Uber

Wait, you guys let people drive you around?

In reply to 02Pilot:

Define "significant number." Do you think uber drivers are more likely to assault their passengers than taxi drivers? Despite being fully identified to the passenger before even picking them up? I think it's more a case of a small number of assaults being blown up as a big issue due to "new thing" (uber) leading to tons of coverage of the relatively few incidents. Also some assaults have been by people claiming to be uber drivers that weren't actually uber drivers. That is not uber's responsibility, is it?

dculberson wrote: In reply to 02Pilot: Define "significant number." Do you think uber drivers are more likely to assault their passengers than taxi drivers? Despite being fully identified to the passenger before even picking them up? I think it's more a case of a small number of assaults being blown up as a big issue due to "new thing" (uber) leading to tons of coverage of the relatively few incidents. Also some assaults have been by people claiming to be uber drivers that weren't actually uber drivers. That is not uber's responsibility, is it?

It's a fair point. Here's just one site (which is curiously without information on who funds it and has a 202 phone number, which smacks of lobbying dollars, but in any case...) that offers some examples: http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents

That said, there are plenty of reports on taxis as well. The part that I find most objectionable is the constant deflection, obfuscation, and general berkeley you attitude of Uber's management. I prefer to spend my money elsewhere.

Assault by Uber (or cab) driver couldn't possibly be related to the fact that unsober riders do/say dumb things, could it? Being polite has its benefits.

I've used Uber in many cities. I like it because you can see the car's location and communicate with the driver while waiting to be picked up. I have only met one driver that's been doing it for more than 3 months, though, so it definitely doesn't seem lucrative.

I'm surprised how interesting this thread turned out to be to me.

I get the feeling a lot of people taking Ubers don't know what they're missing, i.e. a town/city/lifestyle that isn't so unhospitable to car use that you're happily willing to spend a relatively huge amount of money paying someone else's bills just getting from point A to point B.

I guess the sad part is that there will never be any real push for urban planning/regs that doesn't make vehicle use so inconvenient that you end up converting what you would have paid to build a car-friendly environment and drive your own car around it into costs paid to have someone else drive you around in their car until the time FINALLY comes when burdensome personal vehicle ownership is a thing of the past and nearly all transportation is essentially by 'cab'.

Then comes the time we will discuss how to deal with the neuroses resulting from the belated realization that we gradually killed the single most tangible and attainable form of independence and autonomy that the average person actually has, and at the end of life when most people realize that they spent their days disbursing their time and energy into structures that converted their life force into leisure and privilege for a relative few and left them still mired in the same indignity and anonymity of permanent passenger status in life as they endured in transit... Well, I predict that we will wish we had at least had enough of the reins to plausibly call our path to the meat grinder a rat RACE and not just a rat conveyor belt we stepped onto and rode passively into our final car-free oblivion.

Another thought is that uber's success is secondary to legislatures systematically defunding mass transit systems such that the systems are old and under kept and new projects are not being developed. Cab companies did not keep up and have failed their customers both in service and technology. Uber had filled a void left by traditional businesses and the government.

dculberson wrote: Also some assaults have been by people claiming to be uber drivers that weren't actually uber drivers. That is not uber's responsibility, is it?

Not their responsibility, but it is their problem.

Vigo wrote: I'm surprised how interesting this thread turned out to be to me. I get the feeling a lot of people taking Ubers don't know what they're missing, i.e. a town/city/lifestyle that isn't so unhospitable to car use that you're happily willing to spend a relatively huge amount of money paying someone else's bills just getting from point A to point B. I guess the sad part is that there will never be any real push for urban planning/regs that doesn't make vehicle use so inconvenient that you end up converting what you would have paid to build a car-friendly environment and drive your own car around it into costs paid to have someone else drive you around in their car until the time FINALLY comes when burdensome personal vehicle ownership is a thing of the past and nearly all transportation is essentially by 'cab'. Then comes the time we will discuss how to deal with the neuroses resulting from the belated realization that we gradually killed the single most tangible and attainable form of independence and autonomy that the average person actually has, and at the end of life when most people realize that they spent their days disbursing their time and energy into structures that converted their life force into leisure and privilege for a relative few and left them still mired in the same indignity and anonymity of permanent passenger status in life as they endured in transit... Well, I predict that we will wish we had at least had enough of the reins to plausibly call our path to the meat grinder a rat RACE and not just a rat conveyor belt we stepped onto and rode passively into our final car-free oblivion.

I realize that this was largely tongue in cheek, but I want to point out that I expect to own 3 cars by the end of 2017 (with my wife). And I drive another one frequently. And I still will use uber nearly every day. Different tools for the job, and currently an uber is $0.25 more expensive than the train, and significantly cheaper once you factor in parking in the city.

I get both. I live in the suburbs. I commute to the city. But guess what? I used uber when I visited my friends in a "small big town" (150k people in the county, mostly concentrated in two towns--both of which I lived in before uber was there). I'd have used it if it existed when I lived there--when I owned two cars.

And when I did live in the city of Chicago, I used uber to get home from bars primarily. I walked to most places--places that, even if I lived in a more car friendly area, I still would have walked to. Oh, and I still had a car in the city.

OHSCrifle wrote: Assault by Uber (or cab) driver couldn't possibly be related to the fact that unsober riders do/say dumb things, could it? Being polite has its benefits. I've used Uber in many cities. I like it because you can see the car's location and communicate with the driver while waiting to be picked up. I have only met one driver that's been doing it for more than 3 months, though, so it definitely doesn't seem lucrative.

The smart Uber drivers knock off early.

In reply to Vigo:

I read some theology and I couldn't understand you. If you lived in a town, and I mean town, like D.C. they are rapidly making it less car friendly whilst also having no clue how to make occasionally mass transit suck less. I just realized I can't complain. I hate commas too.

You can't make an elaborately silly paragraph without cracking a few grammar eggs. That's what they say, right?

MTN, there's no point trying to reason with me. I own ~20 cars, don't drink or do anything else to my driving acumen besides get tired sometimes, and live in a place so vast and often so hot that walking/biking/mass transit are usually impractical. I'm pretty far on the crazy side of car ownership and can't claim anyone should emulate my choices, but hopefully whoever bothers to read my posts is either entertained or driven to some thought they wouldn't have otherwise had. Meh.

I used Uber some when i visited Montreal last July. I thought it was ok. We walked more often (the weather and density accomodated it). The worst part of travelling is not having a car, and Uber made that less annoying. My very few cab experiences have been pretty terrible, although i sort of appreciate their driving aggression. I do think Uber and its ilk are making a totally disingenuous end run on all sorts of regulations and value their drivers as nothing more than beta testers for a software system they will end up selling to automakers when autonomous driving is ready for primetime. Having said that, i still think the coming obsolescence of these workers is nothing compared to the problem we'll have when truck driving as a massive job market for relatively low-educated males goes to autonomy.

I'm also tempted to get my sixteen year old, who seems rather indifferent to driving, an Uber account with this instruction: knock yourself out.

Any amount he could spend around town has got to be cheaper than owning, fueling and insuring a car for a teenage boy.

Vigo wrote: I do think Uber and its ilk are making a totally disingenuous end run on all sorts of regulations and value their drivers as nothing more than beta testers for a software system they will end up selling to automakers when autonomous driving is ready for primetime. Having said that, i still think the coming obsolescence of these workers is nothing compared to the problem we'll have when truck driving as a massive job market for relatively low-educated males goes to autonomy.

This is the best, most concise summary of the situation with Uber and the coming autonomous economy that I have ever seen, and the economic perils within. I couldn't agree more.

"Truck driver" is the single largest job category on the last US census (one worker in seven IIRC). Autonomous trucks will wreak havoc on the whole job market.

The idea that you can send hundreds of thousands of dollars of salable cargo into the world unprotected is crazy. Around here trucks of Nutella or glove are stolen all the time.

In reply to qued:

Who says it's unprotected?? Are truck drivers security guards?

SVreX wrote:

Vigo wrote: I do think Uber and its ilk are making a totally disingenuous end run on all sorts of regulations and value their drivers as nothing more than beta testers for a software system they will end up selling to automakers when autonomous driving is ready for primetime. Having said that, i still think the coming obsolescence of these workers is nothing compared to the problem we'll have when truck driving as a massive job market for relatively low-educated males goes to autonomy.

This is the best, most concise summary of the situation with Uber and the coming autonomous economy that I have ever seen, and the economic perils within. I couldn't agree more.

Ditto. I like Anthony Bourdain's brand of photojournalism. In a recent show he had dinner in China with some Chinese billionaires. He asked some questions of these billionaires including (something like) "what is the biggest problem you see". A billionaire Chinese guy said "Automation is going to make vast chunks of human labor obsolete, we need to figure out what to do with all these people who have nothing to do". These are interesting times.

In reply to SVreX:

Yes truck drivers are responsible for their cargo. Try opening a random trailer door at a truck stop.

In reply to qued:

Being responsible does not make them security guards, nor qualified. That's why they have insurance.

Being unmanned does not mean it is not protected. I would suggest that the automated security and response systems possible are significantly more capable of protecting the product than a high school dropout with a billy club or unregistered handgun.

In reply to qued:

You understand how easy it is for a lot lizard to drop a qualude into Mr Hot Shot's Diet Coke with nothing more than a promise of sex and a short skirt, right??

Some security.

I have never ubered. I don't think they operate here but could be wrong. I've never used taxi or train or bus either (outside of our recent trip to Disney world). That's all I have to add.

I live in a compact, walkable center city with awesome transit. I don't use Uber because I really like getting myself around, exploring the city as I get where I need to go. I'm also in the camp of not wanting to support a company that feels that traditional rules and regulations don't apply to them. I use a cab once or twice a year when out drinking, or if I'm out on foot/light rail/bicycle and it gets cold and late and I'm exhausted. If the cab is late, is too dirty/stinky, etc, I just call another cab company. I'm amazed to hear of others experiences where cab service sucks and there is no alternative! Is there a monopoly with only one lazy cab service in town, and no entrepreneurs looking at the gap in the market?

I can sympathize with many of the reasons people use Uber, namely car ownership and use is expensive in a city, parking is expensive and a hassle, and traffic is a hassle. For me, I choose to accept the cost of car ownership because I like having a project, and value my ability to leave town and explore backroads highly enough to keep a couple cars even though I don't use them daily (see the above re:traffic)

Stepping back to the bigger picture of the potential future increase in autonomous vehicles and the corresponding massive shift in social norms regarding cars, I am soooo glad I got back into motorcycling several years ago. It is such a refreshing fun adventure which keeps me engaged and gives me more autonomy in an era where cars intentionally disengage their drivers and take away their autonomy. Since self-riding motorcycles aren't something people are asking for and I don't see them on the near horizon, I anticipate that this car/bike divide will only grow. If these future self-driving cars can be designed to see and avoid motorcycles more often than human drivers, the future of zipping through traffic on two wheels looks pretty bright!

In reply to ae86andkp61:

I believe when self driving cars are the rule rather than the exception, motorcycles will be legislated out of existence for safety. Enjoy it while you can.

In reply to Nick (Bo) Comstock:

Nah...at first motorcycles and non-autonomous cars will be like non-ABS cars or non-daytime-running-lights cars are today: totally legal to own, still all over, but just not as common as they once were, and probably not legal to sell new anymore.

Then a few decades later they will become like carbed or pre-seatbelt cars are today...still legal, rare, mostly kept as collectors items, and still driven daily by a small handful of hardcore nuts, albeit some of them with more modern upgrades added.

Finally, and probably after you and I are gone, they will be like a horse-and-buggy is today. Super-rare, and seen in a museum, or if in private hands, used for parades or used a few times a year on private property. Not really an option for regular use anymore.

I could see a transition period where there might be challenges, or dis-incentives, like more rigorous safety inspections in places that have them, and introducing inspections in states that don't. There might also be fewer options for insurance coverage and more expensive policies. There could be autonomous-only lanes on the highway like HOV lanes that exist today. It might be hard or impossible to get a bank loan to buy one used, and manufacturers might start offering a buyback/trade-in promotion that the masses will use to upgrade that will accelerate the rate of non-automated vehicles cycling out of use.

In the highly unlikely event that bikes are truly banned, time to move to a nice little beachside town somewhere in Asia where bikes are the primary means of personal transport!