Perhaps that should be phrased "the availability of drivers using a ride sharing platform has helped reduce drunk driving accidents."
If Uber doesn't accept drivers as employees and isn't responsible for their actions, it shouldn't be credited with their collective contributions to a safer society.
That's a strangely bitter way of looking at things. Ride sharing companies, including Uber, have brought tremendous benefits to society, and drunk driving prevention is probably at the top of the list. Uber has made the largest difference of all these companies because it has been the most aggressive in disrupting rent-seekers like taxi companies.
The drivers and the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy should also be credited, but not to the discredit of the companies that created the ride-sharing platforms that made it all possible.
Perhaps, but don't call it "sharing," because sharing is reciprocal. If it were actually sharing, you would be driving for Uber as much as the people who chauffeur you around. Call them what they are: unlicensed taxis.
Also, "the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy" is just another way of saying "many people are desperate enough to do sub-minimum-wage piecework."
No mention of it being reciprocal - which makes sense for almost every use of "sharing" I can think of
When I share my sandwich I'm not receiving any other sandwich from anybody else (perhaps if I was I'd share more often)
Anyway, its not easy to defend Uber and I don't want to be labeled that way - since I've boycotted the service more than once, but some of the arguments in this thread on this page seem really petty
If you come visit my house, I'm likely to offer you a drink when you arrive.
If you take me up on a water, I'm sharing my water with you, whether or not I drink a water myself at that moment.
(I'm perfectly happy to call Uber, Lyft, etc "unlicensed taxis" as I do think that's more accurate than "ride sharing"; I just don't agree that it's completely inaccurate to call them ride shares.)
I agree that reciprocal doesn't really describe it.
Perhaps the concept they were trying to get at is that sharing suggests everyone involved is getting the same thing in some way. If I share a ride with you, it's because we're both going the same way. What's actually happening with uber is we each want something different. They want my money, and I want to be taken somewhere.
It is, however, an highly successful branding exercise.
I would just argue that dictionary.com has missed a context for sharing. Consider, "They shared everything." It's best understood as the reciprocal agreement to either partition or grant access to possessions.
Platforms should provide the opportunity to monetize your time in all sorts of ways. Ridesharing is just one example of ways people do it, and anything that adds liquidity to the overall ability to monetize time and existing capital is a good thing.
Everything else is just supply and demand. I don't see why we should stop anyone from ridesharing with the Uber platform, as long as the terms are clear enough. People are expected to think and make their own best judgments with these sorts of things, to some extent.
I too have struggled with the term "ride share", since it obviously isn't being used in the sense of "sharing is caring" we were all taught in kindergarten.
At some point I realized it means a share (in the economic sense) of a ride (the driver's car / time). As a rider, you are willing to pay for a portion of the driver's time and car mileage, and that's something you generally couldn't do before Uber/Lyft.
Sharing has connotations of kindness and altruism when this is really a transaction, so I like to avoid the term "ride sharing", but I feel "ride share" is accurate. As someone else posted nearby, there are plenty more substantive criticisms of Uber right now.
The thing is that Uber explicitly disclaims responsibility for its drivers in its terms of service. And in court, when an Uber driver is accused of a crime, Uber maintains it's not responsible.
> It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones.
The world is not so black and white my friend. Uber is most definitely credited with both negative and positive outcomes; however, 'an Uber driver is accused of a crime' is not a good example, as such an accusation does not reflect on Uber anymore than you being accused of committing a crime reflects on your employer, assuming you work for a large company. If, however, there was an example that read 'Uber drivers commit crimes on the job at a statistically significant rate compared to taxis, Lyft, etc.,' then we have a means to blame the platform itself.
Or in the case of the sexual harassment allegations, if this is a systemic problem at high levels of leadership, then that's a major, blameworthy issue.
Incorrect. Independent contractors cheerfully 'sharing' their vehicles have made 100% of the difference; Uber does not employ anyone to drive anywhere. The number of drunks driven home by Uber employees is ~0.
Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market?
It's fair to criticize Uber's aggressive and shady practices, it's also fair to acknowledge the enormous changes that it has brought about to the transportation landscape.
Actually most taxi drivers are independent contractors, which makes it even clearer that Uber added something to the equation, and always makes it kind of funny how upset people are about Uber drivers not being full time employees.
I'm happy with uber having contractors, workers or employees (three distinct categories in the UK). What I'm not happy with is them picking and choosing the parts of those definitions which benefit themselves.
I don't think it's particularly amusing to be upset at a multi-billion dollar company trying to skirt employment laws.
> Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market?
A fair number were. I lived in Harlem from 2008-2011, and we often had to hail off-duty black car service vehicles due to the dearth of medallion cabs outside of central Manhattan. These were commonly known as "gypsy cabs," and the drivers were picking people up to make money on the side. I believe it was technically illegal but very, very common.
By that logic, has then the AppStore not created any apps, Ebay not sold any goods, Kickstarter not created any products, and GoFundMe not funded any projects?
Bitter/hating much? I know Uber is not liked, but the fact that they have done a great job at disturbing the market in a great way. (Lyft as well, but they are still a minority player)
Having have to deal with NYC cabs often, when they will lock the doors and ask where you are going before letting you in, Uber is a great improvement overall.
Also, a NYC taxi medallion would cost 500k to almost 750k (that's like a mortgage). Basically half of your fare is going to some dude's coffers, and not to the drivers and taxis. Classical rent seeking behaviour caused by misguided regulation. Glad to see an outsider disrupt it.
But aren't they just disrupting it temporarily? My understanding is that VC funding is propping up those low fares. I guess it is good until that runs out though.
Well, part of Uber's strategy was to subsidize rides with VC funding until they could have fleets of self-driving cars to provide rides at truly low costs (and thus efficient unit economics).
We'll see how well that plays out in light of the Waymo lawsuit.
There is nothing wrong with their financial model at the moment - it's just high stakes, winner takes all, swing for the fences style of company building.
The most famous example is Amazon, fueling growth with raised capital over emphasis if profits. It lets them capture market and mindshare and do it extremely cheaply - Uber has raised $8B for what is likely less than a third of the company - including $5B at $90B+ only 8 months ago
This is exactly what investors want - turn what some might grow to be a respectable 20-30x return into 1000x and a shot at global domination.
Its amazing how global uber is - it really has total mindshare outside of the small number of areas competitors operate. I've heard "uber" used as a verb in 4 languages and in about a dozen different countries.
Uber claim they're profitable in older markets on a margin basis. That bodes well for being able to grow into profitability as you run out of countries to grow into, which is a little better and different to Amazon.com's "flicking the profit switch"
The medallion is a huge cost, that alone might be enough - not to mention economies of scale, logistics expertise, data collection value, uber pool network effect, etc.
But were only an option if you are from the city. There's a considerable risk ordering any minicab service if you don't know your way around the city. Uber and Lyft change that by verifying drivers.
Yes, some the most racist taxi drivers I have encountered were minorities with prejudices against other minorities. Everyone is afraid to call a minority a bigot so this behavior tends to be unchecked compared to when a white guy does it.
Try getting a cab in Manhattan at peak times, or during shift change (6pm-ish?). Technically they have to take you by law but even if you get in and refuse to move they will sit there until you are forced to get out.
It got to the point I was getting turned down more than accepted for rides from Manhattan to Brooklyn so now I just use ride share by default.
(For reference, I'm white so it's not a problem of being a minority. I do live pretty deep in Brooklyn in a "bad" neighborhood though - maybe getting a ride to Williamsburg etc is easier)
That's some kind of bullshit. If "ride sharing" was the only causative factor then taxis would have addressed this already, given "ride sharing" is a euphemism for taxi.
Not really. If the marginal convenience and cheaper price of ride sharing firms led more drunk people to use them then it would be ride sharing that did it. Also, since there have always been taxis, it would have been a big coincidence to observe the statistical difference at the same time as the rise of ride sharing. Obviously, "ride sharing" is a bad description, but so what? The word "cab" is left over from horse drawn carriages.
Taxis and modern ride sharing services may appear to 'offer the same product,' but they do it in different ways. The accessibility of Uber and Lyft via smart phone apps put them worlds ahead.
Go back ten years. You need a taxi after leaving a social event. Your choice: bar, movie theater, wedding reception, whatever. Go stand outside in the wind/rain/snow/etc. on the corner of the intersection and hope that you aren't racially profiled and ignored by the driver and eventually someone will decide they want to pick you up... but for some strange reason they don't seem to turn on the meter and funny thing, when you arrive, the credit card machine is broken. This is the product that taxis have cultivated over decades of service.
Meanwhile, now, I sit inside protected from the elements, summon an Uber or Lyft on my phone quicker than it takes to call the taxi service (much less flag one down), and pay less than the taxi would have cost me. In my personal experience, I can get picked up by an Uber faster than I can even talk to a human being on the phone at a taxi dispatch.
You think this is the same service? It's not. Taxis are and have been a joke, and the evidence is in the walls they have built around themselves. The medallion system in New York as a prime example. What could be more absurd? What could be the logic, if not to fend off competition? Taxis have not offered the service that Uber and Lyft offer in decades, and even now that they are scrambling to roll out their own apps, they still fail to provide reliability. They have been playing by their own rules for so long, taxis completely lost sight of how to be a service industry.
I just really, really wish that Uber and Lyft could manage to pull off this grand revolution in transportation without dumping their negative externalities all on us.
Up front, I will say that this is just my experience and just what I've witnessed, but, damn, something--in my mind--about the Uber and Lyft driver platforms encourages their drivers to crap all over the public commons just for a fare. Some things I've seen just in the past week here in Seattle:
- Stopping in an active bus lane to pick up a fare.
- Stopping in an active bus stop to pick up a fare, then backing up against traffic when a bus goes around them to make its stop.
- Illegal U-turns, left- or right-turns, and blowing past all manner of other traffic control devices ("no turn on red," "must turn left or right except bicycles," etc).
- "Pressing" (that is, creeping forward into a crosswalk) pedestrians at crosswalks to make a turn.
- Stopping in a lane of traffic and, this is my favorite, turning on hazard lights while waiting for a fare.
- Generally clogging up traffic around major hotspots while waiting for a fare because "surge pricing" or maybe just good business.
In every single case, if a taxi did that then someone could complain to the city and have their taxi license revoked. Meanwhile, it is not readily possible to determine which TNC a driver is driving for or their TNC license number so making a complaint is difficult and there are so many TNC drivers that it's like a moth equipped with a lightning bug trying to burn down a building.
> Illegal U-turns, left- or right-turns, and blowing past all manner of other traffic control devices ("no turn on red," "must turn left or right except bicycles," etc).
I had a Lyft driver who tried to make an illegal U-turn while I was in the car with him.
Google Maps was telling him to go to the next light and make a U-turn. He insisted on making a U-turn at the light before. I saw the no U-turn sign, which explained why Google wanted him to go to the next light.
I repeatedly pointed out the no U-turn sign to him and told him again and again that it was illegal for him to make a U-turn there. I kept telling him over and over to get out of the left turn lane and go straight till the next light. He finally got out of the left turn lane after I raised my voice multiple times. If he hadn't gotten out of the left turn lane right then, my next step would have been to say "if you make an illegal U-turn, I will call the police on you right here".
After he got out of the lane, he was huffing and puffing for the rest of the ride. Fortunately, the ride wasn't much longer, but he was furious. I've never seen someone huff and puff like that outside of a cartoon.
He was also pretty unprofessional throughout the whole ride (example: he had a really tiny car, I'm a very large person, and when he picked me up he tried to make me ride in the backseat that I physically wouldn't be able to fit into... I had to tell him I would cancel the ride unless he unlocked the front door), so I didn't feel guilty whatsoever when I rated him 1 star and flagged him for navigation, friendliness, and safety.
You are entirely right, this is a puff piece, the 'may' in the title and the 'correction' at the end of the article shows the level of thought put into it.
The really interesting takeaway imo is how Uber made taxis cool (billions $ cool) with a bit of rebranding and made people defend 'our' taxis against 'their' taxis, doing all kind of mental gymnastics to rationalize their pick of taxi service in the process.
Meanwhile social media seem to be condemning the company for all kind of shenanigans while their service is booming, fascinating.
If someone starts posting threats or illegal material as discussion comments, wouldn't Hacker News be responsible for deleting it or else they would face penalties? Uber argues they shouldn't face penalties when an Uber driver does something illegal since they are "independent contractors".
Not really, under U.S. law HN or any other web forum is only responsible for deleting libelous or infringing comments after being notified: Digital Harbor, DCMA, etc.
The analogous situation for Uber would be "allowing a driver to continue using the platform after being notified of illegal on-the-job activity."
Yeah, before Uber it was definitely easy to find someone to drive you home at 3 am from an arbitrary location with a full digital payment and accountability system.
Would you mind sharing your counter argument? Although I don't necessarily agree with the parent, asking him to be ashamed seems to be an even weaker argument.
If Uber doesn't accept drivers as employees and isn't responsible for their actions, it shouldn't be credited with their collective contributions to a safer society.