I also drove for Uber in DC for a few months while I was between jobs. I thought it would be a fun and easy way to get a few dollars for beer. My experience mirrors that of the reporter. Towards the end, I would only drive during surge pricing hours, as that was the only way to make a reasonable net hourly wage.
I have no problem hailing an Uber - they are really, really cheap. However, it's a raw deal for drivers. Uber turns a blind eye to driver-contractors driving without commercial vehicle insurance. It has to, as the additional cost (which is pushed onto the driver) would cause the driver's hourly rate to plummet even further. In addition, there is no way to purchase commercial insurance on an hourly basis - therefore part-time drivers would be squeezed out. The flat-rate $1 safe rides fee causes low-distance fares to be even more unprofitable, even when many short trips are already a bad deal due to the overhead involved in each pickup and drop-off.
To fix this, Uber should probably cover drivers with an on-demand commercial policy while they are logged into the app. The flat per-ride fee should go away. And while I doubt this is going to happen, Uber should probably also reduce the commission they take per ride.
So basically you mean than Uber can only make money if most their drivers do not respect the law. Which gives Uber an unfair advantage over the competition (regular taxis that do respect the law ). It's like saying employer X doesn't check if his employees are legal workers, because if he did it would be too expensive to do business. But hey, even startups got to hussle to make a good living.
I drove for Uber in Baltimore last spring for a few months during weekends just for fun and I agree this article's assessment is _dead_ on.
I've since stopped using Uber even as a rider. The way they treat the drivers is pretty horrendous and I don't want to be an enabler to that. Lyft is a bit better because at least I can leave the driver a reasonable tip through the app.
So how much does commercial insurance cost? And since you have experience maybe you can answer this: What if you accept the insurance argument that having the app open is commercial, and shut it off to find a parking space after every ride. How long would that take, is it feasible?
A few months ago when I was in Seattle for work, I caught Uber everywhere. I had so many conversations with Uber drivers about why they drove for Uber, how much money they made and why they weren't doing something else.
Needless to say, unless I felt legitimately fearful for my life (which rarely ever happened) I would always rate 5 stars. I realised a lot of these Uber drivers (usually migrants with broken English) probably didn't have many other options to earn money. An almost consistent sentiment amongst those drivers was they were working long hours and support family (not just a wife and children but parents/relatives). My reasoning for this was I am paying like half the cost of what a taxi would cost me, so why not 5 stars?
I think Uber is great for a certain subset of people. While most people who frequent HN on six figure tech salaries would definitely struggle to live on an Uber salary, a lot of people rely on it. In all honesty, I couldn't do it and I have a certain level of respect for those willing to earn so little and work so much to support their families. As a passenger Uber is great, but you can't deny that drivers get absolutely shafted unless they're driving through surge pricing periods and areas. I always rate 5 stars when I get an Uber unless of course the driver is swerving all over the place, speeding or doing dangerous things to endanger my life (which has happened like twice in all of the time I have used Uber).
Aside: Anyone else find the article sporadically refresh? Made it very difficult to read the article.
> Aside: Anyone else find the article sporadically refresh? Made it very difficult to read the article.
Yes. It did for me in Firefox on the desktop, but not on mobile safari. I thought I was crazy when it did it the first time but the second time, I knew it was the citypaper site.
> I realised a lot of these Uber drivers (usually migrants with broken English) probably didn't have many other options to earn money.
This is just such a perfect observation. What we are seeing here is an end-run around the minimum wage. The so-called "1099 economy" is increasing employment of unskilled workers who would otherwise be unemployable at the mandatory minimum.
Where else are people going to find a job they can set their own hours, work 12-hours a day, 80 hours a week, making $5/hour sitting down? If the minimum wage weren't so damn high there might be competitive alternatives.
Keep in mind, the goal isn't to "make" $80k, or even $60k, and then lose over half of it to taxes and phased-out benefits. If you're supporting your wife and two kids, the goal is to make about $32k, which on a 1099 will work out to just about maximize your EITC, food stamps, Medi-Cal, etc. and in the end your net value is equivalent to about $100k fully loaded (the employer's fully loaded cost) of regular W-2 employment.
I don't plan on taking uber, but if I did, I got average service I would probably dare the driver 3 stars, because that is what 3 stars mean.... Average. And yet I would unknowingly be hurting the driver. And that is just stupid
I have come across a startup founder who drives Uber in the evenings to help with cashflow.
But he is a unique subset as well. His family lives back in South Africa and this keeps him occupied in the evenings plus he can do a bit of customer validation if occasion presents.
That's interesting, because I have had the opposite experience. The one time I used Uber instead of Lyft in NYC, I got a driver who was most probably a rapist. Whenever we passed a bar or any drunk girls, he would start telling me how he wanted to take advantage of them. Then he started insulting me for some reason.
It was a strange experience, but clearly, the Uber driver pool is merging with the taxi driver pool. And it's bringing the bad elements you'd expect from a typical cabbie.
This was the common sense amongst all working people for most of the 20th century. Samuel Gompers, maybe the most conservative labor leader of his time, said "You cannot weigh the human soul on the same scales as piece of pork." And working people, along with the management class for the most part, understood this to be an undeniable truth. In fact, this piece of common sense was enshrined into US law with the Clayton Act of 1914, which stated "The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." But in the last 20 years, as capital has gained the firm upper hand, the common sense understanding has shifted towards the idea that labor is in fact a commodity.
The ideas behind the so-called "on-demand workforce" further solidify the notion that labor is a commodity. After all, you can order an uber ride just as easily as you can order vitamins online.
It's so pervasive that even I, someone born into a union family and a firm believer in the idea of worker solidarity, have to force myself to believe that labor is not a commodity. Why? The business class treated labor as expendable in 1915, just as they do in 2015. Why did working people understand this truth in 1915 but not today? I don't know.
I read a recently released sociology book earlier this year (going crazy looking for the title/author, can't find it), that posits millennials are far more likely than any recent generation to blame themselves for the problems they face. It's part of the reason that the self-help industry is bigger business than it's ever been. It's not always your fault. Our modern economy is built on rotten ideas like labor = commodity. If we want to do something about inequality, it's time that we subject fundamentally unjust ideas like these to a serious critique.
That labor is a commodity is not an "idea", but in the case of Uber drivers and the Foxconn workers who assemble iPhones, a fact. It is a fact because that's how those jobs and service/production processes have been designed. The work has been broken down into their smallest parts, so that it will require no special skill or intelligence to perform them. As anyone can do those jobs, they have been de facto commoditized.
For someone who cares for the wellbeing of people at the bottom of the enterprise pyramids, the goal should be to design new organizations, with jobs that have latitude for learning and development, that is multi-disciplinary and creative. And many of the worst jobs today should be automated because they are not fit for human beings.
> Why did working people understand this truth in 1915 but not today? I don't know.
Because of Ayn Rand. You think I'm joking, but she's the only intellectually serious defender of capitalism in the 20th century, and her influence is snowballing. When Rand was alive, members of her circle would rejoice at the extremely occasional mention of her name in print. Now, you can't turn on the TV or go anywhere online without hearing about her.
As a side note, human labor is not a commodity. However, "capital" (as you call it---you use a lot of Marxist terms in your post that do not reflect the reality of society) does not have an obligation to hire you on your terms, either. Labor is about a voluntarily trade.
I live between NYC and Bangalore, India. I have used Uber and its closest competitors (Lyft and Ola respectively), in both cities.
I have a mental questionnaire I go through with 90% of the drivers and here is what I have learnt:
Uber vs Lyft: Drivers make more money with Uber, but rules of engagement are more relaxed in Lyft.
Uber & Ola (not vs): The drivers in India hone in on these three points:
1. They make 3-4 times the money they would if they were employed as a driver in a upper-middle class household (very common in India).
2. They feel respected and think of themselves as "Business owners" now. It is heartening to see how much the "feeling respected" theme repeats itself.
3. They know the good times won't last.
Unlike US, in India, Uber and Ola are do not take a cut from the ride. In fact it is the opposite - They keep the per kilometre cost to the end consumer lower than Auto Rickshaws and compensate the drivers the difference. In fact Uber has taken a "not-for-profit" model in India (and in Beijing).
I was just in Guangzhou where this is also the case; they have a non-profit/subsidized tier called "People's Uber". A 20 minute ride would come out to the equivalent of $3. The weird thing to me was that there were 5 tiers of service and while there were different cars available for UberX and People's Uber, I couldn't tell the difference in the service. Not sure why anyone would choose UberX when the VC-subsidized version was available.
The offending code that reloads the page every 3 minutes [0]. Terrible. The author told me on twitter [1] it's because of traffic, but... no. it's the js code. Ironically, the forced reload is making the traffic problem worse.
You can add a "function contentRefresh(){}" in your devtools js console to get rid of this. It was the only way I could finish the article.
Only a guess but I'd place money on "because that's the best way they can think of to increase advert impressions". I've known publishers do that for this reason, at least. Depressingly.
While I like the improvements to regular taxi service that the competition has brought, I don't like Uber. They're just shady all around.
The "We're not a taxi service, we just sell software" is a load of crap.
How many apps take a piece of the gross? Purchase a license? Ok. A monthly fee for ongoing service? Sure. A chunk of all the money made from using it? I don't think so.
Kind of disappointed that the author neglected to discuss how the $9.34/hr she earned as an Uber driver compares to her salary as a "senior staff writer".
I found it interesting that many customers were complaining about drivers with accents. I wonder if, would Uber implement per-driver pricing, those people would really pay a premium for drivers with no accent.
Driving people from A to B individually would be a "perfect competition" kind of situation without regulation. Some of the motivation behind regulating this market was that some taxi drivers just started robbing their customers.
Now Uber is doing away with the regulation, and it's "perfect competition" again, the state of affairs when prices have to be so low that there is almost no profit for the suppliers. Uber will always make the most overall profit with their drivers just on the edge of survival.
Uber may actually set the fares just below the profitability point, because new drivers or those "driving for fun" actually put money on the table rather than being paid.
> Uber reassures drivers that they've got them covered, but their vaunted $1 million policy is secondary for collision — that is, drivers must try to get their own insurance companies to pay the claims first. If the claim is rejected because the insurer figures out it's Uber-related, then Uber's policy kicks in — but the driver's almost certainly going to have his personal insurance policy cancelled, and in some cases be investigated for fraud.
What? Has this ever happened before? Surely by now there would be specific examples of this taking place, if it were indeed a real thing.
> CP: Yeah, not really — when they take UberX into a new market like Philly, they start off by paying drivers a lot. So in the beginning, you get a lot of drivers who look like the drivers in Uber ads, like, suits and bottled water and no accents. And everyone gets the idea that Uber drivers have suits and make a ton of money. Then after a while, usually when a competitor comes in — you know Lyft just started up a couple weeks ago, right?
(CP is the person who wrote the article, not anyone being interviewed) -- How impressively unprofessional. The entire section that quote comes from is just the person writing the article yelling at someone she's ferrying around as an UberX driver. A more obvious hit piece could not have been written.
Also, the site keeps refreshing on me, losing my place in the article. I think it's related to the graphs, but I can't be sure. They randomly go into "loading..." mode when this happens.
Go check the forums at uberpeople.net to hear firsthand the numerous stories of drivers having their personal insurance policies canceled after an accident. The media doesn't care enough to cover these stories.
It's not a myth, it is actually right in the agreement with your insurer, that your vehicle will not be used for commercial purposes.
Also, the $1 "Safe Ride" fee only covers excess liability, not collision. So if you're driving for Uber or Lyft, and the accident is your fault, everyone else is covered. Your passengers, the other driver(s), their vehicle(s). You have a totaled car with no insurance and have to pay your own medical bills.
FYI- My page kept refreshing as well. Really annoying. I can't imagine it is on purpose to drive up pageview counts... but... I've seen shadier tactics.
There have been quite a few stories regarding the insurance policy, though more about the ambiguity/controversy in general than specific incidents...which isn't surprising...when do car accidents make it into the national news? Rarely, unless a whole bunch of people die. For an Uber-related accident and subsequent legal fight to make national news, one of the parties has to pitch that angle to the media...though with the way things are, media outlets generally have little problem jumping on an Uber (or Airbnb) mishap when they hear about it.
> As you might imagine, the front of the Dodge was badly damaged. The driver is now suing the driver of the Town Car, a vehicle with livery plates operated under the company SF Limo Car Service. The pedestrian, who broke her leg and injured her back, is suing both drivers. She is also suing – and this is what makes this crash particularly interesting – the transportation-tech company Uber.
> The don’t-ask-don’t-tell strategy usually works until there’s a crash. Ian, a Bay Area Uber driver, was off duty when his car was hit by another car in October. While he was filing a claim with Geico, they asked him if he ever worked for Uber or Lyft. “I panicked,” he said. “They put me on the spot. So I just answered honestly and said yes, but that I wasn’t working when this happened.”
> Uber posted a “Statement On New Year’s Eve Accident” on its blog, offering condolences to the victim and her family, but also distancing itself from any cuplability.
> After initially being told by an Uber representative in Chicago that he had to pay a $1,000 deductible, this was later recanted. Since he was not at fault, his personal car insurance fronted the entire bill. But because he lacks commercial coverage, questions arise as to who would be responsible if he had been responsible for the collision.
I see people buying 2008 plus four door vechicles(that Uber approves of--on the ever changing list) and not making money and stuck with a four door car. Four door cars are harder to sell than two door cars.(I can't point to a link to prove this, but I used to sell cars, and four door cars were a tough sell.)
My problem with Uber is the requirement for a 2008 or newer car, and Uber decides if it's cool enough to represent their company. This is not an independent contractor Uber?
Let the driver use any registered vechicle? Your brilliant app will let the consumer look at the vechicle before before the hire? If you are worried about safety--just because a person has an older car doesn't mean it's less safe. Bring every vechicle in for a safety check if worried?
Maybe then, when the Uber driver finds out it's not the opportunity your company claims; they aren't stuck with a car they can't sell, or take a huge loss when selling your "acceptable" vehicle, or worse claim bankruptcy?
People are desperate for jobs--don't exploit them! I liked your company in the beginning(before I looked into the requirements of Uber).
The "Sidecar" app may be more appropriate for drivers who want to take customers for a ride in their go karts/tractor trailers/dune buggies/mopeds/cat busses/... :)
Uber offers a certain deal to potential drivers, they either like it enough to accept it or they think they can get a better match for their skills and circumstances and they keep looking. Uber has no responsibility to try and offer a deal which matches your sense of fairness. No one is being coerced and no one is being exploited.
[+] [-] krapht|11 years ago|reply
I have no problem hailing an Uber - they are really, really cheap. However, it's a raw deal for drivers. Uber turns a blind eye to driver-contractors driving without commercial vehicle insurance. It has to, as the additional cost (which is pushed onto the driver) would cause the driver's hourly rate to plummet even further. In addition, there is no way to purchase commercial insurance on an hourly basis - therefore part-time drivers would be squeezed out. The flat-rate $1 safe rides fee causes low-distance fares to be even more unprofitable, even when many short trips are already a bad deal due to the overhead involved in each pickup and drop-off.
To fix this, Uber should probably cover drivers with an on-demand commercial policy while they are logged into the app. The flat per-ride fee should go away. And while I doubt this is going to happen, Uber should probably also reduce the commission they take per ride.
[+] [-] aikah|11 years ago|reply
So basically you mean than Uber can only make money if most their drivers do not respect the law. Which gives Uber an unfair advantage over the competition (regular taxis that do respect the law ). It's like saying employer X doesn't check if his employees are legal workers, because if he did it would be too expensive to do business. But hey, even startups got to hussle to make a good living.
[+] [-] pmorici|11 years ago|reply
I've since stopped using Uber even as a rider. The way they treat the drivers is pretty horrendous and I don't want to be an enabler to that. Lyft is a bit better because at least I can leave the driver a reasonable tip through the app.
[+] [-] Dylan16807|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tycho|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DigitalSea|11 years ago|reply
Needless to say, unless I felt legitimately fearful for my life (which rarely ever happened) I would always rate 5 stars. I realised a lot of these Uber drivers (usually migrants with broken English) probably didn't have many other options to earn money. An almost consistent sentiment amongst those drivers was they were working long hours and support family (not just a wife and children but parents/relatives). My reasoning for this was I am paying like half the cost of what a taxi would cost me, so why not 5 stars?
I think Uber is great for a certain subset of people. While most people who frequent HN on six figure tech salaries would definitely struggle to live on an Uber salary, a lot of people rely on it. In all honesty, I couldn't do it and I have a certain level of respect for those willing to earn so little and work so much to support their families. As a passenger Uber is great, but you can't deny that drivers get absolutely shafted unless they're driving through surge pricing periods and areas. I always rate 5 stars when I get an Uber unless of course the driver is swerving all over the place, speeding or doing dangerous things to endanger my life (which has happened like twice in all of the time I have used Uber).
Aside: Anyone else find the article sporadically refresh? Made it very difficult to read the article.
[+] [-] guessbest|11 years ago|reply
Yes. It did for me in Firefox on the desktop, but not on mobile safari. I thought I was crazy when it did it the first time but the second time, I knew it was the citypaper site.
[+] [-] zaroth|11 years ago|reply
This is just such a perfect observation. What we are seeing here is an end-run around the minimum wage. The so-called "1099 economy" is increasing employment of unskilled workers who would otherwise be unemployable at the mandatory minimum.
Where else are people going to find a job they can set their own hours, work 12-hours a day, 80 hours a week, making $5/hour sitting down? If the minimum wage weren't so damn high there might be competitive alternatives.
Keep in mind, the goal isn't to "make" $80k, or even $60k, and then lose over half of it to taxes and phased-out benefits. If you're supporting your wife and two kids, the goal is to make about $32k, which on a 1099 will work out to just about maximize your EITC, food stamps, Medi-Cal, etc. and in the end your net value is equivalent to about $100k fully loaded (the employer's fully loaded cost) of regular W-2 employment.
[+] [-] chrismcb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carrotleads|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s73v3r|11 years ago|reply
That's true for everyone using Uber. You're not supposed to rate it relative to a taxi, but relative to other Uber drivers.
[+] [-] yesbabyyes|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BurningFrog|11 years ago|reply
Actually you can.
I think the simplest argument is the best one: They choose to do this voluntarily, every single day they drive.
[+] [-] shitlord|11 years ago|reply
It was a strange experience, but clearly, the Uber driver pool is merging with the taxi driver pool. And it's bringing the bad elements you'd expect from a typical cabbie.
[+] [-] maceo|11 years ago|reply
This was the common sense amongst all working people for most of the 20th century. Samuel Gompers, maybe the most conservative labor leader of his time, said "You cannot weigh the human soul on the same scales as piece of pork." And working people, along with the management class for the most part, understood this to be an undeniable truth. In fact, this piece of common sense was enshrined into US law with the Clayton Act of 1914, which stated "The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce." But in the last 20 years, as capital has gained the firm upper hand, the common sense understanding has shifted towards the idea that labor is in fact a commodity.
The ideas behind the so-called "on-demand workforce" further solidify the notion that labor is a commodity. After all, you can order an uber ride just as easily as you can order vitamins online.
It's so pervasive that even I, someone born into a union family and a firm believer in the idea of worker solidarity, have to force myself to believe that labor is not a commodity. Why? The business class treated labor as expendable in 1915, just as they do in 2015. Why did working people understand this truth in 1915 but not today? I don't know.
I read a recently released sociology book earlier this year (going crazy looking for the title/author, can't find it), that posits millennials are far more likely than any recent generation to blame themselves for the problems they face. It's part of the reason that the self-help industry is bigger business than it's ever been. It's not always your fault. Our modern economy is built on rotten ideas like labor = commodity. If we want to do something about inequality, it's time that we subject fundamentally unjust ideas like these to a serious critique.
[+] [-] smil|11 years ago|reply
For someone who cares for the wellbeing of people at the bottom of the enterprise pyramids, the goal should be to design new organizations, with jobs that have latitude for learning and development, that is multi-disciplinary and creative. And many of the worst jobs today should be automated because they are not fit for human beings.
[+] [-] javert|11 years ago|reply
Because of Ayn Rand. You think I'm joking, but she's the only intellectually serious defender of capitalism in the 20th century, and her influence is snowballing. When Rand was alive, members of her circle would rejoice at the extremely occasional mention of her name in print. Now, you can't turn on the TV or go anywhere online without hearing about her.
As a side note, human labor is not a commodity. However, "capital" (as you call it---you use a lot of Marxist terms in your post that do not reflect the reality of society) does not have an obligation to hire you on your terms, either. Labor is about a voluntarily trade.
[+] [-] hackuser|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] somberi|11 years ago|reply
I have a mental questionnaire I go through with 90% of the drivers and here is what I have learnt:
Uber vs Lyft: Drivers make more money with Uber, but rules of engagement are more relaxed in Lyft.
Uber & Ola (not vs): The drivers in India hone in on these three points:
1. They make 3-4 times the money they would if they were employed as a driver in a upper-middle class household (very common in India).
2. They feel respected and think of themselves as "Business owners" now. It is heartening to see how much the "feeling respected" theme repeats itself.
3. They know the good times won't last.
Unlike US, in India, Uber and Ola are do not take a cut from the ride. In fact it is the opposite - They keep the per kilometre cost to the end consumer lower than Auto Rickshaws and compensate the drivers the difference. In fact Uber has taken a "not-for-profit" model in India (and in Beijing).
Citation for not-for-profit: http://blog.uber.com/the-government-way
[+] [-] krrrh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yellowapple|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jwolgamott|11 years ago|reply
You can add a "function contentRefresh(){}" in your devtools js console to get rid of this. It was the only way I could finish the article.
[0] https://gist.github.com/jwo/720edc9fedbbafc87a10
[1] https://twitter.com/emilygee/status/596102787198492672
[+] [-] corin_|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eosrei|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rconti|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StavrosK|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Systemic33|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phamilton|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javert|11 years ago|reply
"Hey Boss, I know a way to increase visits to our site by 6x..."
[+] [-] darkstar999|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dujdovnik|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itgoon|11 years ago|reply
The "We're not a taxi service, we just sell software" is a load of crap.
How many apps take a piece of the gross? Purchase a license? Ok. A monthly fee for ongoing service? Sure. A chunk of all the money made from using it? I don't think so.
[+] [-] NegativeK|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] platz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jolan|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hudell|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olalonde|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bayesianhorse|11 years ago|reply
Now Uber is doing away with the regulation, and it's "perfect competition" again, the state of affairs when prices have to be so low that there is almost no profit for the suppliers. Uber will always make the most overall profit with their drivers just on the edge of survival.
Uber may actually set the fares just below the profitability point, because new drivers or those "driving for fun" actually put money on the table rather than being paid.
[+] [-] lechuga|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshjkim|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diminoten|11 years ago|reply
What? Has this ever happened before? Surely by now there would be specific examples of this taking place, if it were indeed a real thing.
> CP: Yeah, not really — when they take UberX into a new market like Philly, they start off by paying drivers a lot. So in the beginning, you get a lot of drivers who look like the drivers in Uber ads, like, suits and bottled water and no accents. And everyone gets the idea that Uber drivers have suits and make a ton of money. Then after a while, usually when a competitor comes in — you know Lyft just started up a couple weeks ago, right?
(CP is the person who wrote the article, not anyone being interviewed) -- How impressively unprofessional. The entire section that quote comes from is just the person writing the article yelling at someone she's ferrying around as an UberX driver. A more obvious hit piece could not have been written.
Also, the site keeps refreshing on me, losing my place in the article. I think it's related to the graphs, but I can't be sure. They randomly go into "loading..." mode when this happens.
[+] [-] CodeWriter23|11 years ago|reply
It's not a myth, it is actually right in the agreement with your insurer, that your vehicle will not be used for commercial purposes.
Also, the $1 "Safe Ride" fee only covers excess liability, not collision. So if you're driving for Uber or Lyft, and the accident is your fault, everyone else is covered. Your passengers, the other driver(s), their vehicle(s). You have a totaled car with no insurance and have to pay your own medical bills.
[+] [-] JoblessWonder|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|11 years ago|reply
That said, here are a few examples I found:
2013-09: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/09/real-future-ride-shar...
> As you might imagine, the front of the Dodge was badly damaged. The driver is now suing the driver of the Town Car, a vehicle with livery plates operated under the company SF Limo Car Service. The pedestrian, who broke her leg and injured her back, is suing both drivers. She is also suing – and this is what makes this crash particularly interesting – the transportation-tech company Uber.
2014-12: "Rideshare Drivers Still Cornered Into Insurance Secrecy" http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/12/18/uber-lyft-d...
> The don’t-ask-don’t-tell strategy usually works until there’s a crash. Ian, a Bay Area Uber driver, was off duty when his car was hit by another car in October. While he was filing a claim with Geico, they asked him if he ever worked for Uber or Lyft. “I panicked,” he said. “They put me on the spot. So I just answered honestly and said yes, but that I wasn’t working when this happened.”
2014-01 http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/02/should-car-services-provide...
> Uber posted a “Statement On New Year’s Eve Accident” on its blog, offering condolences to the victim and her family, but also distancing itself from any cuplability.
2015-03 http://www.insurancebusiness.ca/news/toronto-uber-crash-reig...
> After initially being told by an Uber representative in Chicago that he had to pay a $1,000 deductible, this was later recanted. Since he was not at fault, his personal car insurance fronted the entire bill. But because he lacks commercial coverage, questions arise as to who would be responsible if he had been responsible for the collision.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] marincounty|11 years ago|reply
My problem with Uber is the requirement for a 2008 or newer car, and Uber decides if it's cool enough to represent their company. This is not an independent contractor Uber?
Let the driver use any registered vechicle? Your brilliant app will let the consumer look at the vechicle before before the hire? If you are worried about safety--just because a person has an older car doesn't mean it's less safe. Bring every vechicle in for a safety check if worried?
Maybe then, when the Uber driver finds out it's not the opportunity your company claims; they aren't stuck with a car they can't sell, or take a huge loss when selling your "acceptable" vehicle, or worse claim bankruptcy?
People are desperate for jobs--don't exploit them! I liked your company in the beginning(before I looked into the requirements of Uber).
[+] [-] rhino369|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gcr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonisalive|11 years ago|reply