Slashdot Mirror
Getting Over Getting Over Uber: Tim O'Reilly Does the Math
Susan Crawford yesterday published at Medium a critique of Uber and similar ride-coordinating services, in the form of a kind of paean to the American taxicab.
Though she didn't start out with negative feelings for Uber, Crawford writes, her sentiment has swung away from objections to taxis (such as that they seek unfair protection from competition) to an extravagant defense, though it comes with a long list of "shoulds": "[Cities] should be focusing on making their taxi services better," she writes. "Taxis should be more accessible to everyone. Taxi fares should be low, predictable, and uniform. Taxi geographies should be wide. Taxis should be clean, fuel-efficient, driven by trustworthy, well-trained drivers, and available for frictionless electronic hailing." Even with the flaws that list implies, Crawford's description of how well taxis work now is more positive than I've found to be true: "Their rates are regulated and set; their pricing is transparent and can be double-checked (just look at the meter, which is itself regularly tested); they look like a uniform fleet; they are subject to very strict licensing and safety requirements. With rare exceptions, they don’t employ surge/congestion pricing schemes."
Tim O'Reilly has written a response, calling Crawford's arguments "puzzling and unconvincing." O'Reilly dissects some of the math behind the business of driving others for money, as it applies to both conventional taxi drivers and "gig economy" drivers, as well as some of the qualitative effects of ride-dispatch services; surely some readers will take issue with his figures and examples, but they provide a plausible case for doubting Crawford's rosy picture of taxis and dark view of modern app-dispatched rides. O'Reilly writes: "Regulation is not a good in itself. It is a means of achieving public goods. And so far, it is pretty clear that Uber and Lyft (and in particular, the competition between them) are improving the transportation options in American cities. Regulators should be using the opportunity to revisit the old way of doing things rather than trying to make the new conform to outdated rules that no longer serve their purpose."
Tim O'Reilly has written a response, calling Crawford's arguments "puzzling and unconvincing." O'Reilly dissects some of the math behind the business of driving others for money, as it applies to both conventional taxi drivers and "gig economy" drivers, as well as some of the qualitative effects of ride-dispatch services; surely some readers will take issue with his figures and examples, but they provide a plausible case for doubting Crawford's rosy picture of taxis and dark view of modern app-dispatched rides. O'Reilly writes: "Regulation is not a good in itself. It is a means of achieving public goods. And so far, it is pretty clear that Uber and Lyft (and in particular, the competition between them) are improving the transportation options in American cities. Regulators should be using the opportunity to revisit the old way of doing things rather than trying to make the new conform to outdated rules that no longer serve their purpose."
I didn't care about Uber till slashdot started posting stories about it for money. Now I am anti-Uber, anti-slashdot.
say it again. It's not the service, it's how they treat their employees, e.g. by calling them contractors to get out of paying for their Health Care, Unemployment, tax and other benefits (as well as their commercial insurance and proper background checks). Right now Uber is externalizing all those costs. Either onto the driver or eventually society (since we more or less don't just let people die in a gutter in this country, yet...). Their entire business model falls apart as soon as those costs aren't externalized. Look at all the 'Uber for...' companies and how quickly they shut down when their told that they have to treat people who are a core part of their buiness as employees...
Uber is a race to the bottom and a sign capitalism is starting to break down...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I generally avoided Uber, but last year I needed a taxi to get to the airport. I called two different taxi companies, and neither one had any taxis available to pick me up. Uber came right away, and was cheaper than a taxi.
Generally it's easier to get an Uber than a taxi, unless you're right in the middle of a big city. And it will be a long time before traditional taxi companies get their game together enough to equal that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Last May when my auto insurance policy renewed there were a few pages enclosed. Adding / detracting language from the previous policy. While not stating Uber or Lyft by name it was clear that the insurance company was writing them completely out of the picture.
And this is a good point. While Uber claims to have bazillions to insure payments in case of accidents, much of the liability will be negated when the driver's actual insurance company denies your claim for injury. And as well, your own insurence company will bail out as well.
Uber / Lift is an unregulated taxi service staffed by drivers that have met a non-existent bar for entry.
Myself? I always hire a towncar.
Isn't Uber's liability insurance exactly for the situation that you describe? It seems like it would be pretty useless if it were secondary insurance that only covered accidents over and above what is paid out by the driver's insurance.
They even say that it's primary insurance:
http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/...
$1 million of liability coverage per incident. Uber holds a commercial insurance policy with $1 million of coverage per incident. Drivers’ liability to third parties is covered from the moment a driver accepts a trip to its conclusion. This policy is expressly primary to any personal auto coverage (However it will not take precedence over any commercial auto insurance for the vehicle). We have provided a $1 million liability policy since commencing ridesharing in early 2013.
They have their Certificate of Insurance docs online for each state.
Do you have evidence to support that claim?
Basically her argument is that taxis are good, and the only problem with them is that they need to be completely different than they are now. No one with an interest in maintaining their credibility would say something so stupid and incoherent of their own free will. Ergo, she is being paid.
The last time I needed a taxi was to get home from a meeting across town, 40 miles away. The meeting was over at 5pm and I called for the taxi just before that.
I called to check on them again at 6pm.
Then 7pm.
Then 8pm.
Then 10pm.
Then midnight.
At that point, I told them "Look, I've been waiting for SEVEN HOURS for someone to pick me up. It's January. The place I was waiting inside closed hours ago. I've been out in the 10 degree weather for five hours, now. If you can't get someone out here, I''m going to just call the other taxi service and see if they can help me".
The taxi service responded "Sir, you can't do that. If you call two taxi services, we will both blacklist you."
I waited.
I waited.
I waited.
At 5am, I called and canceled my service request, because it was going to take an hour to get home, an hour to get back for the second day of meetings, plus however long to wait for a fucking taxi to pick me up to GET TO THE MEETING AGAIN... so it was safer to just wait four more hours for the meetings to start, wearing the same gross clothes form the day before and on zero sleep and having spent the night on the sidewalk in 0-10 degree temperatures.
The thing is, that wasn't a unique experience Almost every time I have used a taxi service in two different states both in cities of 500,000 to 1,500,000 people, it has taken HOURS for them to show up. HOURS.
So you know what? Fuck taxi services. They're expensive and unreliable. They do NOT serve ANY public good. They can all fucking burn for all I fucking care.
In NYC I don't have any of these Uber-fixed problems. The problem I have repeatedly:
- I cannot communicate the destination to the driver.
- I attempt to, but the driver gives me no feedback.
- The driver types the address into a GPS from the 90s, distractely while driving, incorrectly, for example confusing S 4th St with 4th St, or 23rd Pl with 23rd Dr. Handing the driver a printout from Google Maps doesn't solve it. Cutting off the address, so the driver has to read the map and can't just type like a monkey, still doesn't solve it.
- The driver cannot find the destination.
- I name a landmark, "Bronx Zoo," and the driver unreasonably says "where's that?"
- The driver attempts to find his own way to the destination by memory and makes many wrong turns. He even turns off the meter apologetically, so he's not trying to scam me, but I'm still late, and it would be avoided by being forced to use a navigation app.
- The driver makes poor decisions about traffic that Waze or even Google Maps would have avoided.
It means, to take a cab and have it actually work, I have to use maps on my phone and give the driver directions. About half the time I can get where I'm going without doing this, but the other half the time there is a major fuckup like wrong turns or going to the wrong place or not knowing where the place is period until I tell him. This is a pain in the ass to do with your friends, because they take everything personally and get hysterical. Doing it with a stranger who is not in German efficiency-mode but is in insecure face-saving third world asia mode quickly becomes the most stressful part of my day.