Posted on 01/04/2015 10:27:39 AM PST by Kaslin
If you've ever stood on a cold street late at night wishing desperately and hopelessly for a cab, Uber is the answer to your prayers. Its pricing model, which includes higher fares at times when demand peaks, is designed to make sure you get a ride whenever you need it.
But instead of seeing this option as heaven-sent, some riders damn the company as Satan's spawn. On New Year's Eve, Uber boosted its New York City fares nearly eightfold to ensure the supply of drivers needed to meet high demand. Some partygoers accepted the offer rather than take the subway, wave forlornly at occupied cabs or stagger home.
The New York Daily News reported that several angry customers posted receipts showing charges of well over $100, with some vowing to boycott Uber. "The most expensive 8 minutes of my life!" fumed one. She was not the first person ever to do something on New Year's Eve that she regretted afterward.
To critics, this episode illustrates the perils of under-regulation. "Surge pricing" is just one. Passengers have been raped by drivers and had their privacy compromised. Pedestrians have been hit by drivers whose insurance may or may not cover them.
"The public safety is at risk," said Illinois state Rep. Mike Zalewski, sponsor of a bill to impose statewide restrictions. "It makes sense to have a basic set of bottom-line regulations."
Does it really? The ride-sharing companies are creating a new market, which inevitably brings mistakes and failures on the way. But the only reason for their existence is the welfare of their customers. If they damage that, they endanger their own survival.
From the news coverage of customers allegedly attacked by Uber drivers, you might forget that rapists are also found driving taxis. In October, a Chicago cabby got a 35-year sentence for sexually assaulting two passengers.
Getting into a vehicle with a stranger can always lead to a bad outcome. But there are no compelling reasons to believe that ride-sharing is any riskier than taking a cab -- and some grounds to think it's safer.
Uber claims it undertakes background checks that are "often more rigorous than what is required to become a taxi driver." But it announced a tighter system only after the Chicago Tribune reported in February that it had failed to conduct these checks on thousands of its drivers.
Uber may learn slowly, but it does learn. The bad publicity it gets from criminal drivers gives it a powerful incentive to take strong measures to avoid them.
Passengers have another protection: records, on their smartphones, of who picks them up and where. That feature deters crimes by drivers by making it easy to identify and find them. If you hail a cab on the street, you get in without knowing who's behind the wheel -- and if you disappear, no one else may ever know.
Being able to summon a ride with a smartphone app does carry risks to your privacy that flagging down a taxi does not. Uber got so much blowback from a blog item about its data on customers who had used the app after one-night stands -- to avoid the morning "walk of shame" -- that it took down the post.
But in a competitive market, protecting privacy can be good business. The question is whether passengers really care about Uber's trove of information about them. If strictly safeguarding privacy is valuable enough to influence consumer choices, ride-sharing companies will do it.
The insurance picture is slightly hazy because drivers aren't necessarily covered by Uber's policy in an accident between fares. "It could be a long and complicated process for an injured person to determine how to get compensated," Janelle Orsi, an Oakland lawyer, told the San Jose Mercury News.
But that determination will eventually be made, individually and collectively. That's what courts are for. Insurance companies will respond. If drivers and companies disregard their potential exposure, they may pay a painful price.
Uber has made its share of mistakes. When an executive talked about investigating the personal lives of unfriendly journalists and using derogatory information against them, he deserved the ensuing avalanche of criticism. But such offenses have to be weighed against the millions of rides Uber provides each month.
Heavy government regulation produced a rigid, widely resented taxi industry, whose persistent inadequacies gave rise to a useful and popular alternative. Could be a lesson in that.
Having looked at the Uber app, it gives the fare within a couple dollars when you request the trip. During impacted times when surge pricing is in effect, you are notified that surge pricing is in effect, what the fare multiple is, and when they anticipate those fares reducing. Again, when you investigate booking the trip, it tells you the anticipated fare, including the surge rates.
So, really, any claims of 'we didn't know' is a lie. They could call a cab instead, take a bus, call a friend, etc.
Houston’s “safe-tow” program (implemented by Mayor White) forced people to get into tow trucks when their car had a flat tire or other minor roadside emergency, even if you have your own tow service) and the program with rife with problems (including violent offenders driving the tow trucks).
So much for “background checks” in city programs.
Some cities are looking to making existing highways into tollways (it is happening more and more) and using “surge pricing” during the morning and evening commute hours.
That was before the GOPe invented "Big Government Conservatism".
The conservative argument should be to roll back the regulation of taxis - that's what created Uber and other ridesharing programs. Cutting back government should restore the marketplace to being fully market driven.
And yet no one has tried, trumpeting a lawless corporation victimizing both drivers, passengers and pedestrians alike.
At least you OWN insurance covers YOUR a$$ in your friend's car; that's not true of EVERYTHING else.
A free people have the right of free movement. When such movement is controlled through taxes, they are no longer free.
Without breaking these laws, and forcing them to enforce them, there is no standing to roll them back. Lyft and the rest are creating that standing that I believe will eliminate many of the medallion and hail bus regulations that exist across the United States and restore a free market and restore free movement of people without taxation.
ROFLMAO.
You've obviously never read Uber's TOU.
To be clear, you are supporting the lawless usurpation of existing law by a syndicate of corporate suits and investors, not private citizenry, using drivers seeking an income as pawns and victimizing drivers, passengers and pedestrians with their irresponsible actions. You defend this with the emotional argument akin to some sort of 'tea party'. The argument is far from Conservative. To the contrary, it's to the benefit of libs/progs everywhere to draw this out. Standing? The lawless Uber & Lyft have destroyed their standing by not trying to change the laws. Rather, they broke them in the pursuit of profits.
I would never argue that the unique taxi services & municipal agreements in every city are a good thing. Ironically, they were born of liberal greed & control. But the fact is that NO ONE has tried to change even ONE city and now everyone defending Uber is promoting them as some 'lightning rod' for the people.
Fascinating how advertising roots in people's emotions, takes root, and pushes aside all logic & reasoning...
Hmmm...
Would YOU purchase a product that had no warranty? No product liability? Even IF that product had the potential to cause injury or death out of no fault of your own?
Would YOU hop on a bus or a train ONLY after signing a waiver and accept ALL risk for the trip?
Would YOU hop in a friend's car having done the same for a trip to the bank or what-not?
No sane person would answer yes to those.
From Uber TOU:
“The company…does not intend to provide transportation services or act in any way as a transportation carrier, and has no responsibility or liability for any transportation services provided to you…”It is reckless & irresponsible of so-called 'customers' of the Uber App to endeavor activity under which they have questionable legal protection. My big problem with this is that, so far, the ONLY people being enriched by 'ride-sharing' are the investors & lawyers...and taxpayers will ultimately end up picking up the tab (the 'reckless' part) and it will be sold to us with a liberal/emotional argument about taking care of 'the (irresponsible) little people'.“…you agree that you shall defend, indemnify and hold the Company, its licensors and each such party’s parent organizations, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, Users, employees, attorneys and agents harmless from and against any and all claims, costs, damages, losses, liabilities and expenses”
“You acknowledge and agree that you and Company are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate as a plaintiff…in any purported class action or representative proceeding.”
“You may be exposed to transportation that is potentially dangerous, offensive, harmful to minors, unsafe or otherwise objectionable, and…you use the application and the service at your own risk.”
My other BIG problem with this, particularly your comment,
I support any corporation that breaks stupid laws to give the consumers a better product....is that that is
Uber has been in the news in Boston lately, and not in a good way.
http://www.cnet.com/news/boston-uber-driver-charged-with-sexual-assault/
I would never go out in Boston at night alone, so it’s not a service that I will ever use.
So you would put trust in the government to make it right?
The "surge pricing" that Uber uses is actually a very innovative and capitalist way of ensuring supply for all the people who need rides. It gets more Uber drivers out on the road when they otherwise might have gone or stayed home.
A good analogy is the toilet paper situation in the Soviet Union. The price of toilet paper was "regulated" by the communists so that it would be cheap for everybody. This is the "wee bit of regulation" you call for.
Yet the Soviet Union was notoriously always short on toilet paper. Why was that? Because the price was kept so artificially low, makers of toilet paper were not motivated to ensure adequate supply. In a capitalist system, peak demand causes prices to rise which in turn causes suppliers to increase their output. This is the "invisible hand" that is often talked about in a capitalist system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.