I don't really like Uber's business practices but they do fill an essential niche in New York City.
A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint their cars green and take street hails. They previously did this, of course, but it wasn't legal. And of course, not every "black car" became a green cab, so this still happens. It's the standard way to get around the outer boroughs of New York.
I watched a very common event unfold the other day in Brooklyn Heights. A woman hailed a green cab. It pulled over and the driver opened the window, asking "where to?" The woman mentioned an address in Manhattan. The driver said, "sorry, green cabs can't go to Manhattan" and drove away.
That is 100% false. Like yellow cabs, green cabs have to take you anywhere in the five boros, but they're reluctant to take you to Manhattan because they aren't allowed to pick up fares there. They have to drive back to Brooklyn empty and not make any money, so they lie to customers to avoid that. The end result is that you still can't get a taxi in most of New York City, at least one that will pick you up near where you live and take you exactly where you want to go.
The "ridesharing services" rectify this problem; I've never had an Uber driver refuse to take me anywhere. If the licensed taxis want to be free from competition, they need to follow their own rules.
Even the yellow cabs within Manhattan would not take me places within Manhattan when hailed. They would stop and ask where to-- when I told them where (touristy areas) they'd just drive off.
> The "ridesharing services" rectify this problem; I've never had an Uber driver refuse to take me anywhere. If the licensed taxis want to be free from competition, they need to follow their own rules.
This is because all hails on Uber are tracked, and enough refusals would be noticed, and the driver would be fired.
It's shitty that green (or yellow) cabs do this; there should be a way to hold them accountable, but for now there is a stop-gap solution: lie.
Get in before telling them your destination. If they don't let you, lie and say you're going to somewhere in Brooklyn, then change your mind. As soon as you hear them begin to complain, snap a photo of their cab number, and start dialing 311.
Also, sometimes you're trying to get somewhere very reasonable in Manhattan, but you can't hail a cab because of your, say, skin color. Uber solved that.
> A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint their cars green and take street hails.
Does anyone else see the absurdity in that? Compare to: "In 2014, the city allowed people to wear green socks"
If you want to transport people for a fee, what rational, moral justification is there for anyone to intervene in that? -To decide what colour your car should be, or where you can pick up customers?
Whatever you think about Uber, you have to realize that de Blasio's actions are not about congestion or the public's interest.
Let's not forget his original plan to have the city pre-approve upgrades to ride-hailing apps:
> The mayor’s plan to require Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc. and other ride-hailing services to get city approval for upgrades to the user interface on smartphone apps -- and to pony up $1,000 each time they do -- has rankled a broad swath of companies, with 27 signing a letter protesting his plan.
Caught a taxi tonight in Paris. 5 euro but jacked up to a minimum of 7, driver claimed he couldn't give me change. He spent 5 minutes pretending to have no change, then gave me 2 euros in coins plus a 10 in exchange for a 20. Great.
Taxi services have practically begged for Uber etc to destroy them.
When you have French taxi drivers willing to injure, threaten, assault just for working for a competitor, it's no surprise that some of them resort to shenanigans like this.
Are taxis in Paris not supposed to be able to accept credit cards?
In New York, if a cab's card reader is broken (hey, it happens) they're supposed to inform you of this before beginning the ride. If they don't, you get a free ride.
There was un-coördinated public outreach, too. It may be unmerited graciousness, but a council member and a senior City administrator each told me, on separate occasions, that I swung their position on the bill.
New Yorkers have shit to do and places to go. I'm fine with paying for a congestion charge. But it needs to be fairly applied across traffic. Engaging regulators and - in a balanced and sensible way - poking them in their flabby spots, when warranted, is a well-tread feature of democracy. If you care about something, reach out to your local representatives.
Disclaimer: I don't work, nor ever have worked, for Uber. Neither do I hold a position in their stock, et cetera. I am a frequent rider. I've had many severely upsetting experiences with yellow cabs.
The thing about Uber I don’t understand is how they are going to defend their monopoly once they acquire it. Assuming they eventually win all the legal battles and drive all other taxi and taxi-like services out of business then how are they going to stop anyone else from entering their market?
Each transport market is effectively isolated (you don’t hail a driver from SF to get around NYC). This means any new entrant can achieve critical mass in a market at a relatively low cost (especially if they start with small towns/cities). If Uber do manage to get to the point where they can start extracting monopoly profits they have no means of defending these markets other than competing on unit price. Consumers are going to win big time out of Uber, but I can’t see how their investors will (at least their long term investors). Someone far smarter than me must have answered this?
In the last few years NYC has closed stretches of Broadway (a significant north-south corridor) to traffic, squeezed vehicle lane widths to add bike lanes and introduced several measures to slow or impede traffic so the city is safer for pedestrians. These are all very good things, but they come with a cost.
Reducing the surface area of roads does not magically remove cars from the roads, it just creates congestion and traffic.
If anything, Uber's model would seem to reduce traffic since their cars are more deliberate vs. taxis' aimlessly wandering.
NYC should try to figure out how to partner with Uber. Taxi's are already expensive enough to be something of a luxury (though filthy), Uber is a far better experience.
> Reducing the surface area of roads does not magically remove cars from the roads, it just creates congestion and traffic.
Most traffic theory maintains that this actually does magically reduce traffic. People who would have driven now decide that there's too much traffic and find another way. Similarly, expanding highways doesn't reduce congestion, the number of cars just increases to the previous levels of congestion.
Reducing the complexity of a large number of intersections (AKA closing & narrowing Broadway) can move traffic through them more quickly:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/broadway.shtml
'Travel speeds for northbound trips throughout West Midtown improved 17% from fall 2008-2009, compared with 8% in East Midtown.'
The main issue seems to be that Uber isn't replacing taxis but augmenting them: before there were about 2000 taxis in the core of Manhattan during peak hours, and there are now 2000 taxis and about 1900 Ubers. The trips per taxi seem to be slightly reduced, but overall there's still an increase in the total number of taxi-like vehicles circulating, and the total number of trips made by automobile vs. other modalities (subway, walking, etc.). Thereby making it easier to get a taxi, but making traffic congestion worse.
It's in a neighborhood that has no cabs and driving there not pleasant or convenient. Last night the chef told me if it wasn't for Uber, they probably wouldn't have survived
Does this mean Uber's daily spam robocalls from "Molly" to New York City residents that offer no option to be removed from the list or speak to a live person will stop?
Uber continues to amaze me with their incredibly skillful political maneuvering. They seem to have roadblocks thrown in their way at every turn and they manage to just keep trucking. Heads down, eyes on the prize; it's really quite impressive to watch. I have to believe it starts at the top with a tunnel vision approach to revenue growth. It's like that old Al Davis quote "Just win baby!".
Whether you agree with what they're doing or not, it is incredible to watch their execution.
In this case it looks like its lobbying lost but its PR won. Despite that it reluctantly turned over its data, every news outlet portrayed it as a victory.
Yes, a company with an illegal business model stayed under the radar until they got big enough that they could combat the legal challenges to their illegal business model. Always a pleasure to watch.
No matter what Uber does, they always please me with stuff like this. It makes the anarch-libertarian blood run warm to see government cronies routinely bested and consumers offered superior services in a market that was ripe for innovation. Now we need this type of disruption in health care and education.
I drive for Uber in my spare time as of a few weeks ago - they just started serving Cheyenne for Frontier Days (and I'm hoping they keep the service on after that, though I'm not sure the demand is gonna be there)
(That is, for the precisely one ride I've gotten.. Something in the backend appears broken and nobody can request rides even though I'm online, and support hasn't been helpful on this >_<)
Can answer any questions you have, but I doubt there's going to be a lot to answer. Signing up as a driver and doing what you gotta do is a pretty straightforward process.
I have heard several interviews with drivers. It reminds me of every other VC funded technology company that creates a platform. Those drivers do well as early adopters, but I suspect its downhill (for them) in the long term.
I spend every Lyft ride I take talking to the driver about what it's like driving for them. The majority also drive for Uber. They always say positive things although that may be due to self censorship.
I have one question for somebody knowledgeable about this market.
Why companies like YellowCab do not offer something similar to Uber? They developed the app but the app is jut front end to dispatcher: so there is no guarantee that cab will actually come (I tried it).
For example, ability to pre-pay taxi via iPhone so that there is guarantee that cab will actually pick me up. Or maybe hailing taxi via iPhone? Or something like Lyft Line?
Is management of cab companies to blame? Or is it taxi drivers?
Most of my exposure to Uber has been negative articles about them. I've used them a handful of times, but not for a couple of years, until just this week.
I used them to get to and from the airport for a trip this week, and it was pretty interesting to compare with what I've been reading.
First, of course, the experience as a user was great. This is no surprise, but it sure does cement my desire to use them over any other service. I wanted to avoid taxis at all costs. I was ready to drive to the airport twice each way to handle all 8 people who were going, and pay for parking, rather than deal with that. I've done it before and wow, it just sucks. You call and get a surly dispatcher, you have no idea where your car is until it arrives, it might just not show up, credit cards are a joke, you have to figure out what to tip, etc. Uber was great. Hail in the app, see within seconds exactly where your car is and who's driving it, track them all the way, get in, ride, then get out on the other end and go, without even needing to explicitly pay. It just works! Even getting two different cars at 5AM in the suburbs was no problem. No cars were available at first, but within a few minutes they appeared.
I'll note that it's not just taxis who are problematic. I also checked into Super Shuttle, because heck, there's so many of us that we should be able to get a whole van at a good price. Checking on their web site, I thought that's how it would be. They wanted $28 plus $10/person, which worked out to quite a bit cheaper than four Uber rides (two each way). And we'd all go together, cool! Of course, it turns out that this is the price for each way, so the actual price would be double. They are pretty careful not to make this clear until very late in their reservation process. To be fair, all the info is there if you pay very close attention, but they make it extremely easy to assume that the quoted price is the whole thing. Compare with Uber, which is happy to give me a pretty precise quote, and matched it (near the low end!) all four times.
OK, we know all this. It's a great service (unless you get a bad driver who attacks you or something) but it's built on the backs of the poor oppressed drivers. Except both drivers I talked to were ecstatic about Uber and loved doing what they do. One was relatively new on the job, having been an assistant manager at a pizza place until a few months ago. He started out doing Uber part time, then graduated to full time once it became apparent that it was the better choice. The other one has been doing it for about two years. He bought a brand new Toyota just to drive for UberX, and he's put over 60,000 miles on it since then. He loves the flexibility (apparently he's somewhat "on call" to help family members out doing various things, and when he needs to help them he just signs out of Uber, goes off and does whatever tasks this involves, and signs back in) and the money is pretty good. He usually hangs around downtown DC on weekends and makes good money accumulating lots of short trips, but hangs out doing occasional airport runs on other days to earn a bit more.
So they're good with customers, they seem to be great with drivers, and all I have left is a vague sense of unease at how they approach regulations, by basically barging in and ignoring them. Except they're totally on the up-and-up in Virginia now, having reached an accommodation with the relevant authorities to be completely above-board.
After all the stuff I've read about them over the years, I felt a little guilty using Uber for this trip, but practicality won out. The guilty feeling didn't last.
Edit: I forgot to mention, the second guy, with the new Toyota, previously drove a cab. It was awful, and says he tries to convince his cabbie friends to switch to Uber at every opportunity. They charged him $150/day to drive for them no matter what. No fares? Fuck you, pay me. He's extremely happy that Uber came along to give him a much better way to make money.
> They charged him $150/day to drive for them no matter what.
Not that I particularly want to defend taxi companies, but they also own and maintain the cars. Purchasing a newish vehicle and maintaining it isn't free - while not being charged daily, it's still a sizeable invoice you have to pay, no matter what. $150/day does seem extortionate, though.
Services like Uber definitely need some regulation. I drove from downtown SF to the Castro this evening, and witnessed 4 separate incidents of Uber drivers being reckless and/or discourteous. Things like: driver stopped in the leftmost lane, at a green light, because he suddenly decided that he wants to turn right instead of left; driver stopped in the right lane to pick up passenger, when he could have just stood in a parking spot a few yards down; driver stopped to pick up a passenger at a corner, blocking the crosswalk.
I'm all for "disrupting" the taxi industry, but please don't disrupt traffic because you're too lazy and/or clueless. Is there a way to report asshole Uber drivers?
What does it have to do with Uber? A lot of drivers are doing that, and don't even get me started on taxi drivers in New York City, they just do whatever they want on a road.
Uber's "we need to meet demand" argument is true, but disingenuous. Uber needs to keep adding more drivers because they have such a high turnover rate.
Many drivers work for a few months, realize that after costs they're making minimum wage, if that, and then quit. Naturally, Uber needs constant access to fresh blood in order to keep the scheme going.
The title would be better if it were "Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio's plan to block them from doing business". I think we really need to fight the notion that Uber promotes "ride sharing", whatever that even means now. Uber has shown that its service is anything but sharing - it is plain old taxi with a spiffy app and no labour protection, and where their "employees" are merely treated as another replaceable contractor. The media also needs to stop quoting meaningless buzzwords like "sharing", but I guess this goes to show the successful PR of Uber.
We've changed the title of this submission to be that of the article. Submitted title was 'Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to block ride sharing'.
Submitters: please don't rewrite titles unless they are misleading or linkbait.
And yet people choose to use them and pay them money. But no, we must protect those willing customers from the dangers of doing business freely and having an actuall choice, instead of paying extra to a violent monopoly of taxi drivers who'd rather crash other's cars than compete honestly.
Uber doesn't describe the service as 'ridesharing'. That's a term the media uses or very occasionally we will use if referring to (for example) "Texas Ride Sharing Bill" where that's the official name of the legislation.
This is where people go wrong! You're not paying to be driven anywhere. You're paying the driver to want to go to the same place where you are, and then he might as well give you a ride there. So it's completely different, and the driver doesn't deserve any of the perks and protections people with real jobs get. Being an Uber driver obviously isn't a job, it's just doing something for money. And there's an app involved, so it's clearly different. It sounds like you're just conversative. Disruption, dude. Have you heard of it?
[+] [-] dang|10 years ago|reply
Kindly control yourselves, whatever your views. This is a place for thoughtful discussion, not venting.
[+] [-] jrockway|10 years ago|reply
A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint their cars green and take street hails. They previously did this, of course, but it wasn't legal. And of course, not every "black car" became a green cab, so this still happens. It's the standard way to get around the outer boroughs of New York.
I watched a very common event unfold the other day in Brooklyn Heights. A woman hailed a green cab. It pulled over and the driver opened the window, asking "where to?" The woman mentioned an address in Manhattan. The driver said, "sorry, green cabs can't go to Manhattan" and drove away.
That is 100% false. Like yellow cabs, green cabs have to take you anywhere in the five boros, but they're reluctant to take you to Manhattan because they aren't allowed to pick up fares there. They have to drive back to Brooklyn empty and not make any money, so they lie to customers to avoid that. The end result is that you still can't get a taxi in most of New York City, at least one that will pick you up near where you live and take you exactly where you want to go.
The "ridesharing services" rectify this problem; I've never had an Uber driver refuse to take me anywhere. If the licensed taxis want to be free from competition, they need to follow their own rules.
Anyway, this Forbes article about green cabs tells the exact same story: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngiuffo/2013/09/30/nycs-new-g...
[+] [-] zschallz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|10 years ago|reply
This is because all hails on Uber are tracked, and enough refusals would be noticed, and the driver would be fired.
It's shitty that green (or yellow) cabs do this; there should be a way to hold them accountable, but for now there is a stop-gap solution: lie.
Get in before telling them your destination. If they don't let you, lie and say you're going to somewhere in Brooklyn, then change your mind. As soon as you hear them begin to complain, snap a photo of their cab number, and start dialing 311.
[+] [-] soyiuz|10 years ago|reply
The city now also promotes its own hailing app called Way2Ride, which has Uber-like features (pay by mobile and request hail to location). https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.verifone.w...
[+] [-] somebodyother|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sillygeese|10 years ago|reply
Does anyone else see the absurdity in that? Compare to: "In 2014, the city allowed people to wear green socks"
If you want to transport people for a fee, what rational, moral justification is there for anyone to intervene in that? -To decide what colour your car should be, or where you can pick up customers?
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bko|10 years ago|reply
Let's not forget his original plan to have the city pre-approve upgrades to ride-hailing apps:
> The mayor’s plan to require Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc. and other ride-hailing services to get city approval for upgrades to the user interface on smartphone apps -- and to pony up $1,000 each time they do -- has rankled a broad swath of companies, with 27 signing a letter protesting his plan.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-28/tech-c...
[+] [-] dbcooper|10 years ago|reply
Taxi services have practically begged for Uber etc to destroy them.
[+] [-] DarthMader|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|10 years ago|reply
Are taxis in Paris not supposed to be able to accept credit cards?
In New York, if a cab's card reader is broken (hey, it happens) they're supposed to inform you of this before beginning the ride. If they don't, you get a free ride.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|10 years ago|reply
New Yorkers have shit to do and places to go. I'm fine with paying for a congestion charge. But it needs to be fairly applied across traffic. Engaging regulators and - in a balanced and sensible way - poking them in their flabby spots, when warranted, is a well-tread feature of democracy. If you care about something, reach out to your local representatives.
Disclaimer: I don't work, nor ever have worked, for Uber. Neither do I hold a position in their stock, et cetera. I am a frequent rider. I've had many severely upsetting experiences with yellow cabs.
[+] [-] danieltillett|10 years ago|reply
Each transport market is effectively isolated (you don’t hail a driver from SF to get around NYC). This means any new entrant can achieve critical mass in a market at a relatively low cost (especially if they start with small towns/cities). If Uber do manage to get to the point where they can start extracting monopoly profits they have no means of defending these markets other than competing on unit price. Consumers are going to win big time out of Uber, but I can’t see how their investors will (at least their long term investors). Someone far smarter than me must have answered this?
[+] [-] pbreit|10 years ago|reply
California wasn't able to get that result with its $7m fine.
[+] [-] joemaller1|10 years ago|reply
Reducing the surface area of roads does not magically remove cars from the roads, it just creates congestion and traffic.
If anything, Uber's model would seem to reduce traffic since their cars are more deliberate vs. taxis' aimlessly wandering.
NYC should try to figure out how to partner with Uber. Taxi's are already expensive enough to be something of a luxury (though filthy), Uber is a far better experience.
[+] [-] mason55|10 years ago|reply
Most traffic theory maintains that this actually does magically reduce traffic. People who would have driven now decide that there's too much traffic and find another way. Similarly, expanding highways doesn't reduce congestion, the number of cars just increases to the previous levels of congestion.
[+] [-] akgerber|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|10 years ago|reply
The main issue seems to be that Uber isn't replacing taxis but augmenting them: before there were about 2000 taxis in the core of Manhattan during peak hours, and there are now 2000 taxis and about 1900 Ubers. The trips per taxi seem to be slightly reduced, but overall there's still an increase in the total number of taxi-like vehicles circulating, and the total number of trips made by automobile vs. other modalities (subway, walking, etc.). Thereby making it easier to get a taxi, but making traffic congestion worse.
[+] [-] vasilipupkin|10 years ago|reply
It's in a neighborhood that has no cabs and driving there not pleasant or convenient. Last night the chef told me if it wasn't for Uber, they probably wouldn't have survived
[+] [-] JohnTHaller|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josh2600|10 years ago|reply
Uber continues to amaze me with their incredibly skillful political maneuvering. They seem to have roadblocks thrown in their way at every turn and they manage to just keep trucking. Heads down, eyes on the prize; it's really quite impressive to watch. I have to believe it starts at the top with a tunnel vision approach to revenue growth. It's like that old Al Davis quote "Just win baby!".
Whether you agree with what they're doing or not, it is incredible to watch their execution.
[+] [-] pbreit|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jvm|10 years ago|reply
"A bro stands athwart history, yelling cant stop wont stop."
https://twitter.com/Broethius/status/595971600358449152
[+] [-] rquantz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xacaxulu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] backtoyoujim|10 years ago|reply
There seems to be a lot "uber workers this" and "lyft workers that" without much substance.
[+] [-] Karunamon|10 years ago|reply
(That is, for the precisely one ride I've gotten.. Something in the backend appears broken and nobody can request rides even though I'm online, and support hasn't been helpful on this >_<)
Can answer any questions you have, but I doubt there's going to be a lot to answer. Signing up as a driver and doing what you gotta do is a pretty straightforward process.
[+] [-] justuk|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] driverdan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlogan|10 years ago|reply
Why companies like YellowCab do not offer something similar to Uber? They developed the app but the app is jut front end to dispatcher: so there is no guarantee that cab will actually come (I tried it).
For example, ability to pre-pay taxi via iPhone so that there is guarantee that cab will actually pick me up. Or maybe hailing taxi via iPhone? Or something like Lyft Line?
Is management of cab companies to blame? Or is it taxi drivers?
[+] [-] mikeash|10 years ago|reply
I used them to get to and from the airport for a trip this week, and it was pretty interesting to compare with what I've been reading.
First, of course, the experience as a user was great. This is no surprise, but it sure does cement my desire to use them over any other service. I wanted to avoid taxis at all costs. I was ready to drive to the airport twice each way to handle all 8 people who were going, and pay for parking, rather than deal with that. I've done it before and wow, it just sucks. You call and get a surly dispatcher, you have no idea where your car is until it arrives, it might just not show up, credit cards are a joke, you have to figure out what to tip, etc. Uber was great. Hail in the app, see within seconds exactly where your car is and who's driving it, track them all the way, get in, ride, then get out on the other end and go, without even needing to explicitly pay. It just works! Even getting two different cars at 5AM in the suburbs was no problem. No cars were available at first, but within a few minutes they appeared.
I'll note that it's not just taxis who are problematic. I also checked into Super Shuttle, because heck, there's so many of us that we should be able to get a whole van at a good price. Checking on their web site, I thought that's how it would be. They wanted $28 plus $10/person, which worked out to quite a bit cheaper than four Uber rides (two each way). And we'd all go together, cool! Of course, it turns out that this is the price for each way, so the actual price would be double. They are pretty careful not to make this clear until very late in their reservation process. To be fair, all the info is there if you pay very close attention, but they make it extremely easy to assume that the quoted price is the whole thing. Compare with Uber, which is happy to give me a pretty precise quote, and matched it (near the low end!) all four times.
OK, we know all this. It's a great service (unless you get a bad driver who attacks you or something) but it's built on the backs of the poor oppressed drivers. Except both drivers I talked to were ecstatic about Uber and loved doing what they do. One was relatively new on the job, having been an assistant manager at a pizza place until a few months ago. He started out doing Uber part time, then graduated to full time once it became apparent that it was the better choice. The other one has been doing it for about two years. He bought a brand new Toyota just to drive for UberX, and he's put over 60,000 miles on it since then. He loves the flexibility (apparently he's somewhat "on call" to help family members out doing various things, and when he needs to help them he just signs out of Uber, goes off and does whatever tasks this involves, and signs back in) and the money is pretty good. He usually hangs around downtown DC on weekends and makes good money accumulating lots of short trips, but hangs out doing occasional airport runs on other days to earn a bit more.
So they're good with customers, they seem to be great with drivers, and all I have left is a vague sense of unease at how they approach regulations, by basically barging in and ignoring them. Except they're totally on the up-and-up in Virginia now, having reached an accommodation with the relevant authorities to be completely above-board.
After all the stuff I've read about them over the years, I felt a little guilty using Uber for this trip, but practicality won out. The guilty feeling didn't last.
Edit: I forgot to mention, the second guy, with the new Toyota, previously drove a cab. It was awful, and says he tries to convince his cabbie friends to switch to Uber at every opportunity. They charged him $150/day to drive for them no matter what. No fares? Fuck you, pay me. He's extremely happy that Uber came along to give him a much better way to make money.
[+] [-] vacri|10 years ago|reply
Not that I particularly want to defend taxi companies, but they also own and maintain the cars. Purchasing a newish vehicle and maintaining it isn't free - while not being charged daily, it's still a sizeable invoice you have to pay, no matter what. $150/day does seem extortionate, though.
[+] [-] ajays|10 years ago|reply
I'm all for "disrupting" the taxi industry, but please don't disrupt traffic because you're too lazy and/or clueless. Is there a way to report asshole Uber drivers?
[+] [-] usaphp|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nolepointer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p_monk|10 years ago|reply
Many drivers work for a few months, realize that after costs they're making minimum wage, if that, and then quit. Naturally, Uber needs constant access to fresh blood in order to keep the scheme going.
[+] [-] dotBen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fx85ms|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|10 years ago|reply
Submitters: please don't rewrite titles unless they are misleading or linkbait.
[+] [-] snitko|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s73v3r|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgraczyk|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dotBen|10 years ago|reply
(Source: I'm an Uber employee)
[+] [-] danhak|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghayes|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] niklasni1|10 years ago|reply