> For those who place their faith in the Regulatory State, these results don't make any sense. How can an unregulated service be safer than a heavily regulated service? The answer is that Uber is heavily regulated by consumers. They are a much tougher audience to satisfy than bureaucrats. If the company does not provide a safe and convenient service, people will not use it.

> A couple of generations ago, consumers had very little information before they got into a taxi. How could you know which car was reliable? How could you be sure the driver wasn't taking a longer route to drive up the fare? In that environment, it made some sense to have established rates and safety guidelines.

How do you know your Uber is reliable? It had a safety inspection done by a company paid by Uer to pass cars. Who knows what they let slide, or what was marginal and what they let slide.

In that year, has the car had the required maintenance? Are the tires on a heavily driven car still good? Brakes still good?

I'm not seeing much more than fluff in the claim that consumers heavily regulate Uber or make it safer.

If DUIs and fatal accidents have gone down that's undoubtedly good, but that's probably more a result of the low prices than any sort of statement that Uber has been regulated by the consumer in a good way.

Yes, Uber gets drunks off the road and that's in its favor. Argue that without the nonsense that people climbing into the lowest price car must be creating a safe ride company.

If you believe that I've got a healthcare.gov website to sell you.

The good aspects of driving by gps is that the driver will probably get to where he is supposed to AND the passenger can have some idea that the driver isn't taking the passenger into a back alley.

EXCEPT: I've ridden plenty and in some cities like Seattle, GPS actually routes through alleys quite a bit! GPS in big cities is good for the reasons above, but it's not actually a good indicator that the drive is not unnecessarily long, especially in a downtown area, especially during rush hour, when the GPS can easily place someone on a terrible route and then your drive cannot deviate out of fear of triggering your fight or flight response.

Don't get me wrong, it's pretty remarkable what the GPS systems can do, but they are no panacea.

I've been in a car using Waze, the crowdsourced GPS, and seen Waze route people 15 minutes out of their way because someone indicated a heavy traffic jam that was really just a trifling.

And I've seen Google Maps routes that don't understand that roads are closed, or that not a single local would use the indicated route to get from the Valley into LA, at least, not at that time of day.

So mainly what the GPS buys you is some guarantee you will get to where you want to go, and some ability to monitor the driver is not taking you to the Spahn ranch.

Just to emphasize:

> In that year, has the car had the required maintenance? Are the tires on a heavily driven car still good? Brakes still good?

Because remember, this has to be done by some poor schmo driving for Uber, ie, that guy probably is skimping wherever he can on maintenance.

Well at least the car is mostly new, what could possibly be wrong with it?

I am not saying taxis are any better, just saying I don't see how "free market forces" are going to be terribly effective on making Uber cars safe.

It's going to be a bell curve, where some cars are great and others are dogs, versus alternatively, commercial vehicles with mandatory and frequent inspections or even an FAA model with mandatory required inspections and service every so many hours with the goal of preventing maintenance issues before they occur.

Uber has problems. Nonetheless: This is an outstanding blog post.

> How do you know your
> Uber is reliable?

There's a lot of data out there now, all available to someone with your enthusiasm for the question: How you you know my Uber isn't reliable?

...Or are you just going to affirm this most typical expression of government ninnydom? Doing that can become a habit for people before they even notice.

> this has to be done by some
> poor schmo driving for Uber,
> ie, that guy probably is
> skimping wherever he can
> on maintenance.

You pulled that out of your ass: I'd affirm that the opposite is true. The typically clean cloth seats and shiny finishes of Lyft and Uber vehicles are testament to their mechanical youth, and a statement of the affection for them felt by their owners as property— "Dude, it's my car."

To compose a comment like yours, with such bitter presumption, suggests you haven't been in a typical commercial taxicab in the last fifty years. They stink. They've been rebuilt hundreds of times by alcoholic mechanics in dingy garages under the whip of fat, torpid businessmen. Los Angeles has made especially bad work of enforcing safety standards amongst commercial fleets, often with catastrophic results.

You're merely rejecting the cites in the post instead of answering them.

Basically, I hate the mentality that says government must do whatever intrusive (and self-rewarding) thing it can think of to make us perfectly safe at all times even before it knows if there could possibly be a problem, as if there could be no prosecution, torts or other response afterward.

Stay outta my marketplace with that.

This isn't limited to taxis. There are many examples where poor government regulation decrease safety or achieve the opposite of their stated goals. The dry cleaning industry is the classic example. Decades of poor environmental regulation by the EPA has resulted in increasing pollution.

You pulled that out of your ass: I'd affirm that the opposite is true. The typically clean cloth seats and shiny finishes of Lyft and Uber vehicles are testament to their mechanical youth, and a statement of the affection for them felt by their owners as property— "Dude, it's my car."

Crid is exactly right.

It's one of the things I love about Uber. It reminds me of my grandpa and the way he took care of everything. The pride in the way he took care of everything.

Jerry, have you ever taken an Uber?

It seems to be a leftist party line that things that are unregulated are unsafe. And Uber/Lyft is their latest target. Both Sanders and Clinton have demonized the ridesharing services as unregulated and, therefore, unsafe. The urge to regulate is the urge to control.

As was pointed out, regulation = safety made sense only a few generations ago (the generation of most of our politicians) when a low volume of information made it difficult to check a service provider's record. With Uber/Lyft, however, you cannot only check the safety and reliability of the car, you can check the record of the driver. Adam Smith's dream of perfect information in the marketplace is becoming a reality.

An older generation of mostly leftist politicians seem to be stuck in the past. Clinton claims she used a home-brew server because she cannot juggle two phones. Reports emerging from disgruntled Clintonites indicate she cannot adapt to any operating system other than the older tactile keyboard Blackberry, an already obsolete phone and system. What she cannot understand, she cannot control. And she's not the only politician stuck in this conundrum.

We saw this lack of understanding the new technology paradigm by politicians in the Microsoft anti-trust Congressional hearings at which Bill Gates spent more time explaining Windows to confused elderly congressmen than he did explaining Microsoft's operating model and role in the modern marketplace. We saw it with the recent kerfuffle over the open Internet and FCC regulation. And we're seeing it again with politicians calling for Uber/Lyft regulation.

The world is moving toward rapid dissemination of information and power. Politicians who favor state-control are resisting this, gripping ever tighter on a handful of water as it runs through their fingers.

To compose a comment like yours, with such bitter presumption, suggests you haven't been in a typical commercial taxicab in the last fifty years. They stink. They've been rebuilt hundreds of times by alcoholic mechanics in dingy garages under the whip of fat, torpid businessmen. ~ Crid at June 24, 2016 1:07 AM

As much as I'd like to chide Crid for assuming that the mechanics are alcoholic and the company owners are torpid while chastising Jerry for making assumptions, I fear he may be right. HIs link didn't work, but I've ridden in enough cabs to know that if you want a clean, well-running vehicle with a courteous driver, you're hit and miss looking for it in a commercial cab company or city-operated transit line, bus or train.

In fact, the most dangerous drivers in San Francisco are the ones paid to operate the city's transit system.

"In 2001, Muni buses, streetcars, trolleys, and cable cars were involved in 3,145 accidents -- or more than twice as many crashes per mile traveled as transit vehicles in five comparable U.S. transport systems. San Francisco pedestrians are particularly endangered: The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that from 1998 to 2000, Muni bus drivers killed 10 pedestrians, more than were killed by the bus drivers in all five comparable cities combined. Beyond loss of life, injury, and property damage, Muni's safety problems have had a tremendous economic cost, with the agency paying out $42 million in settlements over the last five years to accident victims."

3,145 accidents and $42 million in settlements. How's that regulation thing working our for ya?

"Because remember, this has to be done by some poor schmo driving for Uber, ie, that guy probably is skimping wherever he can on maintenance."

Taxis are notorious for poor maintenance. And that's because the driver doesn't own the car; he has no motivation to take care of it. With Uber, usually the driver owns the car, and the car is their daily driver when they aren't driving for Uber. So the Uber driver has a motivation to take care of the car, a lot more than the taxi driver does.

I'll also point out that in most jurisdictions, the "inspection" consists solely of examining the car's registration and licensing paperwork. The car itself is never looked at other than to verify the VIN.

"...mandatory and frequent inspections or even an FAA model with mandatory required inspections and service every so many hours with the goal of preventing maintenance issues before they occur."

There's no denying that the FAA (and EASA) approach has achieved a near-miraculously low rate of aircraft accidents in the Western hemisphere. You only have to go back about 40 years, or look at current accident rates in the Third World, to see the difference. (Pro tip: the one effective thing you can do to reduce your odds of dying in an airplane crash is, don't fly on Third World airlines. Just say no.) However, the FAA approach works in part because aviation is a pretty tight-knit community. There's a lot of interaction, and to a considerable extent, FAA regulation is actually driven by the people who design, build, and fly the aircraft. The industry is often out in front of the FAA on quality and performance standards. (As an example of what I'm talking about, when the FAA issues an Airworthiness Directive ordering aircraft users to take maintenance steps, the directive is nearly always based on a manufacturer service bulletin.)

However, the FAA approach is very expensive too. If taxis or Uber were regulated the way that aircraft are, a ride to the airport would cost $400. I've long maintained that the auto industry and NHTSA need to take a look at the way that the FAA and the aviation industry operate, and that auto safety would be improved by doing so. But there's a reason why there aren't a lot of people who are private pilots. It's a very expensive hobby. I see pilots who buy an aircraft and then fly it until the engine's Time Before Overhaul is up. And then they find out that the FAA-mandates overhaul is going to cost $12,000, and they sell the plane instead. Private pilots accept (somewhat grudgingly) this level of regulation because they don't want to die in a crash either, and because there is a responsibility to protect innocent people on the groud (and a desire to avoid bad press). But the cost and time required really limits the pool of people who can become private pilots. (And forget about taking paying passengers, Uber-style. You can't do that unless you have a transport license, and unless you're going to work for an airline, you can't afford the training and license upkeep required.)

An FAA approach to automobiles would also introduce a lot of inconvenience. How would you like to check your mail and find a notice that says that effective immediately, you can't drive your car anywhere, for any purpose, until you get some item of maintenance performed? There really aren't many things that can go wrong with a car that require that level of response. I'll point out that no other form of transport -- not buses, not trains, not trucks -- is regulated to the extent that the FAA regulates aircraft. And the reason is simple: if they were, the costs would put everyone out of business.

Not good enough for the politicos, because public safety is, uh, job two for them.

Oh, if it were only job two for them. Because every time - every stinking time - there is a budget issue in my city or county, they roll out a tax increase and then give us the false choice of "go for the tax increase or the police and fire budget will have to be cut".

They never contemplate cutting, oh, parks and rec, or delaying road work, or what have you. Always aim the axe at public safety first.

But there's another reason why they don't like Uber and Lyft: insufficient opportunities for graft. The politics of personal enrichment must not be obstructed!

How do you know your Uber is reliable? It had a safety inspection done by a company paid by Uer to pass cars. Who knows what they let slide, or what was marginal and what they let slide.

And this is worse than a taxi company's fleet?

I'll tell you this: I trust Uber's inspections better than a major metropolitan area's inspections. If either the inspector or Uber conducts a fraudulent inspection, they're legally liable.

You can sue Uber, and you can sue their inspectors. Try suing the inspectors who work for the City of New York because they were busy taking bribes and not conducting inspections and letting stuff slide.

It is in Uber's best interest to be above board, especially since the crony politicians will use that as an excuse to ban Uber.

I never said this was better than taxis, I said the free market ain't going to guarantee your car is safe.

Why is the car clean inside? Because that's an Uber and Lyft rule, because the drivers are rated on car cleanliness and because an automated car wash only costs $5 - $10.

Are the drivers rated on car maintenance? No.
Is car maintenance $10 every two weeks? No.

> You can sue Uber, and you can sue their inspectors.

Ha, have fun suing Uber's inspectors. Uber's inspectors are Firestone in some places, Midas in another, and basically and franchise tire or oil place that wants in.

And have fun suing Uber too, why, get in line!

http://fusion.net/story/257423/everyone-is-suing-uber/

> Uber is facing a staggering number of lawsuits

> According to court records, of the 50 or so lawsuits currently pending against Uber in federal court right now, 17 were filed by Uber drivers, 15 by taxi and livery companies, and more than a dozen by customers alleging all manners of sin, including assault, illegal robocalling and deceptive pricing

And it's no secret that in 2014, Uber was hiring more lawyers presumably

> Uber rushes to hire a fleet of attorneys as legal problems grow

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2014/09/24/uber-legal-attorneys-ridesharing-politics.html

Here you can find many of those lawyers: https://www.linkedin.com/title/counsel-at-uber

And yes, many are clearly there for tax issues and regulatory issues, but Uber knows how to defend itself in court.

So what are you planning on suing Uber for and how long are you willing to wait?

On the one hand you are willing to believe that the free market will make hard luck Uber drivers maintain their vehicles and on the other hand you're okay with relying on the government and our legal system so that you can successfully sue Uber if there is a problem.

Jump on in to your Uber car then!

How do you know your taxi is reliable? It had a safety inspection done by a company paid by the taxi company to pass cars. Who knows what they let slide, or what was marginal and what they let slide.

This blog post is sweet little afterclap for the Brexit. It's almost like they grew a pair, but we shouldn't read too much into a vote that was so close. Billions and billions of people on our planet will always trust selfish elites to take care of them... And they'll spend your money to give them the power.

Here's a link like the one attempted earlier.

Taxis are notorious for poor maintenance. And that's because the driver doesn't own the car; he has no motivation to take care of it. With Uber, usually the driver owns the car, and the car is their daily driver when they aren't driving for Uber. So the Uber driver has a motivation to take care of the car, a lot more than the taxi driver does. ~ Cousin Dave at June 24, 2016 7:21 AM

Not to mention with Uber/Lyft you review the individual car and driver. With a taxi review on Yelp, the experience is reviewed. However, you don't get told by the dispatcher that car 34 is coming for you and you can check its review. You get a randomly assigned unit which might be awful or nice.

With Uber/Lyft, you get assigned Dan and his 2014 Lincoln Navigator. And you can look up the reviews on Dan and his 2014 Lincoln Navigator to see if it's a nice ride or if he's a jerk. And Dan had better show up in a 2014 Lincoln Navigator, and not his neighbor's broken down 1996 Honda Civic.

Not to mention, the driver gets to review you as a passenger, meaning you're on your best behavior and everyone knows what they're getting when you get into the car.

With Uber/Lyft, you get a custom experience down to language, car, and driver, depending upon what's available. With a taxi cab, you get what's available, even if it's Abdul and his 1997 Ford Crown Victoria with a broken seat spring, screaming rai on the stereo, and iffy brakes. Why would anyone take a taxi cab ever again?

Sheesh, about twenty thinkpieces to read this morning, and I gotta gotawork.

Also--- The clean cars of Uber and Lyft driver are acknowledgement by their profiteering drivers that a customer's feelings and perceptions --scents, tastes, courtesies-- are as likely to have an impact on the payment for the service as is the transit itself.

What's not to love? The worst thing that happens is that one of them likes to talk a lot. After not hearing me respond for a couple miles, they stop talking.... Perfect!

Reread my comments, I have not said your taxi is safe or reliable.

I said I see no free market reason to believe your Uber is safer or more reliable than a taxi, OTHER than the car itself is probably newer.

FWIW, I mention reliable because that's what the original quote is about. I agree your uber is reliable or at least will get you through your drive. The question is more about safety.

> Also--- The clean cars of Uber and Lyft driver are acknowledgement by their profiteering drivers that a customer's feelings and perceptions --scents, tastes, courtesies-- are as likely to have an impact on the payment for the service as is the transit itself.

Crid is EXACTLY right here, which is why your clean car has not had the brake job it needs or the other expensive maintenance required to keep it safe.

> With a taxi cab, you get what's available, even if it's Abdul and his 1997 Ford Crown Victoria with a broken seat spring, screaming rai on the stereo, and iffy brakes. Why would anyone take a taxi cab ever again?

Conan, I've conversed with you here for years, so lovingly, I do take some exception to your remark about Abdul.

However, acknowledging the various points you are referencing:

All you free market extremists should consider what Uber's constant rate cuts in your market are doing to their pool of drivers and the cars you are getting in.

And if you are at all queasy about Abdul and what that might imply, drive over to your local Uber airport TNC lot and watch what happens there 5 times a day.

Now to defend Dan and other drivers a bit fwiw, I hope you do know that if you rate Dan a 4 or below you are actually telling Uber (and Lyft) that Dan's driving was so poor, or his car so terrible you think Uber should fire Dan and not let him drive anymore.

Drivers with less than a 4.6 rating are in danger of deactivation by Uber. So yeah, ratings are a big stick to beat drivers with, but when you next rate that poor schmo, consider if you really think that drive was so terrible your driver should not be able to drive anyone else.

It is a big stick, but apart from the rating number itself, Uber gives no other information to the driver as to what the rider is upset with.

Was it bad driving, a dirty car, an impolite driver, not enough A/C on a hot day, or was it a complaint about surge prices, or the time to pick up or traffic? None of that knowledge is given to the driver, nor is even the individual rating on specific drives.

All a driver gets is the average rating for all their drives, so it is a huge stick, but it is designed so as to make it impossible for a driver to actually improve.

See therideshareguy for the exact details: http://therideshareguy.com/my-rating-system-for-uber-and-lyft-passengers/

Food for thought for the free market small government purists:

That uber driver in the (recent year, safe, clean, reliable, environmentally questionable) Toyota made in Japan Prius probably got one or more government rebates or tax credits.

Jerry, my comments were not meant condemn Abdul nor to praise Dan, but to point out that with Uber/Lyft you, the consumer, have more power than you do with a taxi company.

My argument is that Uber/Lyft is not inherently dangerous due to it's deregulated business model, nor is it inherently safer as taxi cabs must undergo periodic inspections while civilian cars are left to the diligence of the owner.

Yes, Uber/Lyft should tell Dan why he got a 4. It would help Dan as well as Uber/Lyft, so the company can better judge what people want in a rideshare vehicle.

I've ridden in many a taxi and gotten good drivers and bad. I had a driver in San Francisco who raced the wrong way up a one-way street, oblivious to the alarmed honking of the other cars on that street. I had a Nigerian driver in San Francisco who was the politest taxi driver I've ever had; skilled driver, too. We talked basketball for the entire ride (he identified himself as a basketball-crazy Nigerian in his opening conversational gambit). I had a white driver in Boston who got lost and expected me to tell him where to go on my inaugural trip to that city (he'd given away his maps because he was retiring the next day and couldn't look up the destination).

My point about Abdul and his rai was that in a cab, the driver controls the music and the passenger has little-to-no say (how much say he has is at the discretion of the driver). In an Uber/Lyft, the passenger can ding the driver in the review if the passenger requests a different music and is denied. He may still be stuck in a car listening to music he finds alien, but he can get his revenge later. (PS: Follow the link, the song's pretty cool.)

All you free market extremists should consider what Uber's constant rate cuts in your market are doing to their pool of drivers and the cars you are getting in.

Probably no more than what rate freezes and rising fuel prices do to cab companies.

And I'd hardly call myself a free market extremist. I believe the free market is better than a heavily-regulated government-controlled market. And I'll throw in Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and a few other now-defunct SSRs to defend that point.

I certainly apologize for misconstruing your comments about Abdul.

I wasn't calling you a free market extremist, but I think there are some in this thread who could reasonably be labeled that.

>> All you free market extremists should consider what Uber's constant rate cuts in your market are doing to their pool of drivers and the cars you are getting in.

>Probably no more than what rate freezes and rising fuel prices do to cab companies.

I suspect that's not true. Three years ago, when Uber was proclaiming $100K a year (gross) income for drivers, vs rate cuts that bring that now to $26K per year (net) https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/internal-uber-driver-pay-numbers does a lot in terms of changing who is driving for you and who is no longer driving for you.

Alternatively, here is a question I've wondered about.

Everyone absolutely agrees the Uber/Lyft experience is vastly better than the taxi experience. So why are Uber and Lyft competing with cabs on price?

It's as if Apple decided to take on Google by competing on price and then by dramatically undercutting Google.

If Uber and Lyft provide so much more value than the cab, shouldn't they be charging more?

I have an answer for that, but it may not be one that folks who exclaim how clean an Uber car is are readily prepared to acknowledge.

Part of that answer lies in this additional question:

Why aren't the people in this thread tipping their Uber drivers? (assumption on my part.)

So why are Uber and Lyft competing with cabs on price? ~ jerry at June 24, 2016 2:26 PM

That's a good question.

I imagine that, for intra-city transport, price is often the main concern for passengers. In San Francisco, the limo companies used to station their idle cars near attractions and cab stands to try to steal business from cabs, undercutting their prices when they had to. I don't know if in the age of Uber and Lyft they still do that.

The limo was indisputably a nicer ride and better experience, but to generate business, they had to compete on price.

Cousin Dave

> Taxis are notorious for poor maintenance. And that's because the driver doesn't own the car; he has no motivation to take care of it. With Uber, usually the driver owns the car, and the car is their daily driver when they aren't driving for Uber. So the Uber driver has a motivation to take care of the car, a lot more than the taxi driver does.

He has the motivation, but does he have the cash?

>> "...mandatory and frequent inspections or even an FAA model with mandatory required inspections and service every so many hours with the goal of preventing maintenance issues before they occur."

>There's no denying that the FAA (and EASA) approach has achieved a near-miraculously low rate of aircraft accidents in the Western hemisphere. You only have to go back about 40 years, or look at current accident rates in the Third World, to see the difference. (Pro tip: the one effective thing you can do to reduce your odds of dying in an airplane crash is, don't fly on Third World airlines.

You sound like a current pilot, so you probably know this better than I, but, for everyone else, you do understand your American Airlines and everyone else too jetliner is being serviced in El Salvador, Mexico, China "where few mechanics are F.A.A. certified and inspections have no teeth."

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/airplane-maintenance-disturbing-truth

I do note that Commercial Pilot and MIT Engineering Professor Philip Greenspun considers that article to be from "Vanity Fear": https://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2015/11/15/vanity-fear-mexicans-and-el-salvadorans-may-be-turning-wrenches-on-your-airplane/

> I imagine that, for intra-city transport, price is often the main concern for passengers.

I think there are two reasons, one is they want a hugely fast market takeover, and two, is because they know that the passengers are incredibly price sensitive and want the low cost service (which is why "none" of you cheapskates will tip your uber driver, and "all" of you will say things like 'tip is included in the fare' and 'uber discourages tipping' and 'i don't have the cash in my wallet')

But the truth is consumers here are incredibly price sensitive and want the lowest cost provider which LITERALLY means that Uber believes that for its passengers, when the rubber hits the road, all of the stuff about clean cars and polite drivers is LITERALLY worthless and provides ZERO value to the passenger.

Uber's belief, which may not be a passenger's belief, but if that's not what they believe, why aren't they tipping when stories of Uber's low pay have been very widely prevalent, especially in California.

I still don't understand Uber. I would think Uber could go so far as to promise shitty cars and shithead drivers that will slaughter bunnies while driving but who are guaranteed to show up within 5 minutes of your request and still charge higher rates than cabs.

> Crid is EXACTLY right here, which
> is why your clean car has not had
> the brake job it needs or the
> other expensive maintenance required
> to keep it safe.

You keep saying that... It's weird. It's delusional. How does this thought appear in your brain? Where are these Uber cars with failed brakes? Are you drinking?

Tell us more about your imaginary nightmare world. Are the teenagers surly and vulgar? Are the grownups sullen and withdrawn? Are the baked potatoes poisoned expired pats of butter? Do the blossoms wilt as you walk by them in the park?

Or is your brother-in-law in the taxicab business?

He has the motivation, but does he have the cash?

Lord love a duck.

Of course he has the cash. You know, Uber pays them. And going by their ads for "drive with uber", they get paid pretty quickly. Like the next day, probably after the credit company pays Uber and they take their cut.

And if they're relatively new cars, there isn't much to spend on maintenance. The 5K mile oil change, the 40K mile tires.

If they're going to keep driving with Uber, they'll replace those cars every 4 or 5 years, possibly sooner depending on the milage they rack up.

This is their money maker. If they want to let it go to seed, then sooner or later Uber will cull them from the driver herd because there are too many complaints from Uber's paying customers.

It's actually pretty easy to talk to drivers Crid.

They hang out in well known places on the Internet and are easily accessible.

But yeah, with no evidence other than economic argument (and talking to drivers), I believe that the guy earning $13 per hour even while requiring as many hours on the road as he can put is skimping on maintenance as much as possible. Not because he wants to.

I think yours is the classic libertarian argument as to why food and hygiene requirements at restaurants are not needed, and that's because of the devastating effect it will have on the business should they kill someone and so we are assured that in the long run, the free market will ensure the safety of most of us.

Next time you uber, casually check the tires. Enough tread for a rainy day?

> Why aren't the people in this
> thread tipping their Uber
> drivers?

We are. Heavily. And *still* saving money.

> (assumption on my part.)

Yes. Mistaken.

> And have fun suing Uber
> too, why, get in line!

Are they facing more lawsuits than all the taxi companies in America over my lifetime? I want a proper statistical markup before you can even pretend to have made a point.

Yes, a new and internationally-broad corporation is facing legal challenges. That's neither a surprise nor evidence of a remarkable fault... It would happen if you opened a chain of Scotch™-tape outlets in conventional malls, as well. ('Your Honor, those teentsy little teeth on the plastic dispenser scratched my pinky!!')

> Don't get me wrong,

Oh, we'd hate for that to happen!

> it's pretty remarkable what
> the GPS systems can do, but
> they are no panacea.

Why are you branching your argument into these ludicrous extremes? Who on the surface of our planet described GPS systems as a "panacea"?

More importantly, who reading these words has ever been disappointed by the route of a Lyft/Uber driver? And who hasn't been disappointed by the geographical ignorance, and bluster, of a conventional taxi driver? It's probably happened to me every two years since high school.

This is scattershot on your part. All your LITERALLYs and goofy extrapolations so forth are irrational. Something's up. Either you're in the taxicab business, or you're beholden to someone who is in the taxicab business, or you're a regulator, or something like that. Your thoughts aren't from the places that a mind would go without uncommon incentives.

You're scared of something.

You probably deserve to be.

and stranded drunks trying to get home.

Remember the bad ol' days before the advent of Uber when, if you got drunk at a bar, your only options for getting home were driving drunk, walking, bumming a ride from someone or taking public transport. Thank God Uber came along with the concept of paying someone to drive you home.

"but, for everyone else, you do understand your American Airlines and everyone else too jetliner is being serviced in El Salvador, Mexico, China "where few mechanics are F.A.A. certified and inspections have no teeth."

Vanity Fair? Vanity Fucking Fair? Honest to FSM, Jerry, you have taking this "government is good, private industry is evil" thing as an article of faith. Do you honestly think any of those ignoramuses at Vanity Fair know the first thing about airplanes and airline ops? Really? Are you that naive, or is it so important to you to "win the argument" that you're willing to knowingly throw out grossly dishonest material?

Let me tell you how it works. Yes, airlines have mechanics in China. Why? Because they fly there, and sometimes airplanes have to be serviced in China. Do they have to be FAA certified? Damn straight they do. The FAA would fine AA's or Delta's or United's asses off if they found out that a non-certified mechanic touched their aircraft. They fined Southwest about $200,000 a few years ago because a non-certified person signed off on some paperwork. That person didn't do any actual work, he just signed the paperwork, and they got nailed for that. The foreign mechanics generally only do the most routine, what they call "A-check", maintenance. Stuff like checking the pax oxygen generator canisters to make sure they aren't out of date.

For more serious stuff, the airlines send their own people in. For really serious stuff, Boeing and Airbus have "aircraft on ground" teams ready to go anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. There aren't any Chinese mechanics changing engines on the aircraft of First World airlines. If this was not the case, the likes of Aviation Week (journalists who actually know something about aircraft) would be all over it.

And to the point you keep making about "cost-cutting" negatively impacting safety: In terms of accident and fatality rates, Southwest is one of the safest airlines in the world.

I think there are two reasons, one is they want a hugely fast market takeover, and two, is because they know that the passengers are incredibly price sensitive and want the low cost service (which is why "none" of you cheapskates will tip your uber driver, and "all" of you will say things like 'tip is included in the fare' and 'uber discourages tipping' and 'i don't have the cash in my wallet')

Who's not tipping their Uber driver? And then telling you about it?

'cause the only person on this blog whose mentioned taking an Uber also mentioned he tipped generously.

And a "hugely fast market takeover" is not accomplished by giving customers a crappy experience. It's accomplished by giving them more for their money than the competition does. You don't get a good driver by paying him nothing. You get one by paying him a rate acceptable to him. If Uber's rates have dropped, it's because that's what the market demands.

And yes, cab passengers are price sensitive. Most people think a quick ride across town should be free or at least priced comparably to public transit (but not as crowded or dirty). Uber provides that ride in a safe and modern vehicle at the convenience of the passenger. Try calling a cab and getting one to show up in the "fifteen minutes" the dispatcher promises. Then try calling an Uber. You'll get a car where and when you were promised one.

Sorry, that should have been:

I think there are two reasons, one is they want a hugely fast market takeover, and two, is because they know that the passengers are incredibly price sensitive and want the low cost service (which is why "none" of you cheapskates will tip your uber driver, and "all" of you will say things like 'tip is included in the fare' and 'uber discourages tipping' and 'i don't have the cash in my wallet') ~ jerry at June 24, 2016 2:52 PM

Who's not tipping their Uber driver? And then telling you about it?

'cause the only person on this blog whose mentioned taking an Uber also mentioned he tipped generously.

And a "hugely fast market takeover" is not accomplished by giving customers a crappy experience. It's accomplished by giving them more for their money than the competition does. You don't get a good driver by paying him nothing. You get one by paying him a rate acceptable to him. If Uber's rates have dropped, it's because that's what the market demands.

And yes, cab passengers are price sensitive. Most people think a quick ride across town should be free or at least priced comparably to public transit (but not as crowded or dirty). Uber provides that ride in a safe and modern vehicle at the convenience of the passenger. Try calling a cab and getting one to show up in the "fifteen minutes" the dispatcher promises. Then try calling an Uber. You'll get a car where and when you were promised one.

Where are these Uber cars with failed brakes?

Exactly.

The driver has motivation to have the brakes in working order because he is not just the driver; he is also a passenger in that vehicle.

If it's "Ha ha, you might die," it's "Ha ha, I might die."

As for tips, I have it set up in my profile to add a tip. Don't you?

jerry all your 'concerns' about an Uber drivers car, why dont you have them about a cab owned by a corporation assigned to different people thru the days/weeks/months?

I said I see no free market reason to believe your Uber is safer or more reliable than a taxi, OTHER than the car itself is probably newer.

How about that as the owner of the car the driver has an incentive to maintain the value for future resale in a way the twenty different people who drive cab #182 dont?

> Thank God Uber came along
> with the concept of paying
> someone to drive you home.

Snark if you want to. By whatever alchemy, Uber has saved lives. There's more information about transportation (and drunkenness) in this truth than most seem eager to consider.

> Exactly.

Dude, be CLEAR, not clever.

> The driver has motivation to
> have the brakes in working order
> because he is not just the
> driver; he is also a passenger
> in that vehicle.

I can't see your point. What driver doesn't have such motivation?

> I have it set up in my
> profile to add a tip.

It asks me every time. I love that.

Jerry, somehow this revolution has cost you money (and/or prestige or some kind of investment)... You should explain how.

> You'll get a car where and
> when you were promised one.

On Sunday at 3:40AM in West LA, I literally had a car show up within two minutes. Two. Put phone in pocket, lace shoes, pick up suitcase, walk outside.

> It seems to be a leftist
> party line that things that
> are unregulated are unsafe.

Yes.

> Southwest is one of the safest
> airlines in the world.

I fly them more than I want to because the freaking simplicity can be irresistible. Not even the price... The simplicity.

A 20-year-old memory says that Southwest can turn around an aircraft for flying in 25 minutes(?) with two employees while other airlines needed seven(?) working for three(?) hours.




When Jobs returned to Apple, his first changes included hacking away at the product line, and not merely because they weren't his babies. He knew it would take a couple years to get his own products into the pipeline, and in the meantime, he need to cut away all the clutter from the public's perception of their offerings. Paraphrase: "We're going to sell a high-end laptop and a less-expensive one, and we're going to sell a high-end desktop and a less-expensive one. That's it."

A couple years ago I figured out that I was as happy with a touchscreen laptop as with a more powerful desktop, as sofas and easy chairs are kinder to middle-aged butts than are task chairs. I'm not an apple guy, so I've been looking at all the big Wintel laptop makers: Dell, Asus, HP, Lenovo and Toshiba....

And their product lines are a fucking nightmare. The web pages that describe them are even worse... All sorts of flying graphics panels and hidden truths.

The problem is NOT that there are too many choices! As Iowahawk has noted, Bernie Sanders is full of shit when he says nobody needs 17 choices for deodorant. (Scholars have recently vacated the popular trope that consumer choice somehow diminishes satisfaction.)

The problem is that these manufactures won't let me know what all my choices ARE... There's no reliably current chart of options and prices for these machines, which are constantly being tweaked and refined with new enhancements.

I sincerely do not know what they gain by doing this. Presumably this befogging of their customers is profitable in some way... Perhaps it allows them to sell a warehouse full of laptops with the USB 4.7 specification at a fat price, even though they been building them with the 4.9 spec for six months.

But if you ever wonder how Apple became the biggest company in the world....

Presumably, each little variation in the product line has it's own Vice-President sucking air during important meetings, right?

I might've missed this – correct me if I have – but in the argument about the condition of the cars Uber drivers drive…

You do not have to get IN the damned thing when you have a choice.

Sorry -- the comment about the failed brakes above (7:58 PM, now corrected to include my name) was mine, not Jerry's, but my computer auto-filled his name after I rescued one of his posts from my spam filter (had three links).

The driver has motivation to have the brakes in working order because he is not just the driver; he is also a passenger in that vehicle. ~ Amy Alkon at June 24, 2016 7:58 PM

The cab driver is also a passenger in that vehicle. However he has the maintenance department to blame if anything goes wrong. The Uber driver cannot blame the maintenance supervisor or owner as he is both.

"I only ride 'em, I don't know what makes 'em work." ~ Oddball

In addition, the cab driver's motivation to treat the car nicely is diminished, as it isn't his car. Riding the brakes, shifting roughly, squealing the tires, none of this affects his bottom line. Even if he leases the cab, maintenance is the owner's problem.

"No one washes a rented car." ~ Thomas Friedman

The interior of the cab is designed to be utilitarian and easily cleanable: slick vinyl seats that can be wiped down after a late night drunk vomits on them, rubber floor mats that can be removed and washed down of mud and snow, and glass sneeze guards that can be Windexed when the patient zero in the back lets fly with the latest strain of ovarian flu. While this is practical from the cab company's standpoint, it doesn't make for a memorable ride (at least not for the right reasons).

The Uber/Lyft car is someone's daily ride. The owner bought what he could afford. Cloth or leather seats. Carpeted floor mats. And no shield between the passenger and driver. A nicer experience.

At the end, both passenger and driver review each other, so the next exchange involving each of them is better informed than the last.

Uber and Lyft, like AirBnB and eBay, have disseminated power to the people. Instead of paying for a regulated but sterile experience, the consumer can opt for a richer, more personal experience with full information beforehand (via reviews).

Now me, I like the sterile experience. I don't want to chat with my driver or stay in some hippie's house and pay them for it. But that's me. And what's more important, I have that choice. Shouldn't everyone?

The regulation = safety argument is a smokescreen. Even though power to the people is what the leftists claim to want, their hostility toward the sharing economy indicates differently.

...Bernie Sanders is full of shit when he says nobody needs 17 choices for deodorant. ~ Crid at June 25, 2016 12:55 AM

Marx also decried multiple variations of the same product as industrially inefficient. Marxism was never about choice or industrial efficiency or power to the people. It was about resentment and seizing power for a small group to lord over the rest.

Anything that leaves San Francisco snots knocking each other down as they fight for bright-yellow taxis is fine by me.

The stealth aspect and the reserved Uber car are fine by me.

Also, sufficient coffee before posting is fine by me.

I like Uber, but I mostly use Lyft because monopolies are bad. I still don't understand why these companies can't accept a modicum of basic regulation like other businesses in their space and instead throw tantrums and go home with their balls like children whenever a city decides it wants more than the barebones security measures these companies take. It's their right to do so, but it also invites tougher measures down the road. Doubt they'd enjoy it if the state of California decided to impose a mandatory fingerprinting rule for drivers for hire a-al Austin. But they'd be hard pressed to abandon their top markets either. Hey taxi unions, here's your ballot measure for 2018! Can't be a major economic player and not get regulated.

"The free market is ugly and stupid, like going to the mall; the unfree market is just as ugly and just as stupid, except there is nothing in the mall and if you don't go there they shoot you." ~ P.J. O’Rourke (Give War a Chance)

"Fiscal conservatism is just an easy way to express something that is a bit more difficult, which is that the size and scope of government, and really the size and scope of politics in our lives, has grown uncomfortable, unwieldy, intrusive and inefficient." ~ P. J. O'Rourke

" At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. [...] The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors — psychology, sociology, women's studies — to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view." ~ P.J. O’Rourke (Give War a Chance)

Can't be a major economic player and not get regulated. ~ herpyderpy at June 25, 2016 11:13 PM

You say that like it's a good thing.

I say that because it's a fact, and because i believe the tactic of resisting all regulation that Uber and Lyft are employing seems bound to backfire. I'd rather these companies succeed.

It's only a fact because we've allowed our government to stick its boney claws into areas that should have been regulated by the normal give and take of human interaction.

There's no good reason Uber needs to be regulated by the government at this point. Any information the customer needs is readily available.

Taxis can be mostly deregulated at this point. A taxi app could do wonders toward upgrading that industry. The medallion system has done more to destroy the taxi industry than Uber or Lyft ever will.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." ~ Ronald Reagan

Deregulation has done quite a bit of good. Carter deregulated the beer industry and now we have craft brews and brewpubs. Airline deregulation has given us more routes and lower prices. Now, even the lower middle class can travel by air to destinations previously out of their reach or impractical by car or bus.

I'm not not arguing in favor of regulation. Pragmatically, it's better these companies accept some, vs their scortched earth battles against, lest they get hit with more reactionary regulations down the road.

Tesla is running into that. By absolutely refusing to consider using a dealership network, the company has been effectively shut out of several states.

But shouldn't it be Tesla's call whether they want to do business with franchisees and wholesalers or sell their cars directly to consumers?

Government regulation and cozy crony political dealings with dealers and wholesalers have shut Tesla out of these markets. What about that arrangement makes the public safer? Or is even the government's business?

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson