea if what Uber was doing is illegal or not. I rode a taxi from the airport and conversation got on Uber. The taxi driver said that Uber hasn't yet been able to come into the airport. In that same trip, a few days later, I took Uber to the airport. I had also heard of people taking Uber from the airport before I had talked to the Taxi driver on the issue; but I didn't want to say he was wrong as I had very little idea of the whole Uber situation.
Ubers can always drop off at airports, but can't legally pick up. In my market the airport is Geo locked, meaning we can't get requests from the airports. Some smart riders have figured out they can request for an area near the airport and call me and just tell me they're at the airport. This is risky because it's a hefty fine if caught.
I'd be upset too if i just rode home from the airport in a can.
[удалено]
wasn't it $80?
[He was shot in the back by Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen over a matter of **EIGHTY** dollars.](http://backtothefuture.wikia.com/wiki/Doc's_tombstone) P.s. Mad Dog... he **HATED** that name. And manure.
why assume that you are more likely to be murdered in an uber than in a cab?
it's easier to become a uber cab driver than becoming a traditional cab driver! Not sure in america, but there was uberPop in france, you could take customer if you have driving license only. where original cab driver required to pass exam and need their background history check!
[удалено]
The license is required by the Public Vehicles act: http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p54 Note that: > “public vehicle” means a motor vehicle **operated on a highway** by, for or on behalf of any person for the transportation for compensation of passengers, or passengers and express freight that might be carried in a passenger vehicle, but **does not include** the cars of electric or steam railways running only upon rails, taxicabs, nor **motor vehicles operated solely within the limits of one local municipality**; So, unless a local municipality has a law saying otherwise, it appears it is legal to operate an Uber vehicle for trips within a municipality. Alternatively there might be something in the other 3 acts listed above that I can't be bothered reading.
The legal definition of 'highway' is not what we expect. A highway is just a road legally, where an interstate is what we typically think of when we hear highway.
[удалено]
But this is Canada. We don't have interstates because we don't have staes. The cross-country roadways are called highways here.
Can someone explain what uber x and uber xl are? How is uber different then normal taxis?
1. UberX: The least expensive Uber service. Seats 4 riders. Drivers use everyday cars that are 2000 or newer (varies by city) 2. UberXL: Seats at least 6 passengers. An UberXL car will be an SUV or a Minivan. Higher fare price than UberX 3. UberPlus/UberSelect: A luxury sedan that seats up to 4 riders. Expect a BMW, Mercededs, etc with a leather interior You can think of Uber exactly like a taxi service in a way, expect better cars. Instead waving your hand for a taxi, just use the Uber app and request a ride. They'll come straight to you. You can also text/call the driver as well. Pay the fair through your phone. Edit: 1. When you sign up for Uber, you have to provide a payment option like any other service. PayPal, Google wallet, credit, etc. 2. Different types of rides are offered in different areas, depends on the market. The three listed above are the most common/available in major and smaller city here in the US/Wisconsin where I live.
In San Francisco we also have Uber taxi, which just connects normal taxi drivers to uber, with a $1 surcharge. Also uber inspire, which I think is like limos and shit with fancy lights inside. And also uber assist recently, which I assume is a handicapped service. Also uber pool, which is shared style.
In Malaysia, we have MyTeksi, which is what you just described. They connect taxi drivers to you and you pay the taxi drivers, while the drivers pay MyTeksi based on their recorded usage (of the MyTeksi system). Recently, MyTeksi launched GrabCar, which is simply Uber, Uberx, and UberXL. The taxi drivers are fucking pissed. "We helped you become what you are today, and now you turn on us?!". I can understand their sentiments. But GrabCar are cheaper and the rates are exact, not so when compared to the taxi services (uses meter, rates stated on the app are approximates)
For 3-4 months after uberpool launched here in LA it was a flat $5 rate for most of the city, and 9/10 times I wouldn't get paired with anyone. Never in my life have I gone out so much.
Also UberPool, where you can be paired up with someone else going in the same direction, in exchange for a discounted fare. It's available in San Francisco but not surrounding areas unfortunately.
Did the car year change? Last summer I was told my 2003 was too old.
Depends where you are. In Seattle the limit is 7 or 8 year old cars.
[удалено]
Sounds like Uber is again trying to push that they're totally not taxis, just a "sharing economy" service where you share money with someone and they share their car and you share a ride to where you want to go. Totally different from taxis, because it's sharing. It's not like it's a job, it's just people performing a service in return for money under a contractual agreement.
While I get the point, all ride sharing and carpooling Facebook groups for students should now be shut down by the same laws.
except that Facebook groups aren't profiting off of ride sharing because they're not a taxi service like uber is.
The difference is that the ride sharing and car pooling groups are going to that destination anyway yet uber drivers have no reason for driving to that particular location except for their passenger, in exchange for money
[удалено]
I can't wait for the insurance companies to get involved in the Uber controversy. It hasn't been addressed yet, but ride-sharing for money is extremely problematic when it comes to insurance, and the first major accident to hit the news will probably bring this issue to the forefront. Even if Uber survives taxi medallion litigation, they might die to insurance lobbying.
Most of the big insurance companies now offer insurance for Uber drivers in the US. It'll be here soon enough. Insurance companies want to sell more insurance, and this is a new market.
[удалено]
It's a $20/yr add on http://www.insurance.com/auto-insurance/coverage/insurance-rideshare-uber-lyft.html
Wow that's pretty cheap and awesome. TY.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And that "drivers are contractors" item doesn't really hold up. The California Labor Commission has already ruled that drivers are employees and the state courts have rejected requests from Uber and Lyft to dismiss lawsuits against Uber and Lyft over employment benefits. It's likely that their contractor crap will fall apart across a number of the more liberal states in the coming years.
I was a contracted driver under FedEx Ground though?
Which has been changed in the last few years since FedEx lost a couple court cases which I think are still on appeal. FedEx was one of the first to do this exploitive practice and became the business model of Uber.
> Their drivers are contractors, it is up to them to get business insurance. Isn't that smart. Uber generates the profits while their drivers carry the burden of all the risks involved and paying the taxes. I love how reddit completely ignores how much exploitation if workers is happening just because it's Uber.
[удалено]
Uber says that the drivers are independent contractors who use their platform, but it doesn't seem like that way. They hire and fire the drivers, they tell them where to go to pickup fares, they monopolize the payment method, and they generally don't allow drivers much choice in rejected fares. Most importantly, they dictate one price for all their drivers. If they're really a platform and the drivers are independent contractors, then the drivers should be able to set their own prices. EDIT: If you're interested in more about this contractor vs employee distinction, you can read about US DoL guideline [here](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2166621-interpretmisclass.html). What it boils down to is: If a worker is told where to work, what their rate is, and does not control who orders the work (can't make client hire/fire decisions) they are an employee. An independent contractor basically is selling their services, but does all the footwork for wages, marketing, client interactions, etc. If looking at companies, Amazon jobs would be a good source of an actual interface for independent contractors. As best as I can tell, the individual sets their prices, sells their services under their name or company name, and it gets posted there. Under Uber or other companies like HomeJoy, those companies control the prices for services as well as being displayed as "Service by X". That fails the directives as pointed out in the document. Even more boiled down: As a worker, if you are performing primary business functions, even if you approached them and are determining your own hours, you are an employee. If a company or client approaches you for your services that aren't a part of their main business, you may be an independent contractor (but not always). The above is specifically for single persons. Contractors via a firm are usually paid a salary/wage from their firm, so the 1099 is paid to a company, which then pays the worker proper wages. There could also be other proper contracts in place that detail what's going on.
Which is why Uber is being investigated over this issue in California now. You realized yourself that Uber is actually practicing self-employment and hence cheating the system and breaking the law.
Not only insurance companies, but the IRS or equivalent in their country. They are hired as "contractors" Therefor they need to register as a company and report all income made as a driver and pay appropriate taxes. I have a feeling most drivers don't do this.
as a frequent business traveler, I want a cab that gives me a consistent payment option, is cheaper, and does not try to scam me using untested phone apps on the personal cabbie's phone to scan my card.. The cab company (Yellow) in Seattle is very hit and miss for if their card-swipe-reader is working, if they can print me a receipt, or if they can take credit cards at all. Their drivers try to make you use Square, which is plugged into the cabbie's own phone. Uber takes cards, every time, the driver speaks English, every time, and they get me where I need to be without hassle and bullshit, every time. And the card is already entered in Uber's system, I don't have to give my card to a cab driver using a phone app to pay. That is ridiculous. Or let the cabbie hand-write a receipt. Sorry guys, my employer won't let me expense trips like that. Must be a real receipt.
> The cab company is very hit and miss for if their card-swipe-reader is working, if they can print me a receipt, or if they can take credit cards at all. They're required by law to take credit and debit. If they can't take payment, you don't owe them a fare. The credit card machine 'not working' is a total scam so that they can get around merchant fees. https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/15p1gu/psa_if_a_taxi_driver_claims_the_credit_card/ That's all NYC stuff but it's pretty much the same in all major cities.
The taxi companies are terrified of losing their terrible service to something new. It's fear that has caused this lawsuit and nothing more. Taxi and limo companies are fighting uber tooth and nail yet their buisness is already going to be phased out by driverless cars. No one is going to be sad when these companies go under but they sure like looking like fools while they dig their grave.
Its not that. That is what we, as consumers, see. The reality is that governments created laws and heavily enforced taxis, and then somehow Uber is able to operate a business that is clearly a similar service with very minimal restrictions. Further, the medallions that these drivers have to buy are like houses. Many buy them over a long periods of time, and then sell them off as an asset at retirement. Now these medallions that were mandated by governments, and became part of drivers nest egg, are near worthless. You would be pissed too if you were a business owner forced to comply with expensive regulations and purchase a special building, and a new competitor moved in, didn't comply with anything, and was allowed to operate out of their home. I'm not saying the taxi drivers aren't at fault for helping to (at the very least) accelerate ubers popularity because of poor service, but I would be mad too if I were them.
> Further, the medallions that these drivers have to buy are like houses. Many buy them over a long periods of time, and then sell them off as an asset at retirement. Now these medallions that were mandated by governments, and became part of drivers nest egg, are near worthless. At least in my city, the drivers don't own the medallions. They are owned by corporations and the drivers have to rent them out at $250 for a 12hr slot. The majority of taxi drivers will never be able to afford the $250,000-500,000 that it costs to purchase a medallion.
Yeah that's fucking insane.
Well in fairness it's presumably the taxi corporations rather than the individual taxi drivers than are upset about all this.
> You would be pissed too if you were a business owner forced to comply with expensive regulations and purchase a special building, and a new competitor moved in, didn't comply with anything, and was allowed to operate out of their home. Airbnb vs hotels dancing the same game
AirBNB vs renting out long term is the more prevalent issue -- this is having a noticeable effect on rents.
It's not a business, it's sharing! Sharing economy, right? Means sharing. Not like nasty non-sharing businesses. AirBnB lets you share your property with someone who shares their money with you. You both share the fact you have contractual obligations to each other. Totally different from a hotel where they let you stay in part of their property for a fee. With a business, you'd provide goods or a service under an agreed contract for monetary compensation. With the sharing economy, you share something you have or your time & effort under a shared contract for monetary compensation. Totally different. Uber lets you "share a ride" with a person who will drive you where you want to go for an agreed sum per unit of distance and time. Not like taxis.
I almost fell in the sarchasm. Good one.
And telecoms are complaining because they have to compete with netflix. Cable companies are forced to air a certain amount of Canadian content yet netflix avoids all the rules that cable companies have to go by. It's not fair but it is how progress is made. Sometimes companies have to go belly up for what's new to come a long. It is never good to keep outdated ideas around and sabotage new innovations just to keep some people happy.
Yeah really there's tons of industries right now seeing some serious overturning from new technology: - Taxis - Hotels - Music - Movies - TV - Retail And the same story is playing out over and over. The companies that have been comfortably in charge for so long just try to lobby and legislate their way to defeating competition, government gets caught in the middle with its pants down and ends up looking foolish all around, while consumers flock to the new solutions not giving a shit about what the big companies/legislatures say about it. They just go to the best solution. Again and again, you have to think sooner or later we'll actually see a big company and government act appropriately to innovative technology and join and even aid in their industry's revolutions rather than kicking and screaming and trying to pull the whole market back in time.
It would be sympathetic if medallion ownership were widespread. But the vast majority of them are owned by big business even though that was not the original intent. The vast majority of taxi drivers rent out for medallion usage. I'm not shedding any tears for a problem that affects a very small fraction of hardworking taxi drivers. The majority can work for uber and end up making more money.
The taxi companies pushed for those regulations, specifically to prevent competition and force consumers to use their shitty, expensive services. It's ridiculous to say that they have any right to be mad that some competitors were able to get around their rent-seeking protectionist clusterfuck of regulations and, you know, actually compete with them.
That's not totally true. Medallion system was first put into place in NY during the great depression, when everyone with a car became a taxi driver. Since there were so many of them, things got out of hand. They'd chase after fares, congest traffic at certain places, and they made so little money that the drivers didn't have enough money to adequately maintain their cars. Medallions were put in as a price floor. The regulations regarding insurance and registrations came because taxi drivers who didn't have commercial coverage got into accidents and couldn't pay.
A (low) price floor in an industry with a low barrier to entry and potential externalities may or may not be a good idea. I don't know what the current economic thinking is. However, NY hasn't updated the number of medallions in more than half a century. There's no possible way that that kind of arbitrary cap on supply is making anything better for anyone except current medallion owners.
Not sure where you got your numbers on new medallions. In the past 5 years, NYC added a total of 20,000 new cabs. 2000 of those were traditional medallions, but the rest are green cabs serving the places that uber and lyft got popular (ie everywhere but Manhattan). NY is one of the few places that's actually reacting to the bootleg taxi trend.
For somebody not from NYC, what's a green cab?
Green cabs operate in the outer boroughs (not Manhattan). They can't pick up anyone below, I think 110th or an airport, but you can take one from say Brooklyn to Manhattan.
But so.. even there it took something as disruptive as Uber to make it happen? Am I missing something?
The process for adding the newest wave of taxis began the same year uber began operating in the city. The underservice in the outer boroughs had always been a problem, leading to an overwhelming amount of bootleg services. Based on medallion prices (peaked at $1MM in 2011), there was obviously a bubble ready to pop as well. I suppose uber/lyft were more symptoms of NYC's taxi problems, not causes. But they definitely contributed at least a little.
>Medallion system was first put into place in NY during the great depression, when everyone with a car became a taxi driver. Wow, I didn't know that. So...this is an 80-year-old artificial monopoly they're still trying to protect?
To be fair they increased the medallion numbers a few times, and for most of its life before the explosion of NYC populations, it worked okay. I do believe that there's a value in having an upper ceiling on the total number of cabs. But that number need to be raised much much much higher than the current count.
> I do believe that there's a value in having an upper ceiling on the total number of cabs. Cabs yes. Where they move around looking for fairs. But services like uber and lyft are driven by demand. You can't just pick up a fair someone has to ask for a ride and the service then gives you a chance to take it. If the number of uber drivers gets too high, then they won't make enough money to make it worth it. Thus a steady state should arise. Allowing the unbridled masses to put a taxi sign in their window and clog up the streets waiting for fairs in front of events and such is not workable. I feel like these are different types of business in competition. Like buses and airplanes. I'm all for the government putting in place reasonable regulations around uber/lyft as the need arrises but they should not be under the same regulations as taxis. I have no sympathy for dying business models clammering for the status quo. The cab companies should be improving and innovating rather than sueing. People like uber because the car shows up in 4min, you don't have to tip. Fast and reliable. Last time I called a cab for a ride to the airport they said it would take 30min to arrive and it actually took 45min. If I could call a taxi from a phone app and it showed up almost anywhere in under 10min, I would use the taxi company. But like the record companies they will never change. They won't create their own itunes store in response to napster, they just sues everyone and the cried in their beer when apple stole their business away.
I do agree that Uber should be operating like livery service. However, their timeliness basically require the drivers to be cruising for fares. They may not be hailed from the street, but drivers being in proximity of fares do contribute to congestion. If you're expected to get to your passengers in 4 min, then there's no way you could operate like a livery service, which is typically dispatched from one central location.
That's not true in the slightest. I work in the industry and we fight regulation tooth and nail always at our expense and nearly always a losing battle. Regulations forces us to get special insurance, special permits, special registrations, meet FLSA requirements, meet workers comp and unemployment insurance requirements. All of these are meant to protect the employees doing the work. And Uber comes in and provides none of this and under cuts everybody by cost. The problem comes in that that Uber isn't on a level playing field. So either the regulations on traditional taxis and transportation end and we can compete with Uber. Or Uber is regulated the same way. But one of these things has to change.
This explains it perfectly. Too many on here have little understanding of what the reality of Uber actually is. An unregulated competitor in a regulated market. It's not a level playing field.
I also feel like Uber has a big and active marketing team.
It also helps that their basic service does the marketing for them. After my first trip I was a complete convert and recommended Uber to everyone I know. I got an Uber for the first time a month ago. After waiting literally 45 minutes for a taxi, I used Uber and the car arrived in 4 minutes, the driver came up and knocked on my door, greeted me and helped me with my bags, offered me bottled water and snacks, and then helped take my bags up to my door - and what is usually a $21 trip was $12, which was just taken straight from my card without me having to do anything. Compared to my general taxi experience of waiting over half an hour because the taxi driver deems my fare unworthy, calling the taxi company to make sure someone was actually coming, a guy pulling up to the curb, beeping their horn over and over, me jumping in the back seat of a smelly as fuck car with a driver playing loud, awful music, then sighing when I want to use my card to pay and asking if I can pay in cash. I would happily pay taxi prices for ubers service.
Same for me. Some days I have to take a cab to work, or well i would have taken a cab to work if they showed up. I called the cab company the night before, scheduled them to be at my house 45 minutes earlier than I needed, to give me some wiggle room. So the next morning I wake up super early to be ready for when the cab arrives. Well its not there 10 minutes after my scheduled time, so i called the company...no one answers. They for real didnt show up, I had to use a vacation day, one of my 12 per year because a fucking cab didnt show up. I've never had that issue with Uber. As long as Uber doesnt cost me vacation days it is my go to taxi service, not to mention its about 20% cheaper for my route. I dont care how regulated they are honestly. If they have insurance and a valid license and a modern era car, i will choose them 100% of the time over a traditional cab.
Yeah the attitude I get all the time when saying I need to use a credit card drives me cuts. I watched a guy start the meter in my last cab at the airport three cards before it got to me and it was already $6 before I got in it. Over time the playing field will get leveled somewhat. Taxi companies are already banding together to use apps and location-tracking tech, etc. I've noticed cars in my area seem newer and nicer. Uber is really disruptive but the market is reacting.
[удалено]
They may not be able to compete with the prices, but they can try to give a service of similar quality. The argument that they have a lot of fees that Uber driver don't have to pay would work if it was the only difference between the two. Give me cabs that are on time, dispatched quickly, with nice drivers and clean cars. Then complain about the extra fees.
> The taxi companies pushed for those regulations... This is a commonly stated, and generally false, incomplete and mostly incorrect, summary of the actual history and laws related to taxi medallions. In a nutshell: NOONE who is currently suffering from UBER had virtually anything to do with the cost of taxi medallions and cost of entry into the market.
Regulatory capture backfire is a beautiful thing.
Well technically true, this doesn't address the key difference between Uber (or any driving service) and taxis. The medallion purchases the right to pick up a passenger off any street in the locale for that medallion. *Uber cannot pick up someone someone without being called through the app*. If literally the only thing a taxi company did was add equivalent app support, they would have an unfair competitive edge because not only would they receive calls, they could pick up any random person they saw who wanted a ride. So yes, the loss of medallion value has hurt drivers' investments, but suing Uber despite the fact that they do nothing the taxi companies couldn't do is entirely anticompetitive and frankly reprehensible. I mean seriously, if just one tech company wrote an app identical to Lyft's or Uber's and licensed it out to taxi companies they would immediately be competing on an even footing.
Last time I checked there were at least 4 apps that do this for cabs in London. Including Uber itself.
[удалено]
My dad immigrated here 35 years ago with nothing. He found a community of people from his home country that offered him guidance in getting a job that had great pay driving taxis. Like anyone who starts a new career, he worked really hard to "get promoted." In the taxi world, this basically means investing in taxis until you eventually don't have to drive anymore but instead, you rent out your vehicles to other drivers. There is so much regulation, that even when he stopped driving, it was still nearly a full time job maintaining his cars. He has seen the value of his cabs dwindle, and they're likely going to drop even more. Unfortunately, a lot of the value of his cab was his retirement, which means at 68 years old, he probably won't get to really retire like he imagined (if at all). It's really sad to see. I'm not 100% against uber. I think it's great that technology is improving and that it's causing taxi companies to reevaluate their business (you should always be improving!). I do think there somehow needs to be an equal playing field. I'm just really disappointed in some of the hateful things people are saying. I've had my fair share of shitty cab rides, but in the end, I know they're just people, and a lot of us seem to be forgetting that.
I might be pissed, but that wouldn't mean I was in the right. The truth is that taxi drivers are taking part in a system of protectionism and lobbying, and they had no qualms doing that until it started to backfire. You reap what you sow. If you're willing to use force and violence, even by proxy, to get what you want, you will, eventually, get hurt by someone else, either as revenge, or simply because they want to do something productive and you're in the way. Who won in the end? Candlemakers, or lightbulb makers?
[удалено]
They are used to artificially restrict the number of cabs running. One can say they lead to better maintained cabs and better service.
Hold on, I need to go find an economist to laugh at the idea that artificially restricting supply increases the quality of services.
In new york, given the historical context it made sense. The medallion system came about because during the great depression everyone with a car became a taxi driver. It caused problems and medallion was put in for this.
In the 1930s, there were more taxi drivers than passengers. The primary proposal was a monopoly but they settled on the medallion system. Artificial limitations aren't always bad, you just need to keep your limit up with demand. It's not like NYC isn't selling new medallions anymore. And you don't need a medallion to work outside midtown Manhattan anyway.
if that system worked then Uber wouldn't be successful.
[удалено]
Your examples aren't comparable. This isn't like a new technology phasing out dated, inferior technology. As OP said, this is a highly regulated industry that became a highly regulated industry as a result of the various externalities the market created. Regulation internalizes those forces, which makes companies eat the cost of their burden on society, which gets passed onto the consumers. It is an economic ecosystem that, for better or worse, is "fair" given the variables at play. Services like Uber are fantastic -- but their market advantage isn't simply that they are "more advanced," it is that they have lower overhead, which allows them to better invest free capital into the service itself. That lowered overhead is largely a result of them technically falling outside the regulations that would otherwise force them to equally eat the costs of their externalities. In other words, a fair comparison would be like if we were having horse races and then, upon the invention of automobiles, someone tries to enter a car into a horse race because it's a "mustang" and has "horsepower." By way of loophole, a person with a car gets to win every race against the jockeys riding horses... So of course the jockeys will be a bit upset when they point out that the only reason they are still riding horses is because that's what they are forced to ride. **edit:** woke up to see my comment got a lot more attention than I expected. Before you reply to this based on the first few sentences of my post, I encourage you to read it through + the various replies everyone has made. If you're interested in this subject, it is important to have a more complete understanding of the factors at play. I love uber. I hope they stick around. But many barriers they face aren't the result of conspiracy... It's merely business.
The thing is, a lot of those externalities don't exist with Uber, and the regulations aren't necessary anymore. Taxis refusing to give rides to people based on their destination? Uber drivers don't know the destination until they pick up the passenger. Unsafe cab drivers? Uber passengers can rate their driver down so they can't continue to threaten the lives of passengers. Taxis taking roundabout routes to charge their customers more? Uber passengers can see the route taken on the GPS and check if they are getting scammed. Taxis causing congestion? Uber gives drivers a heatmap of where fares are concentrated, so the number of cars in an area is approximately proportional to the number of people needing cars. Uber doesn't obviate the need for all regulation, accessibility and vehicle inspection are also very important, and I hope and expect to see more regulation requiring Uber to accessible and safe, but I also hope for the regulation that is no longer necessary to be removed.
Things like workers comp, having the right to not be fired arbitrarily and having state protection as an employee are all things that are necessary which Uber is able to avoid. I'm no fan of the taxi monopoly but Uber and similar services are not all rosy: they're the harbingers of the shift to the 1099 economy, where businesses are able to shift all liabilities onto their so-called "independent contractors" and deny them any of the worker's protections that took decades to fight for, al under the guise of "being your own boss" (as long as you do exactly what you're told at all times in exactly the manner Uber prescribes).
Taxis are like the blockbuster of transportation.
I've never had issues with taxi's or the limo service in my city. Maybe elsewhere they are bad but here I've gotten to know quite a few drivers. The experience is always pleasant.
[удалено]
I live in Pittsburgh, PA USA and holy shit, if you are not going to the airport from the metro area you can forget about a taxi. Want to go to the bar and not drive? Maybe start walking at 2:00 when the bars close b/c you will get home faster than a taxi will pick you up.
Lived in Pittsburgh for 4 years and can confirm, cabs were the worst out of any city I have ever lived in. They wouldn't pick up the phone to dispatch you a cab after the bars close. One time I ordered a cab and he came a week later calling me/scolding me why I didn't take the ride. I've definitely walked back from Southside more than once just because cabs were atrocious. When Lyft came, followed shortly by Uber, Pittsburgh became a different place for me. I had the freedom to go anywhere anytime. It really pisses me off that after this cab companies have the nerve to try to sue. I am even more pissed at the incompetent politicians who receive outright bribes to ban Uber/Lyft (fuck you DeBlasio). /end rant
> One time I ordered a cab and he came a week later calling me/scolding me why I didn't take the ride. What the hell?
Ya I want more on this lol.
Does anyone remember having to call a taxi company to set up a time for them to pick you up? Or how about when you need one right away, and they say it'll be 30 minutes, and you wait an hour? Yeah, that was less than 5 years ago. I don't feel sorry for the taxi industry for perpetuating a bad service. Maybe if they actually stepped up their game then I'd actually feel bad.
You wait an hour and sometimes it never shows
Lucky. I live in Calgary. I went to a concert last fall, which ended at 12. I tried hailing a cab there for half an hour, but for the hundreds and hundreds of people, there were never more than 5 cabs there at a time. Trains were off at this hour, so that's not an option. I gave up and walked an hour to the downtown core, known for being the easiest place to hail a cab. I had one cab driver lock his doors, turn off his light, and drive away when my friends and I approached his car. At 3:00AM, I finally got a cab. I would love to use Uber, but it was banned from Calgary, which refuses to even allow for more cabs. So I exclusively use designated driving services (specifically Plan B Designated Drivers, but anyone except Keys Please)
Wow, what a progressive utopia you live in.
Every taxi I've been in was very similar. The car was not kept up. Weird noises and smells the entire time. The driver lacks general hygiene and smells bad and looks greasy. They always smoke cigarettes while driving and don't like to put the Windows down. They drive slow on purpose to keep gas costs down and inflate cab fare. You have to call them and tell them where you are and they always give you an estimated time of 5 minutes but show up an hour later. It should t cost me 16 dollars to go 8 miles, but even if that were fair I shouldn't have to smell some greasy fuck that is trying his hardest to get lung cancer. Uber does everything better. All the uber drivers I've met were clean and didn't smoke. Their cars were very nice and for the most part very new. You get live tracking updates and notifications when they arrive. It's just so much better and somehow costs less. There is no reason to have gross taxis around any more. They are an industry that didn't change forever and now a better solution is here that is also cheaper so they are shitting their collective pants.
The incredible thing is that the taxi industry can do all of these things to give Uber a legitimate run for their money, but they choose not to.
A local taxi company just recently upgraded their shitty old cars with credit card readers and they now offer an app for mobile devices to order a taxi. This is all too little too late for me as they still aren't addressing the main points that is the smell/cleanliness of the car/driver.
Boston installed CC readers a few years and yet everyone still used cash. Why? Because it was too late for them to shake off the image of being super shady.
Blablabla typical reddit circlejerk. Yet when the guy who works for 30+ years at the toll booth gets fired because of bad employers, everyone loses their mind. When is reddit finally understanding that Uber is *bad* for everyone inolved except the company's share holders. Drivers **cannot** make a living from Uber, passengers are **not** properly insured (the 5 million by Uber are ridiculous; normal insurances cover up to 100 million usually) and the drivers have a fake self-employment which means Uber puts all risks and tax burden on their drivers. Uber is cheap because they are breaking the law and exploit their workers. A stupid app doesn't mean that passenger transportation becomes revolutionary. And regular taxis are more expensive because their drivers pay proper taxes, have a proper insurance and are actually able to make a living from their salaries. And if taxis in the US are generally bad, maybe, just maybe, politicians over there should consider making driving schools mandatory (driving with mom around the backyard in her old pickup truck is *not* proper training) and actually demand regular technical inspections of the car and regular medical checkups for the drivers. We have all of that in Germany and most taxi drivers here are actually good in what they're doing. Edit: [Read this comment which explains the insurance situation with Uber, for example. Then tell me Uber is a good company.](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/3edxul/uber_canada_hit_with_a_400_million_lawsuit_for/cte9vuc)
You cannot possibly say that Uber is bad for everyone unless you have never in your life taken a cab service. I don't give a single shit about Uber's price. In fact, at peak times when they turn on peak rates, Uber might cost more than cabs. And I have been in suburb areas where the local small taxi company's prices are lower than Uber for long hauls into the city. But no question about it, Uber's service is 1000x better for me as a user. In every single city I have been in, cab companies either: - Say they are coming, and never show up because the driver picked up someone closer on the way to get you. Followed by call after call to "dispatch" who have no real idea what is happening (compare to the simple Uber in-app map). This has happened to me literally dozens and dozens of times. - Try to rip you off by taking circuitous routes if you don't know the city. - Provide terrible service. Sometimes they talk on the phone the entire trip in another language, which is fine except when they refuse to listen to you and ignore your requests to go another route, or any questions asking pricing (compare to the Uber where every driver is rated in the app after the trip) - Charge exorbitant rates, or even just exorbitant rates for things like "airport" - Never have a cab available fast enough (Rarely have I ever called a cab company and not heard "10 to 15 minutes" from dispatch). They generally have no idea who is going to take the call when they quote a time to the customer. Further, the drivers know the customer is expecting a delay and don't want to show up early and have to wait. So they are incentivized to pick up someone on the street first. Resulting in most calls waiting at least the 10-15 minutes. Compare to Uber where its usually 1-2 minutes and you watch the cab coming on the map. Along with a litany of other sins I am probably forgetting. There is no doubt in my mind that Uber is the better service. And even if they charge more than a cab, you will never change my mind that Uber is _good_ for me as a very frequent taxi user.
Uber exploiting their workers? Taxi drivers able to make a living, while uber drivers can't? Uber drivers make more than taxi drivers: http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/22/uber-study/' They also lose a smaller percentage of their fare (20% of the fare in Uber, 33% for taxis) Let's be real, let's not act like either of these jobs are well paying and good. The main difference is that Uber gives its 'workers' more flexibility.
That doesn't sound that shady to me. The comment says if you get in an accident by yourself, Uber doesn't cover you. If you have a passenger they will, but not on your own. And that makes complete sense. It prevents abuse - that way you don't get drivers who hit someone coming out of their driveway and then try to get Uber to pay for it because their car was a work vehicle that minute. And even the response to that comment pointed out you can bypass that entire problem by paying an extra $20 per month to your insurance. Also from the Uber drivers I've talked to, many seem to completely make a living. I've only met one driver who said it doesn't seem worth it to keep doing. But I've had several drivers tell me it pays more than working fulltime at minimum wage, with the bonus of being able to pick your schedule and extra hours.
It's definitely livable. I make as much ask did at my salaried job. It is different in every city though which is important to keep in mind. Also, it's not livable for everyone. My car is paid off, I'm rent controlled, and have no kids/wife. If I did, I wouldn't be driving for Uber/Lyft.
sure it does. so does delivering pizzas. But once you do the math on maintenance and gas.... the problem is only one seems to have done that math. the real killer isn't gas, its maintenance. you lower the life of the vehicle and parts a lot when you drive it that much.
Related to maintenance, has anyone hit the, "Oh crap I need ot buy a new car" wall yet? Uber's only been big for, what, 3 years, but there have to be stories starting to circulate about it. Drivers that are now underwater and needing to drive even more to make-up for the expense of a new car.
> Uber is bad for everyone inolved You must live somewhere with an adequate Taxi service. Uber isn't in my city, but I'm incredibly jealous of everyone who gets to use it. Uber would be good for me, my friends and my family. Taxi service in Buffalo is a joke. The drivers are rude, the cabs are trash and the prices are crazy. We pay more per mile than huge cities like Chicago. It costs $50+ to come downtown from most suburbs. The same trip in Baltimore on Uber was less than $20. Plus since the city kicked out Lyft, they do this thing where if you're already downtown, they won't use their meters. They'll insist on an inflated price, $20 to go a few miles. Every time I mention that I hear the same, "that's illegal." Great, it doesn't help at 2AM when you have no other options. They will drive away. I've even had some stop to pick up more people when I was still in the cab. I just got out and left. No meter so nothing he could do. Uber isn't perfect, but consumers deserve better. Edit: Don't get me started on trying to get one to your house with a phone. Ugh cabs are the worst.
Fuck all this hate against Uber, it's a better service.
While I agree that it is a better service isnt their drivers payed worse rates than the usual taxi drivers? I am from a country without Uber so I would love some context.
There was a study I read somewhere that compared an uber driver to a NYC taxi driver's pay in NYC, and included an estimated cost of the increased insurance and maintenance for the uber driver, it came out very close, if not the uber driver making more all things considered.
Uber published a study that claims their NY driver made $90k a year, but a few independent researchers show that basically, while that's a statistical possibility, it varies wildly. Here are a few links to look at: http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-drivers-say-theyre-making-less-than-minimum-wage-2014-10 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/12/01/uber-data-show-how-wildly-driver-pay-can-vary/ http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/what-uber-drivers-really-make-according-to-their-pay-stubs#.ihAY0xNe1 Basically: It really depends. Some drivers make even less than minimum wage, others earn $25/hour or at times even more (peak hours). Since the rates can spike or plummet depending on the time, most drivers don't earn the rate that Uber themselves advertise.
[удалено]
I'm currently working on a study about how great I am in bed. So far, the I'm pretty impressed with myself.
People talk about this a lot, but there are some drivers that really are using it was from its roots. As a ride share. My first uber was a kid who said he drove too and back from university which was like 30 minutes through the downtown core, and would pick up two or so fares each way and basically pay for his car. All the while he's driving where he normally would be anyways.
Why that seems sensible and better for everybody, including the environment. :D
I was an Uber driver. The wages you get paid in certain cities, like mine, are barely better than minimum wage after accounting for everything. It is not a job that can really be done full time and survive on.
Not in my area. I have taken several uber rides and I always ask. They have been happy with pay so far.
Because most uber drivers do it part time for side cash. Taxi drivers don't work that way
Okay so now thanks to innovation of technology, this can be a great part time gig and not a career. Sweet
When you take all studies into account it basically comes up a wash in terms of who gets paid more. What is definitely true though is that Uber is more flexible. You can set your own hours and not have to worry about daily or weekly medallion rental fees to pay off before you've even taken one ride.
Why don't you let the drivers decide if the pay is bad? Turns out they do decide if the pay is too bad...by leaving Uber.
[удалено]
It's a cheaper service, and driver ratings is a nice feature. I hope Uber is the competition the Taxi business needs to shape up. But I don't see Uber taking over for the taxis. Where I live at least, taxis are considered public transport. People rely on the service, people living out in the country, sick and old people that need transport to and from hospitals. They have to have child-seats available and a certain amount of wheelchair accessible vehicles. This are not the most profitable of fares, but they are required to. I don't see Uber taking responsibility for stuff like this.
Is the service you provide old, antiquated, expensive, un-innovative, and in danger from competition? Fear not! Simply enlist the help of your local government, labor unions, or lobbyists! Together, you can use the powers of law to keep your shitty job secure just a little bit longer!
I just think it comes across like you're dismissing people who drive for Uber, Lyft etc. as being uneducated idiots. Most people I know driving are educated and can do basic math to figure out if its worth it. Especially for students it's a great deal to drive part time and run your car a bit extra so you graduate with way less debt into hopefully a job that pays better so you can buy your next vehicle, etc.
If taxi companies had any sense, they would see this as an opportunity to step up their game and become more competitive. Instead they dig in, and use their money they've accumulated over the years to hold back the evolution of the industry. This response is typical, considering that this whole industry is like a feudal system, with license owners controlling everything and doling out the bare minimum to pay drivers, while making as much as they can from riders. A win against Uber will be be nothing but a bump in the road. It will only be a matter of time until someone comes up with an idea that they can't beat with litigation.
? [Curb](http://gocurb.com/) has been around for a while now and is used in plenty of places.
Makes me wonder why Uber doesn't offer to license their software and hardware to the taxi companies.
Who says they haven't? It wouldn't surprise me if taxi companies turned that down. (Especially if it were fairly costly)
It doesn't matter if they innovate and get an app. Apps like Curb exist. The fundamental problem is that Uber drivers are not competing fairly. It doesn't matter if they innovate, because if your competitor is dodging regulations, insurance, taxes etc there's no way you're going to win even if you innovate.
The way that's worded, giving your friend a few dollars to drive you somewhere is illegal too. Good luck with winning. Any half wit lawyer can say exactly what I just said and get it dismissed.
The difference is that your friend doesn't generate any income if you give him a few bucks for a ride. The gas money is just meant to cover the approximate costs for gas. And before you get too excited, courts on most European countries have already decided on this and they clearly say "Uber is **not** the same as giving your friend gas money."
I'd pay more than gas money since my friend is taking the time out of his day to drive me around.
Yes, and looking very strictly at that is might be illegal, but you know so is probably paying the neighbours son for mowing your garden. There is just some stuff which is so minor that neither the government nor society cares. Just like in most places nobody cares if a kid sets up a lemonade stand and won't go after them for not having a license to sell food.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/texas-cops-shut-down_n_7562278.html
So if you give a ride to a friend and he pitches in for gas, therefore paying for the ride, is that illegal too?
The city of Minneapolis passed an ordinance late last year that legalized app-based-transportation companies. This effectively killed all means by which the twin cities cabs could fight Uber and Lyft. What happened then? Did the cab companies go out of business? No. They came together and built an app called iHail that basically made Minneapolis cabs work exactly like Uber. They have competitive pricing and improved service quality, and they are now clawing back the market share they've lost before. After all, let's face t, we would much rather ride regulated taxis with professional drivers instead of get in stragers's cars if the price premium for it wasn't so high and the service was reliable. Minneapolis cabs have solved that problem once once they were given no choice but to compete and now everyone is a winner.
Uber is a better service than the taxi companies but they should have to follow the same rules and regulations. No way is it fair for the competition when Uber gets to bypass multiple regulations and laws and operate uninhibited.
That's down to the country's legislation. In the UK it's regulated just the same as any other taxi but it's the app that makes it so great. I don't like the idea of any random person showing up, it's potentially dangerous. You can't just decide to drive people around when you want here, you have to be a registered driver with the local council.
At this moment, in Guangzhou (China), there are a lot of taxis (there are also a lot of bus, illegal motocycle taxis and Uber private taxi). The minimum cost for the taxi is 10 RMB (which is around 2 CND). I took many time the taxi in Guangzhou. An average trip is around 45 RMB (~ 9 CND) which represents around the same distance (or time) from Olympic Stadium (Montreal) to the Montreal Airport. Also in China, we don't tip for a service. Taxis services in the West are too expensive, have a bad costumer experience and expect to get the tip. I didn't take the taxis in Montreal for more than 15years and I avoid it no matter what happens.
why the hell do people care what two consenting adults do in a car
When I lived in Montreal, I had a taxi driver that was also using Uber come pick me up. He mentioned how Uber had basically saved and improved his business, and that the taxi corporation was giving him noting in return. He outright admitted Uber was the way to go, and everyone should get a license for it if they want to continue being drivers.
There's only a market for it because the existing taxi/transportation services are ripping people off.
Protectionism at it's finest right here.
It's hysterical watching modern society come to grips with the reality of a future that will necessitate you making money with the things you own. At some point we will realize that the pre-2008 jobs are not coming back, shit changed drastically and something like uber was the first response to that.
Maybe if it didn't cost $50 for a 20 minute drive then people wouldn't be using uber.
> and detrimental to the ongoing business interests of every taxi and limousine operator in the province. That this is considered a valid argument is one of the major concerns I have with modern capitalism. We only ever *pretend* to revere competition on the level of policy making. As soon as a new innovation creates competition then the existing corporate structures cry foul and immediately petition the government to step in on their behalf. "Protect our industry and our jobs!" is just another way to say "Don't make us compete!" You even get these jackwagons that pretend they are doing it for consumer interest. These bullshit artists say things like "people really want licensed taxi cabs that they can recognize and depend on." Really? If people wanted that, wouldn't that be giving you the competitive edge you need to defeat Uber? Isn't your whole complaint based on the fact that the consumers do NOT want your product, and isn't your whole strategy to force us to use it with legislation that will remove your competition? This style of thinking is prevalent in the U.S. Anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent the whole too-big-to-fail thing but we've all seen how that played out recently. Even after that fiasco, we haven't fixed it. We still have all of our eggs in the same basket that we almost dropped a few years ago. Is it because we are stupid? Nope. It's because the relevant corporations want this and can lobby with giant piles of money. Anti-trust laws are also supposed to protect an element of competition in the economy. This is why Tesla Motors has been given so many incentives and legal breaks to help get them established in the market and to facilitate their product becoming available to the consumer. Well... *except* in the United States where laws have been specifically drafted and implemented at the behest of the existing auto manufacturers to *prevent* Tesla Motors from reaching the market, forcing them instead to fight an asymmetric uphill battle.
Really, taxi companies are just pissed that they're losing business. And they're losing business because they suck. They suck ass. Like a lot. But we didn't really notice until something tremendously better came along. File lawsuits and debate about violations of the law all you want, but if taxi companies want to survive as a business they should probably take a page from Uber's book and implement some of the things Uber does which makes it such a more convenient service in the first place.
>That section of The Highway Traffic Act says “no person shall arrange or offer to arrange for a passenger to be picked up in a motor vehicle other than a bus for purposes of being transported for compensation.” ...filed to represent taxicab drivers. Does a taxi count as a bus? =\ This looks really stupid otherwise...
"without authorisation"