Slashdot Mirror
Voting With Dollars: Politicians and Their Staffers Roll With Uber
The Center for Public Integrity, an anonymous reader writes, has conducted an analysis of the relationship between one interesting group of riders (275 federal politicians and political committees) and ride-sharing services like Uber. From their report, it seems this group "together spent more than $278,000 on at least 7,625 Uber rides during the 2013-2014 election cycle." That's a roughly 18-fold spending increase from the previous election cycle, when federal committees together spent about $15,000 on Uber services. It represents a veritable monopoly, too: Almost no political committee used Uber's direct competitors, Lyft and Sidecar, according to the analysis, and traditional taxi use declined precipitously. Bipartisan love of Uber abounds, with politicos of all stripes composing a de facto Uber caucus, voting with their money for a wildly popular but controversial company.
That doesn't make it any less illegal.
I'll never understand the hate for Uber. It reminds me of the middle class voting against their best interest. I don't use Uber, but they are here to provide YOU with competition in the taxi market. This is a net win for YOU. Have you used yellow taxis in the US? They are invariably old and decrepit and don't seem to be particularly safe. Every Uber cab I have seen seems to be nice and clean and well maintained.
Again I don't use Uber as it seems strange to me to enter a car with a freelance stranger driving who was hired by an Internet company. But I see plenty of people use Uber cars in my area (DC). They seem to be technologically pretty savvy as a company and are a positive disruptive influence. I don't understand the hate. I also don't understand the hate for BitCoin here. You don't like Uber or Bitcoin? Then don't use them.
Perhaps Uber's "it's not illegal if we can get away with it" attitude speaks to politicians, but ideally you'd expect the people who make the law to have more respect for it.
Politicians are nothing if not hypocritical. They'll vote wherever the campaign donations are biggest, regardless of whether they use Uber or not.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Vote for Johnson! The name you know
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Uber is cheaper than a real taxi. They have better customer service. The drivers generally drive in a much more polite way. It probably *feels* safer. But you're taking a huge risk of financial ruin if there is an accident. Likely *nobody* will pay for your injuries and you will end up bankrupt. But that risk is hidden. It's unlikely that most uber users are thinking about this possible consequence. Look how many automobile owners view liability insurance a something that the evil government makes them buy rather than something that protects them financially. See the same example in the US wrt health insurance. I was without insurance for about three months between jobs one time. Whenever I went out to do anything active (like play soccer or roller skate) I would think about the fact that, if I got hurt, the financial damage would be devastating. Ann Swidler uses this example in her Sociology classes. Imagine an airline that claimed they were half the price of anybody else because they didn't maintain their planes. Some people would chose to take this. But it's not allowed in the market. At some point, if uber isn't stopped, traditional taxi companies will end up going out of business. They have insane costs between medallions and insurance (Around 2k/vehicle/month). Then all we will have are cowboy uber drivers and we're back in the wild west. This is a classic example of why we need *enforced* regulations. When there are *unenforced* regulations, the honest businesses lose to the dishonest ones and that's a shame.
That is patently wrong. Once you get in the car, it and you have a million dollar commercial insurance policy.
Why is uber preferred to Lyft?
As for whether these services should be allowed is another question. The central issue is do taxi licensing provide useful standards. The answer is definitely yes and one can see this from the regulations cities imposed that were show stoppers. for example, NM required drug testing after any vehicular collision. Kansas required commercial carrier insurance during the time the vehicle is hired. Others have required sex offender background checks (and notably there have been predatory Uber driver rapes reports in Brazil). Those realtively simple but not cost free regulations have cause uber and Lyft to pull out places they were imposed.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
+1 to this.
However, the standard "Libertarian" response boils down to, "I'm getting what I want, fuck everyone else."
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
I and most other reasonable professional adults are carrying massive amounts of insurance, health insurance, umbrella, long term disability, short term disability, life insurance. You have to because you cannot control what someone else's insurance will and won't pay. And because of Uber's advertising the passenger as covered when the accident inevitably happens the insurance company will go after Uber and get their money. The people who are really at risk are the Drivers as their insurance policies do not cover the car for hire and realistically insurance companies prefer to keep the limited market cash cow that is commercial taxi insurance. The truth is Uber is getting big enough that they should branch into the insurance business and market policies to their drivers that they arrange through an insurance company to administer.
Ok, where's this free market failure?
Of course if you are a black man, getting picked up immediately, rather than watching 20 cabs ignore you may make you willing to spend more for Uber.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The mid-way point of a driver having the app on, awaiting a customer to be assigned to them is a hotly debated issue on who runs the coverage. When a driver gets into an accident during this timeframe, their private auto insurance will (rightly) refuse to pay, as well as these companies' insurance coverages not having kicked in yet (they often only kick in when a customer is assigned to the driver).
The CPI's mission is ""to reveal abuses of power, corruption and dereliction of duty by powerful public and private institutions in order to cause them to operate with honesty, integrity, accountability and to put the public interest first.""
TFS of this report reads like an ad for Uber.
CPI has lost its integrity.
It's funny how many Slashdotters will rage against industries like energy companies and internet providers for trying to ramrod their business models through the market just to try to make, gasp, MONEY and therefore need to have government regulation.
Now along comes Uber which bypasses all regulation and doesn't want to be regulated like the taxi companies (which are highly regulated specifically to protect and insure people's safety on the roads, prevent overcrowding, pollution controls, etc) and oh hey, isn't this great - Sticking it to da man! :rollseyes:
The above is proof that libertarianism is superior. We even let this guy above us decide for himself that he is to be our spokesperson.
Free to choose.
"His name was James Damore."
Yes, but that's a risk that the driver takes not the Uber customer. And coverage when the app is on but not being used is a relatively minor detail of insurance - it will get worked out in one way or another.
Uber isn't even cheaper than a regular taxi in many places. It can be more expensive. When I was last in SF there was never a time without surge pricing. Seems it doesn't hurt them though. Lots of people seem to prefer the Uber experience regardless of price.
Hiring David Plouffe was a smart move for Uber. The man knows, how to improve pubic perception of anything. Not that I disapprove of his current employer, but to sell the country the shit-sandwich we have in the White House today — that's a sign of a true master.
While we are repeatedly told to hate on rich donors like Koch brothers, it is people like Mr. Plouffe, who really run the country...
Of course, the first sign of his coming onboard at Uber was the spike of spamming by the company. And not just the specials and discounts, which are legitimate things a business may send to existing active customers, but propaganda crap like "women equality at Uber" or "Uber for safer cities". I was disgusted and now begin my search for a ride with Lyft, but it must've been a win with most of their customers...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I am surprised that nobody here is talking about massive invasion of privacy that comes from using Uber services. They have NSA-like capabilities through their application and everyone here talks only about morality of breaking municipal taxi regulations?!
I am surprised politicians don't mind getting tracked this way. All it takes is one drop-off near anything mildly controversial to create serious blackmail against said politician.
But you're taking a huge risk of financial ruin if there is an accident.
How does this speculative risk compare to the well-established risk of death
Uber is cheaper than a real taxi. They have better customer service. The drivers generally drive in a much more polite way. It probably *feels* safer. But you're taking a huge risk of financial ruin if there is an accident. Likely *nobody* will pay for your injuries and you will end up bankrupt. But that risk is hidden. It's unlikely that most uber users are thinking about this possible consequence.
Recently I saw an Airbnb horror story where by a guest ended up being savaged by the owner's dog, while on the property and had to spend 2 days in hospital (this occurred in Argentina, and apparently the dog had been OK with this guest for a couple of days prior). Until a journalist got involved, the Airbnb response was "Nah, not our problem". Then Airbnb came back with "Can we take a second look at those hospital bills?" and apparently they have now rolled out some sort of liability insurance - but on for the US.
It makes me wonder if any Airbnb operators ever consider what would happen to them if someone slipped and fell in the show and became paralyzed - because I know who the insurance companies would be targeting first.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Worked out in one way or another? Yes, when the insurance company drops them and denies all coverage.
They already got a large commercial insurance policy for their drivers. Insurance companies care about money and risk, they aren't denying insurance for the period when the driver is alone but with the app switched on because of some specific high minded ideal, it's a commercial decision.
That's extra weird, because Uber has continually shown that it hates women and also actively fights against things like background checks for their drivers to make cities safer.
Have you missed the article where Uber left Kansas? Apparently having their commercial insurance cover concrete requirements instead of hot marketing air is not possible.
What insurance company is going to cover a driver who is driving commercially on a non-commercial license?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
And it's rated 5 insightful?!
1> It's not FREE MARKET failure at all. It's the free market in action.
2> Uber has the insurance coverage to back the drivers and itself in case of damages. They're not operating illegally at all - They're complying with all regulations, both business and for drivers in the areas they cover.
3> Airlines have to meet minimum safety checks and maintenance fees as part of the cost of operating in the US and are checked by the FAA. Perhaps you heard about how Southwest got caught and fined for not keeping their maintenance up to date? http://consumerist.com/2015/04...
4> Sure there are insane costs with taxi medallions - The government treats it like a tax and the cities can up the fees/reduce medallion counts or increase them whenever they need another pot of cash to buy another election. Medallions have NOTHING to do with safety they're just a way of artificially controlling the market and that's why Uber is making inroads, just like local wifi can be more nimble and cheaper than regulated internet in our cities.
Y'know, but other than that you make perfectly good points... :/
Sure thay have a large insurance policy for their drivers, but how many of their drivers have a commercial license? Most states require a a special license for people getting paid to drive others around. Since most Uber drivers lack a commercial license I could easily see that being a reason for the insurance company to refuse to pay out.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Let's examine your points:
So, Uber is cheaper and better - that's failure?
And Uber is replacing a non-free solution (government regulated taxis)
The "traditional" Uber - Uber Black - is almost certainly what's being used by politicians. It provides a nice black car (complete with a registered driver who already holds all of the necessary permits, etc) for slightly more than the cost of a Taxi and in my experience has always been great. UberX is the "new" Uber, where random people are driving. Don't confuse the two.
Personally, for the money I'll take "Uber Black" any day. It doesn't command a very significant premium and gives a generally nicer and more professional experience all around.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
The one that is making huge amounts of money selling insurance to Uber?
I am assuming that your risk of death is constant regardless of whether you are in a medallion taxi or an uber taxi. That seems to be supported by the data. From an economic standpoint, dying is cheap. It's staying alive with serious injuries that gets expensive.
Good point. They can sell insurance to Uber and whenever there is an accident, they can just say" Oops! No commercial license. Sorry, no payout. Oh, by the way, your premium is due for renewal."
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I also don't understand the hate for BitCoin here.
Because:
1) Libertarians will hoard their profits if it succeeds, but expect social services if it leaves them broke. (which it probably will)
2) If it succeeds on a large scale, democracy as we know it will be powerless to prevent financial elites from ignoring our rights completely.
3) Its whole reason for existing is to do things that were previously illegal like unregulated banking and money laundering - that's why it has to be entirely p2p.
It's basically a way to opt out of the social contract and say "F you" to the voter, but not really opt out completely if/when the whole thing goes south. They're gambling with everyone else's future.
Stop fucking calling it one. You share a ride to the same place with a friend.
When you communicate with a dispatcher, who then sends you a stranger driving a his car who has never met you, to take you to a destination he isn't even aware of without the dispatcher ... And then you pay him when you get there ...
That's called a taxi.
If you are too stupid to understand this then there is absolutely no way we can have a discussion about it in any form.
If you can't even understand what they do, you don't get to have an opinion on the subject.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
"It will get worked out in one way or another"
Lives get destroyed when insurance companies start to "work things out". They just refuse to pay, preiod.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
TFA pretty much tells us that we the lowly 99% can compete with the largest lobbying firms by becoming uber drivers! once they are in the car have a conversation with them and lobby your point.
They won't have commercial insurance if they were making money on commercial uses of personal policies.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Then fight the law. Don't ignore them and claim the end justifies the means, because it doesn't.
I wonder how many other laws people will find that are keeping them from a billion dollars and what this will become.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Another post by Timothy with a positive bias on Uber.
Timothy, at this point just shut the fuck up about it. Most of the developed world has decided that Uber is an unregulated greedy corporation. It will continue to be smacked down and continue to have stories about bad behavior, lack of insurance, etc.
> But you're taking a huge risk of financial ruin if there is an accident. Likely *nobody* will pay for your injuries and you will end up bankrupt.
The cabs in New York, for example, are usually worse than this. There was a court case a while back about how they screw you with their insurance. Basically they made each cab its *own* LLC and provided the minimum insurance permitted by law. So good luck recovering.
Perhaps where you live there is Uber insurance. but New Mexico legislature just passed a law demanding such insurance and Uber and Lift said they would pull out when it became law.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Not sure about other states, but in North Dakota you don't need a CDL to drive a taxi. You need at least a non-commercial license and you have to pay a Taxi Drivers certificate fee (but there's no test or anything). Minnesota is the same.
Did a quick check and it looks like not even California requries a CDL to drive a taxi unless you're driving a large vehicle (ex: 14-passenger van). But in California this varies a ton by county. Drivers licenses are issued at the state level, though, so I really doubt any county does (or even can) require a CDL to drive a little yellow cab. Some very likely require a certificate and testing, though.
So I would guess "every", is the answer to your question. Every insurance company would cover a driver driving commercially on a non-commercial license, provided the vehicle they're driving does not require a CDL.
Which is its the most common form of government in the world and no country has ever said "this aint working" and replaced it.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And there's mi with his Obama post of the day.
Bonus points for wedging in shilling for the Koch's, too.
How much of that 1 billion they pledged to spend are they giving you by the way?
1$ per post? Nah, that sounds kind of high. Like you.
By the way, you still arent going to live this down: Mi is a racist
This is where you would normally demand a citation. I love how you demand nothing short of black-and-white proof from those on the other side of an argument, but then you make totally absurd, hyperbolic comments like the above with no evidence at all.
So either:
Personally, I think mi is an idiot *and* a troll.
I see, that you find my ideas intriguing. Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
Please, don't hate...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Lots of people seem to prefer the Uber experience regardless of price.
1. It is perceived as cool because you access it via an app, rather than a boring old phone call.
2. You can convince yourself that you're a powerful executive in a chauffeur driven car.
3. It is perceived as cool and edgy because it's "disruptive".
tl;dr wankers love it
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Good point. They can sell insurance to Uber and whenever there is an accident, they can just say" Oops! No commercial license. Sorry, no payout. Oh, by the way, your premium is due for renewal."
"Of course it's ok for me to operate on you, look I bought special surgeons' insurance. What do you mean, am I a qualified doctor? What's that got to do with it?"
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Ha, you self-aggrandizing jackass. I just called you out on your crazy bullshit by applying reason. Is this the best response you have?
There are intelligent people who can put together strong arguments for libertarianism. You ain't one of them!
I see our vocabulary lesson from last time didn't stick.
It's not hate, it's contempt. I have no respect for you because you're a total asshole and almost everything you say shows poor judgment. You clearly don't give half a shit about what is true and what isn't - you spew diarrhea all over the forums here and bring down the level of discourse. Are you actually APK?
But you're taking a huge risk of financial ruin if there is an accident.
How does this speculative risk compare to the well-established risk of death
YOLO right?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Sigh... Haters gonna hate...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Instead of repeating that same, tired meme, why don't you use your big boy words and put together a real response? I've exposed you as a hypocrite and either an idiot or a troll. Are you too stupid to defend yourself?
As I explained to you previously, the vernacular "hater" implies jealousy, which does not apply here, so you are misusing the word.
So what do you actually mean? Because, looking at your "shit sandwich" quote above, it seems like you are the hater, by your own misuse of the word.