Regulated cabs vs Unregulated uber cars

[aociswundumho]

My truck broke down, and instead of nagging people for rides back and forth to the shop, I've been taking unregulated Uber car rides. Years ago I lived in Washington Heights, and back then I would frequently use regulated yellow cabs, so I have enough experience to compare the two.

The differences between the two is like night and day. With the regulated yellow cab you would call and have to wait a half hour for them to get there. The cars were dirty, and often smelly. The regulated cab will often take the long way to your destination, especially if he senses you don't know the city very well. The regulated taxi meters are often modified to overcharge riders. To go along with the terrible quality, the price for a ride in a regulated cab is expensive.

For those who don't know, the unregulated Uber cars are a joy to use. The drivers arrive to pick you up quickly, the cars are clean and comfortable, and the prices are astonishingly low. On top of all that there is virtually zero chance that you will be ripped off. I'm sure Uber's competitors, e.g. Lyft, etc, are just as good.

Comparing the two side by side really shows how deleterious government regulation is to a service, and the comparison provides even more evidence of how government ruins everything.

 

[Grand Mal]

My truck broke down, and instead of nagging people for rides back and forth to the shop, I've been taking unregulated Uber car rides. Years ago I lived in Washington Heights, and back then I would frequently use regulated yellow cabs, so I have enough experience to compare the two.

The differences between the two is like night and day. With the regulated yellow cab you would call and have to wait a half hour for them to get there. The cars were dirty, and often smelly. The regulated cab will often take the long way to your destination, especially if he senses you don't know the city very well. The regulated taxi meters are often modified to overcharge riders. To go along with the terrible quality, the price for a ride in a regulated cab is expensive.

For those who don't know, the unregulated Uber cars are a joy to use. The drivers arrive to pick you up quickly, the cars are clean and comfortable, and the prices are astonishingly low. On top of all that there is virtually zero chance that you will be ripped off. I'm sure Uber's competitors, e.g. Lyft, etc, are just as good.

Comparing the two side by side really shows how deleterious government regulation is to a service, and the comparison provides even more evidence of how government ruins everything.

Is the playing field level where you are? Near me, Vancouver, It's a contentious subject. The ride-sharing contractors don't have the license and insurance hoops to jump through. To be fair they ought to either require Uber drivers to be licensed as chauffeurs and insured for paying passengers or not require that from taxis.
If your Uber gets rear-ended and you get a neck or back injury, you better hope the drivers insurance doesn't mind that you were a paying customer because anyone driving for Uber is not likely to be able to pay your medical bills and lost income.

 

[TheParser]

The regulated taxi meters are often modified to overcharge riders.

I live in Los Angeles.

I have a lot of experience with "regulated" (supposedly) taxicabs.

About ten years ago, many taxicabs regularly had a hidden button that drivers would use to speed up the meter.

Now only a few drivers get away with that.

Since the COVID-19 lockdown, many cabbies have lost business.

California may soon give a gift to taxi drivers. It passed a law that Uber & Lyft had to treat drivers as regular employees (not independent contractors). Uber & Lyft have a measure on this year's ballot to overturn that law. If it fails, then Uber & Lyft will be forced to leave California.

Then the taxi companies would once again have a monopoly. Some people say that many Uber & Lyft drivers will then simply become regulated taxicab drivers.

P.S. I have never to date used Uber or Lyft. I prefer a regulated taxi.

 

[chuckiechan]

I wonder after depreciation, maintenance, insurance, and taxes, how long they can keep those cars clean and smelling fresh. Being a cabbie has always been the occupation of the poor.
Bare bones, all you need is dispatch, insurance and a car. I think Uber and Lyft are the only ones getting rich.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Is the playing field level where you are? Near me, Vancouver, It's a contentious subject. The ride-sharing contractors don't have the license and insurance hoops to jump through. To be fair they ought to either require Uber drivers to be licensed as chauffeurs and insured for paying passengers or not require that from taxis.
If your Uber gets rear-ended and you get a neck or back injury, you better hope the drivers insurance doesn't mind that you were a paying customer because anyone driving for Uber is not likely to be able to pay your medical bills and lost income.

If you get rear ended in an Uber car you should take the person who is at fault for the accident to civil court and get a judgement. In a rear ending the other party is at fault so it’s their insurance and not the Uber drivers insurance you need.

 

[Grand Mal]

If you get rear ended in an Uber car you should take the person who is at fault for the accident to civil court and get a judgement. In a rear ending the other party is at fault so it’s their insurance and not the Uber drivers insurance you need.

Fine. So your Uber driver runs a red and gets T-boned. The point, and you know it, is the insurance the Uber driver carries. Does it cover paying customers? I don't know if it would or not, it would depend on the jurisdiction. And the insurance company.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Fine. So your Uber driver runs a red and gets T-boned. The point, and you know it, is the insurance the Uber driver carries. Does it cover paying customers? I don't know if it would or not, it would depend on the jurisdiction. And the insurance company.

I thought you Canadians had free health insurance?

In any event the reason Uber took off is because Cities purposefully overregulate cabs for the benefit of taxi owners. In most American cities they artificially limit taxis with the medallion system and the drivers make almost no money and you can’t ever get one when you actually need it

 

[Court Jester]

Never been in an Uber. Seems like an invitation to be murdered.

 

[Grand Mal]

I thought you Canadians had free health insurance?

In any event the reason Uber took off is because Cities purposefully overregulate cabs for the benefit of taxi owners. In most American cities they artificially limit taxis with the medallion system and the drivers make almost no money and you can’t ever get one when you actually need it

What?
None of this makes sense.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What?
None of this makes sense.

It makes perfect sense you just are ignorant of how the taxi industry works.

They only issue a certain number of medallions for a geographic area leading to too few taxi cabs available. The medallions are auctioned meaning only large corporations can afford them, so taxi rates are high. Drivers don’t get much of the meter fare. And the owners are rich and politically connected. That’s the only reason anyone is stopping Uber from operating or spreading baseless nonsense about insurance because uber is a threat to a politically corrupt patronage system

 

[Grand Mal]

It makes perfect sense you just are ignorant of how the taxi industry works.

They only issue a certain number of medallions for a geographic area leading to too few taxi cabs available. The medallions are auctioned meaning only large corporations can afford them, so taxi rates are high. Drivers don’t get much of the meter fare. And the owners are rich and politically connected. That’s the only reason anyone is stopping Uber from operating or spreading baseless nonsense about insurance because uber is a threat to a politically corrupt patronage system

Ignorant of how it works in Seattle, yeah. Agreed.
Listen. I don't care either way. I wouldn't use Uber for the insurance issue, I don't have any problem with them otherwise.
Politically corrupt would be allowing Uber to operate with fewer restrictions. Either require Uber to have the same license and insurance as taxis, and the same operating areas, or remove those restrictions from taxis. Simple.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I wonder after depreciation, maintenance, insurance, and taxes, how long they can keep those cars clean and smelling fresh. Being a cabbie has always been the occupation of the poor.
Bare bones, all you need is dispatch, insurance and a car. I think Uber and Lyft are the only ones getting rich.

Uber and Lyft are losing money like mad.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Fine. So your Uber driver runs a red and gets T-boned. The point, and you know it, is the insurance the Uber driver carries. Does it cover paying customers? I don't know if it would or not, it would depend on the jurisdiction. And the insurance company.

Uber carries insurance for its drivers/passengers.

Uber Blog

www.uber.com

 

[Drawdown]

It makes perfect sense you just are ignorant of how the taxi industry works.

They only issue a certain number of medallions for a geographic area leading to too few taxi cabs available. The medallions are auctioned meaning only large corporations can afford them, so taxi rates are high. Drivers don’t get much of the meter fare. And the owners are rich and politically connected. That’s the only reason anyone is stopping Uber from operating or spreading baseless nonsense about insurance because uber is a threat to a politically corrupt patronage system

Shorting the supply of medellions is a big city problem. I could go downtown and get one today for less than $100 in my city. I would just need the registration and proof I have commercial insurance on the vehicle.

 

[americanwoman]

Never been in an Uber. Seems like an invitation to be murdered.

I have taken Ubers but only in groups and never alone because of that reason alone.

Uber Received Nearly 6,000 U.S. Sexual Assault Claims In Past 2 Years

A new report from Uber, covering 2017 and 2018, says the claims range from unwanted touching and kissing to rape. Also, 19 people were killed in physical assaults during or soon after an Uber ride.

www.npr.org

Sure it's rare but I am not rolling the dice with my body.

 

[OscarLevant]

My truck broke down, and instead of nagging people for rides back and forth to the shop, I've been taking unregulated Uber car rides. Years ago I lived in Washington Heights, and back then I would frequently use regulated yellow cabs, so I have enough experience to compare the two.

The differences between the two is like night and day. With the regulated yellow cab you would call and have to wait a half hour for them to get there. The cars were dirty, and often smelly. The regulated cab will often take the long way to your destination, especially if he senses you don't know the city very well. The regulated taxi meters are often modified to overcharge riders. To go along with the terrible quality, the price for a ride in a regulated cab is expensive.

For those who don't know, the unregulated Uber cars are a joy to use. The drivers arrive to pick you up quickly, the cars are clean and comfortable, and the prices are astonishingly low. On top of all that there is virtually zero chance that you will be ripped off. I'm sure Uber's competitors, e.g. Lyft, etc, are just as good.

Comparing the two side by side really shows how deleterious government regulation is to a service, and the comparison provides even more evidence of how government ruins everything.

I've driven for Cabs and I've driven for Uber

Uber doesn't compensate drivers for the use of their cars and was involved in a class-action suit and I was party that suit and it was awarded $10,000 which did not compensate me enough for the losses I incurred on their behalf. Uber's yearly turnover in the driver ranks is close to 100% every 12 months this is why the cars are new because they are new drivers using their own cars. So the low prices you enjoy are drivers subsidizing your ride below Market rates the only beneficiary are the billionaires who financed Uber in the first place

I was able to earn a living as a cab driver but not as an Uber driver unless I work 16 hours a day though in some cities Uber drivers to do quite well like San Francisco and New York but throughout the rest of the nation it's not the case. What we have here are two extremes the regulated cabs
and the unregulated Uber so the best solution would be somewhere in between. That being said I supported proposition 22 in California because I don't think making drivers employees is going to improve things but the proposition guarantees driver's compensation for the vehicles which is why I supported and that is my only complaint. I drove for Uber because I retired from the wedding photography business and so it's a good job for an old guy like me but after Uber cut my pay for the sixth time I quit enough is enough

 

[aociswundumho]

Uber doesn't compensate drivers for the use of their cars and was involved in a class-action suit and I was party that suit and it was awarded $10,000 which did not compensate me enough for the losses I incurred on their behalf. Uber's yearly turnover in the driver ranks is close to 100% every 12 months this is why the cars are new because they are new drivers using their own cars. So the low prices you enjoy are drivers subsidizing your ride below Market rates the only beneficiary are the billionaires who financed Uber in the first place

Implying the ride is "below market rates, implies the drivers are being paid "below market rates", which is false, because if they were, then they would simply do something else at the market rate for their labor.

I was able to earn a living as a cab driver but not as an Uber driver unless I work 16 hours a day though in some cities Uber drivers to do quite well like San Francisco and New York but throughout the rest of the nation it's not the case.

Do you agree that people drive for Uber of their own volition? If driving for Uber was such a bad deal, as you are implying, then Uber wouldn't have any drivers.

What we have here are two extremes the regulated cabs and the unregulated Uber so the best solution would be somewhere in between.

No, that's a fallacy. The best solution is that which maximizes the freedom of both the riders and the drivers. The Uber model isn't the last word, I'd guess someone eventually will come with an app that bypasses Uber/Lyft and allows riders and drivers deal directly with each other in a completely unregulated, decentralized fashion.

That being said I supported proposition 22 in California because I don't think making drivers employees is going to improve things but the proposition guarantees driver's compensation for the vehicles which is why I supported and that is my only complaint.

Prop 22 doesn't go nearly far enough to undo the tremendous damage caused by the progressive AB5.

 

[OscarLevant]

Implying the ride is "below market rates, implies the drivers are being paid "below market rates", which is false, because if they were, then they would simply do something else at the market rate for their labor.

Uber is a world wide organization, so their bargaining power is infinitely greater than the bargaining power of one driver, who, owing to circumstance, might not be able to quit that easily.

Your logic goes like this "exploitation is impossible because drivers are willing to accept the lower pay"

Right?

No, people are exploited because the bargaining power of the big corporation is infinitely greater than the bargaining power of a single individual, who often cannot quit that easily.

Do you agree that people drive for Uber of their own volition? If driving for Uber was such a bad deal, as you are implying, then Uber wouldn't have any drivers.

Oh yes they would, it is the reason sweat shops still exist in china, people working 15 hours a day 6 days a week for $2 per day.
https://waronwant.org/sweatshops-china
there are really only two rideshare companies, and their policies are the same, I worked for both. Quit uber and there are not many jobs that have the flexibility that Uber rideshare driving affords. You make it seem like everyone has the luxury of quitting. For many people quitting is not that easy.

This libertarian logic you are using just doesn't square with the real world.

No, that's a fallacy. The best solution is that which maximizes the freedom of both the riders and the drivers. The Uber model isn't the last word, I'd guess someone eventually will come with an app that bypasses Uber/Lyft and allows riders and drivers deal directly with each other in a completely unregulated, decentralized fashion.

Well, I was speaking in general terms. The cab structures are exploitive, and the UBer model is exploitive. All I want is to remove the exploitation
from the equation. For me, a union for IC drivers would be what I want. Uber has the upper hand, and I don't buy your 'most freedom for both parties"
what I buy is a fair and equitable compensation package. one way to assure that will happen is to grant us the right to organize as a union. I mean, I cold quit, but the truth is, most won't, and that means Uber will continue to get away with exploiting drivers. Uber has settled several lawsuits, and they are all basically for the same reason, compensating drivers because they were exploited.

Proposition 22 was the middle path, it allows us freedom, to remain as IC, and they pay us a mileage fee, 30 cents per mile.
that's really all I wanted. I could lease my car to other drivers for $60 per day, so why shouldn't Uber pay me that on top of my commissions?
I"m literally given them a free car to use and they are not compensating me for it. And no, there aren't many alternatives , except for Lyft, but they are the same as Uber.

Prop 22 doesn't go nearly far enough to undo the tremendous damage caused by the progressive AB5.

AB5 hasn't caused any damage, it's not in effect, not yet. But, Prop 22 is the result of that threat, and yes, it could go farther.

AB5, while I respect my dem brethren for wanting to improve the plight of drivers, they don't understand why people drive for Uber in the first place, because of the flexibility the job affords, which would be sacrificed if we were to go the employee route. If AB5 becomes law, Uber will probably leave CA. That is another reason I voted for prop 22.

I'd be happy with a union for IC drivers, if there could be some kind of legislative work around to do it. I don't know. And at least be compensated for mileage.

 

[aociswundumho]

Uber is a world wide organization, so their bargaining power is infinitely greater than the bargaining power of one driver, who, owing to circumstance, might not be able to quit that easily.

Your logic goes like this "exploitation is impossible because drivers are willing to accept the lower pay"

Right?

No, my argument is if drivers want to, and continue to, drive for Uber, then Uber is offering them more compensation than any other company. So according to you, it's "exploitation" to pay an employee the most money he can get at a given time.

No, people are exploited because the bargaining power of the big corporation is infinitely greater than the bargaining power of a single individual, who often cannot quit that easily.
Oh yes they would, it is the reason sweat shops still exist in china, people working 15 hours a day 6 days a week for $2 per day.
https://waronwant.org/sweatshops-china

Sweatshops are the best thing that can ever happen to a developing country. Here's what sweatshops have done for China:

there are really only two rideshare companies, and their policies are the same, I worked for both. Quit uber and there are not many jobs that have the flexibility that Uber rideshare driving affords. You make it seem like everyone has the luxury of quitting. For many people quitting is not that easy.

No, not everyone has the luxury of quitting, but ever worker has the opportunity to look for a better position. Because of the flexibility one gets when driving for Uber, it would be extremely easy to seek out better employment opportunities. This point supports my side of the argument, that Uber is providing their drivers with the most compensation they can get, otherwise, they wouldn't be driving for Uber - they would quit and switch to the better job.

Well, I was speaking in general terms. The cab structures are exploitive, and the UBer model is exploitive. All I want is to remove the exploitation
from the equation. For me, a union for IC drivers would be what I want. Uber has the upper hand, and I don't buy your 'most freedom for both parties"
what I buy is a fair and equitable compensation package. one way to assure that will happen is to grant us the right to organize as a union.

You mean grant the right to organize a labor cartel. You want to right to prevent the company from hiring anybody who isn't in the cartel. The company may only purchase labor from your labor cartel, and that puts you in a very sweet "bargaining" position, because the company must, by law, "negotiate" with your cartel only. Yup, that sure af will raise your wages above market rates.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

If you get rear ended in an Uber car you should take the person who is at fault for the accident to civil court and get a judgement. In a rear ending the other party is at fault so it’s their insurance and not the Uber drivers insurance you need.

If the Uber driver does not have commercial insurance and is at fault the insurance company can decline the claim leaving all involved SOL. Now trying to sue an uber driver, I would say good luck, as they are unlikely to have much in the way of assets

 

[chuckiechan]

No, my argument is if drivers want to, and continue to, drive for Uber, then Uber is offering them more compensation than any other company. So according to you, it's "exploitation" to pay an employee the most money he can get at a given time.



Sweatshops are the best thing that can ever happen to a developing country. Here's what sweatshops have done for China:

View attachment 67301180

View attachment 67301181

View attachment 67301182





No, not everyone has the luxury of quitting, but ever worker has the opportunity to look for a better position. Because of the flexibility one gets when driving for Uber, it would be extremely easy to seek out better employment opportunities. This point supports my side of the argument, that Uber is providing their drivers with the most compensation they can get, otherwise, they wouldn't be driving for Uber - they would quit and switch to the better job.



You mean grant the right to organize a labor cartel. You want to right to prevent the company from hiring anybody who isn't in the cartel. The company may only purchase labor from your labor cartel, and that puts you in a very sweet "bargaining" position, because the company must, by law, "negotiate" with your cartel only. Yup, that sure af will raise your wages above market rates.

You do realise this was an economic benefit mostly stolen from the USA in the form of forced partnerships, technological theft, intellectual theft, and product dumping*?

*When world demand for concrete, for example is “D”, you don’t build a factory “D times 3”, unless your aim is to destroy other countries concrete industries through “dumping”.

That’s like being proud of Al Capone for being a “wealthy merchant”!

 

[OscarLevant]

No, my argument is if drivers want to, and continue to, drive for Uber, then Uber is offering them more compensation than any other company. So according to you, it's "exploitation" to pay an employee the most money he can get at a given time.

No, because there are only two rideshare companies, Uber and Lyft. they pay the same.

Sweatshops are the best thing that can ever happen to a developing country. Here's what sweatshops have done for China:

That's like saying slavery was the best thing that happened to America, look at the weath it provided for society.

No, those in the sweat shop being paid $3 for 16 hours work are not the ones benefitting. If others are, their gains are ill gotten via theft of labor.
The theft is the money that should have been paid to the exploited workers, which those down the line got discounts on goods for.

If Walmart sells products produced by sweat shops, then buying their products is a crime, in my view.

Sweat shops, slavery, indebted servitude, it's all the same thing, it's criminal, and does NOT make society better, it makes that society criminal.

No, not everyone has the luxury of quitting, but ever worker has the opportunity to look for a better position. Because of the flexibility one gets when driving for Uber, it would be extremely easy to seek out better employment opportunities. This point supports my side of the argument, that Uber is providing their drivers with the most compensation they can get, otherwise, they wouldn't be driving for Uber - they would quit and switch to the better job.

If any one were able to quit, they would. Sure, maybe they are looking for a better job, but such things take time. In the mean time, they cant just up and quit. Your point does not actually refute the premise I made.

You mean grant the right to organize a labor cartel. You want to right to prevent the company from hiring anybody who isn't in the cartel. The company may only purchase labor from your labor cartel, and that puts you in a very sweet "bargaining" position, because the company must, by law, "negotiate" with your cartel only. Yup, that sure af will raise your wages above market rates.

Your choice of words are that of a libertarian. I do not see the world with that lens. I am familiar with that type of thinking, in the early 80s I used to be a libertarian conservative. When Reagan was on the ticket, I actually voted for Ed Clark, the Libertarian nominee in 1980.

the 'market' forces should be on the retail end, not the labor end, because a big company has an overwhelming better bargaining position than a single worker. one way to correct that unjust imbalance is a union.

Labor unions even the bargaining playing field. UBer is a giant, a driver is an ant, With a union, the driver becomes as powerful of a bargainer as UBer.

They are just and necessary to keep companies from exploiting workers. Corporations will pay as little as they can get away with. With a union, they get away with less. I am a strong believer in unions, or at least the principle. Now, I don't support the mafia and the shady past of unions and all that crap, it's the principle I support. Not all unions are bad. I've been a member of unions, and gladly paid my dues. My union wages were 30% higher than the non union shops were paying. And no, the non union shops were actually smaller companies, so that logic they will get more business is not true.