Uber vs Taxis: The New Urban Warfare

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Uber vs Taxis: The New Urban Warfare

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

enraged_camel posted:

Hey everyone, this is the sound Nintendo Kid makes when grasping at straws!

Nice projection, interesting that you refuse to defend your assertion that Uber is so loved it shouldn't have to obey any regulations they don't like though.

# ? Aug 4, 2014 05:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 12:21

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

Nintendo Kid posted:

Nice projection, interesting that you refuse to defend your assertion that Uber is so loved it shouldn't have to obey any regulations they don't like though.

There's nothing to defend, since the truthfulness of my assertion is self-evident: the main reason Uber is gaining footholds in a huge number of cities (not just in the US but in other countries too) is because it provides, on average, a much better experience over taxis. As such, regulation, insofar as it would improve customer satisfaction and service quality, is unnecessary. Uber already does a good enough job (again, much better than taxis) without it.

# ? Aug 4, 2014 05:39

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

enraged_camel posted:

There's nothing to defend, since the truthfulness of my assertion is self-evident: the main reason Uber is gaining footholds in a huge number of cities (not just in the US but in other countries too) is because it provides, on average, a much better experience over taxis. As such, regulation, insofar as it would improve customer satisfaction and service quality, is unnecessary. Uber already does a good enough job (again, much better than taxis) without it.

Ah the old, "it has a market so it doesn't need regulations" argument. Consumers know best right? Besides, caveat emptor!

# ? Aug 4, 2014 05:43

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

Trabisnikof posted:

Ah the old, "it has a market so it doesn't need regulations" argument. Consumers know best right? Besides, caveat emptor!

That is not what I said. At all.

# ? Aug 4, 2014 05:51

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

enraged_camel posted:

There's nothing to defend, since the truthfulness of my assertion is self-evident: the main reason Uber is gaining footholds in a huge number of cities (not just in the US but in other countries too) is because it provides, on average, a much better experience over taxis. As such, regulation, insofar as it would improve customer satisfaction and service quality, is unnecessary. Uber already does a good enough job (again, much better than taxis) without it.

Actually your assertion is filled with holes. and your description too. It's amazing how you can't be happy saying "I've liked it when I use it but I can't speak for others".

No You start declaring more regulations must fall to marginal short term benefit and everyone else will totally agree. True Irony.

enraged_camel posted:

That is not what I said. At all.

When it gets that close reexamine what you actually want for once!

# ? Aug 4, 2014 05:54

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

enraged_camel posted:

That is not what I said. At all.

You literally posted "regulation is unnecessary for Uber because they do it better without that".

Yes, you had the "regarding service quality" qualifier but no one cares because people have been talking about safety regulations.

# ? Aug 4, 2014 05:55

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

computer parts posted:

You literally posted "regulation is unnecessary for Uber because they do it better without that".

Yes, you had the "regarding service quality" qualifier but no one cares because people have been talking about safety regulations.

You mean the safety regulations that every taxi follows as they are driving at 90 mph on the freeway and changing lanes without signaling?

Or are we talking about some other form of safety regulation?

# ? Aug 4, 2014 06:12

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

enraged_camel posted:

You mean the safety regulations that every taxi follows as they are driving at 90 mph on the freeway and changing lanes without signaling?

Or are we talking about some other form of safety regulation?

Stringent background checks, for one.

# ? Aug 4, 2014 06:13

VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE: Aug 1, 2004; whoa, what just happened here?; College Slice

enraged_camel posted:

You mean the safety regulations that every taxi follows as they are driving at 90 mph on the freeway and changing lanes without signaling?

Or are we talking about some other form of safety regulation?

To be honest, even accepting your stdh.txt I would probably prefer to sit in a taxi going 90 on a freeway than a shitney driven by someone who's got his eyes pinned to the iphone on the dash.

The complete lack of cost-benefit analysis (or desperation) that leads someone into driving Uber(X) should be a warning sign all on its own.

cf: that guy in the A&T thread who violently rejects the notion that constant stop-and-go city traffic is the very worst normal condition you can drive a car under

VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Aug 4, 2014

# ? Aug 4, 2014 06:37

VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE: Aug 1, 2004; whoa, what just happened here?; College Slice

Angling for 5s from passengers is also like, perverse incentives.txt

# ? Aug 4, 2014 06:55

ShadowHawk: Jun 25, 2000; CERTIFIED PRE OWNED TESLA OWNER

api call girl posted:

Angling for 5s from passengers is also like, perverse incentives.txt

To be fair "get paid more the longer route you take" is a much clearer perverse incentive

# ? Aug 4, 2014 07:17

VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE: Aug 1, 2004; whoa, what just happened here?; College Slice

ShadowHawk posted:

To be fair "get paid more the longer route you take" is a much clearer perverse incentive

To be fair, you probably wouldn't solve that problem by removing taximeters from the equation.

# ? Aug 4, 2014 07:41

ShadowHawk: Jun 25, 2000; CERTIFIED PRE OWNED TESLA OWNER

api call girl posted:

To be fair, you probably wouldn't solve that problem by removing taximeters from the equation.

You might have some success if you used a gps tracker and let the customer verify the route independently. You could even implement an appeals process for customers to use for a partial refund when there was a significant discrepancy. You could also have a driver rating system so customers can warn others if they got taken for a ride. If, of course, such things aren't made illegal.

# ? Aug 4, 2014 08:09

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

ShadowHawk posted:

You might have some success if you used a gps tracker and let the customer verify the route independently. You could even implement an appeals process for customers to use for a partial refund when there was a significant discrepancy. You could also have a driver rating system so customers can warn others if they got taken for a ride. If, of course, such things aren't made illegal.

Hmm sounds good, when will uber implement that?

http://www.yelp.com/biz/uber-long-island-city

One of many Uber customers on Yelp posted:

I've used Uber a few times, and I've had great experiences. I used Uber X last week and OMG- worst experience ever.

I understand that every company can have an "off day". My driver fare gouged- he picked me and my friend up from Park Ave, and got lost picking us up, despite the GPS confirmation and the building is pretty obvious. He started the meter from when he got 'lost' to picking us up and then proceeded to drive all the way out to 3rd ave from Park, to the UWS. For anyone who knows NYC, that was pretty ridiculous. He tried to take a few other long-cuts that me and my friend stopped him.

I emailed Uber and told them that the fare was much higher than I normally paid, told them about the experience and wanted a reduction in the cost. I was not demanding a refund, just asking for them to make it right.

The staff told me that "although he should have taken a different route, it wasn't far off enough to warrant a partial refund".

So let me get this straight- you acknowledge that your driver messed up, fare gauged (which is illegal in NYC), but you refuse to even offer a partial reimbursement? Instead they offered me a $10 credit for my next ride- which anyone can find.

I reported them to the TLC, Better Business Bureau and now Yelp. The app is deleted and I will no longer use the service- not because of the driver, as I mentioned we all have off days, but because of the rude and calloused customer service. And there is no phone number and it took them 6 hours to respond to my initial complaint.

There's also reports of charges for rides that didn't take place, rides that cost 4x the estimated fare, etc. etc.. One of the most common complaints is there is no customer service aside from emails.

Here's another fun one:

another satisfied uber user posted:

Tried to use Uber to get to JFK this morning. My driver, Mel, showed up and immediately denied me travel because I have a service animal for a physical disability. Even after showing him official paperwork for my animal and the disability, the driver told me he didn't know what a service animal was and they didn't have those in his home country so I could "go gently caress myself." Then, Uber charged me $35 for "missing" my trip!

Not just bad service but illegal discrimination from an ignorant and unethical driver. Worst car service on the face of the planet.

Bonus anecdata:

Y.A.S.U.C posted:

Pray you are never in a desperate situation and dependent upon Uber to deliver as promised. If everything goes wrong? You can't imagine how badly being dependent upon Uber can leave you in far worse conditions.

We got stuck in ice and needed a cab to get back home. We trekked towhere the streets were clear & I used my Uber app to request a black car. Was concerned: we were situated on a windy street corner without coats and my i-phone battery was almost dead. Thus, I checked the status of our car repeatedly - it was seven minutes away, five minutes away, etc. Eight minutes later? I get a text our driver is "arriving now". Then - my i-phone battery completely dies. We patiently waited for 20 more minutes for that car to show up: to no avail. I was with my 80-year-old mother-in-law. Tried using her phone to contact Uber and find out what's going on. Guess what? You can't contact them except via your own APP.

We walked a almost mile along the main access road - thinking our black car might show up at any minute along that way. Finally arrived at a warm business & called a checker cab from my mother in law's phone and drank a cup of coffee. Do you have any idea how long it takes to walk a mile with an 80-year-old woman on your arm on icy sidewalks and who gets winded after every block? Trust me: you don't want to know.

When I finally recharged my phone? Found a text from Uber saying our driver had to cancel but I might be able to get another ride if I made a new appointment. After they texted and said the driver is "arriving now"? Really??

Uber looks great on paper. But if you're completely dependent upon them? You could end up in a very bad situation. Fortunately, we got home safe and sound - thanks to Checker Cab.

When company policy allows a firm to cancel their customer's appointment at the very last second and doesn't provide any means for that customer to reach Uber for emergency? Sounds like a nasty lawsuit waiting to happen. Will probably take such a tragedy for Uber to learn the concept of customer service.

Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Aug 4, 2014

# ? Aug 4, 2014 11:31

ShadowHawk: Jun 25, 2000; CERTIFIED PRE OWNED TESLA OWNER

Condiv posted:

There's also reports of charges for rides that didn't take place, rides that cost 4x the estimated fare, etc. etc.. One of the most common complaints is there is no customer service aside from emails.

Here's another fun one:

Bonus anecdata:

You know, it's stories like that that really sell the idea of regulation to me. Those customers would be so much happier if they had to pay a minimum fare and were prohibited from using an app. That old woman in the snow would have had an entirely different experience if there were a strict lower limit on the number of cabs that could legally operate, and that any service she called was also one that had to accept street hails.

# ? Aug 4, 2014 12:22

Riptor: Apr 13, 2003; here's to feelin' good all the time

api call girl posted:

eyes pinned to the iphone on the dash.

The iPhone on the dash is doing the exact same thing as a garmin or tomtom, which many (but not all) cabs have. Do you get upset when cabs have those, and do you think that uber drivers use gps devices in a fundamentally different way?

# ? Aug 4, 2014 12:58

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

ShadowHawk posted:

You know, it's stories like that that really sell the idea of regulation to me. Those customers would be so much happier if they had to pay a minimum fare and were prohibited from using an app. That old woman in the snow would have had an entirely different experience if there were a strict lower limit on the number of cabs that could legally operate, and that any service she called was also one that had to accept street hails.

She probably would. I think you missed this part: "We walked a almost mile along the main access road - thinking our black car might show up at any minute along that way. Finally arrived at a warm business & called a checker cab from my mother in law's phone and drank a cup of coffee. Do you have any idea how long it takes to walk a mile with an 80-year-old woman on your arm on icy sidewalks and who gets winded after every block? Trust me: you don't want to know."

You know, the part where the old lady and her daughter are picked up and taken where they want by the old, crufty, regulatory capture cabs while uber leaves them out to freeze.

Also, please link me a regulation that says taxi services can't use an app? The closest thing I can think of is that taxi services are barred from using an app as the taximeter, which is good for both driver and customer.

Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Aug 4, 2014

# ? Aug 4, 2014 12:59

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

ShadowHawk posted:

Those customers would be so much happier if they had to pay a minimum fare and were prohibited from using an app.

No one is talking about banning an app.

# ? Aug 4, 2014 13:00

Stanos: Sep 22, 2009; The best 57 in hockey.

For you see, there can only be the wildly unregulated jitney cab or NOTHING AT ALL EXCEPT THE EVIL CONNIVING BIG TAXI.

# ? Aug 4, 2014 19:55

Craptacular!: Jul 9, 2001; Fuck the DH

I don't visit this thread often enough to reply to people who reply to me at a fast enough pace. I only can speak as a Vegas resident of nearly a decade who has used taxis and read about them in the news plenty. They don't operate the same way taxis in most cities do, but they operate a lot like a cartel, squeezing money from customers and allied business (casinos, strip club, etc) while also being politically influential in ways a disorganized mass of Uber drivers never could be. It serves only as an example that given enough power, taxis behave the same as any other business with a government-endorsed monopoly, such as cable companies.

I'm a transit rider who has a lot of good access to mass transit, but many people don't in the region, and Uber may not be perfect but for locals it would probably beat the cab companies who are focused on tourist fare. It isn't even the first time they city has dealt with an issue like this, prior to 1992 there wasn't any public transit here, and the private bus system that had to be forced out of existence did a disservice to locals by pulling buses off regional routes to focus on the tourist corridor, it's higher ridership, and it's higher fares. Since a government-run cab company is not likely to happen, the best they can do is not be a blockade for people who want to hire a car and get from place to place.

However, in my own opinion the thing that needs to be dine locally would make it less possible for Uber to operate, not more: flat-rate zoned fare maps. Long hauling can be solved with complicated GPS technology, or it can be solved with a simple law setting what the fare will be no matter what route is used to go there. However, I know that's one thing the taxis will Go Galt and drive incredibly slowly up the Strip as a giant obstruction over.

Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Aug 5, 2014

# ? Aug 5, 2014 02:43

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Craptacular! posted:

However, in my own opinion the thing that needs to be dine locally would make it less possible for Uber to operate, not more: flat-rate zoned fare maps.

Is there good evidence these laws work? The sorts of people that can be long hauled (people unfamiliar to the region) also seem like the people least likely to aware of flat-rates. There's been anecdotes of cab drivers lying about where the borders of flat-rate zones are, and implementing new laws to stop people who were violating old laws (long hauling is to my knowledge disallowed anywhere that has taxis) is always suspicious to me.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 03:21

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

A taxi company is changing its business model as opposed to lobbying politicians to shackle Uber with regulations.

quote:

DeSoto Cab Co. might not like the under-regulated and fast-emerging alternative-ride service industry, but company President Hansu Kim knows an opportunity when he sees one.

If Uber, Lyft and others are allowed to expose loopholes in the regulatory process -- which boost their bottom lines exponentially -- then so too can the traditional taxi industry, he realized.

During public comment at many recent San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency board of directors meetings, Kim has explained that his 204-vehicle operation is "bleeding money" due to competing ride services subject to a different set of rules enforced by the state, not The City.

If DeSoto were to change the model of its operations, it would cut its highest cost -- nearly half a million dollars in monthly payments to taxi medallion holders -- but not become another Uber or Lyft (the app-based ride services dubbed transportation network companies). Instead, DeSoto -- The City's third-largest cab company -- would seek charter-party carrier, or TCP licenses, intended for limousines and Lincoln Town Cars but legally obtained by nonluxury vehicles.

"Uber isn't putting me out of business," Kim said, speaking hypothetically. "What Uber is making me do is retool -- and given the same rules, I'll beat them all day long."

The California Public Utilities Commission's Transportation License Section states, "The most important operational difference is that TCP transportation must be prearranged" whether by telephone or writing, whereas, "Taxis may provide transportation 'at the curb.'"

To have a livery plate, a type of TCP permit, a vehicle can be any sedan or SUV that seats 10 or fewer passengers including the driver.

"If a driver has applied for and received a livery plate and then becomes a driver with a TNC, that driver can provide TNC service in that vehicle," CPUC spokesman Andrew Kotch said.

AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN

Technology-driven companies like Uber have blurred the definition of prearranged transportation and the code has not since been amended, said Barry Korengold, president of the San Francisco Cab Drivers Association. That has allowed TCP-licensed cars to use smartphone apps and act as taxis.

"Somehow, they've played with the words so much that 'on-demand' is 'prearranged,'" Korengold said.

Together, Kim said, the TCP and TNC ride services are a "double-whammy" to taxis.

"I hate to say it," he said, "but all this deregulation is, from a financial standpoint, an opportunity for me."

The cost factor is also important to DeSoto, as Kim pays $2,200 per month each to his 204 medallion holders for an annual total of nearly $5.4 million. If Kim decided to pull the trigger, it would take him three months to remove the cab meters and infrastructure while keeping his dispatch system, DeSoto name and two-toned blue colors. Each TCP license would be a one-time $1,500 fee plus $100 to renew annually. Kim said he would do just fine because he has built a loyal customer base over the company's 80-year history and now receives an additional 2,000 hails daily through the hailing app Flywheel, which he hopes would adapt with him.

Since 2010, medallions have been sold to drivers at $250,000 each. Up until a few months ago, Kim was paying medallion holders $2,500 per month, but that dropped to $2,200 with competition from other ride services. The monthly rate could drop to $1,800 by September, Kim said. Yet a medallion does have advantages, like allowing drivers to pick up street hails and airport customers.

"The SFMTA is going to kill their golden goose, which is their medallion sales," Kim said.

NO CONCERNS FROM CITY

The repeated warning from DeSoto Cab Co. about retooling was not a major concern for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Taxis and Accessible Services' interim director, Kate Toran. DeSoto's medallions are a small fraction of the roughly 2,000 citywide, she said, and the medallion holders could do business with other taxi companies.

"That could be a business decision that they undertake and really that's [Kim's] choice," Toran said. "There would be no loss for the SFMTA taxi fleet."

There continues to be a "strong demand" for medallions, she said, with about 1,000 people ready to buy them.

"If the industry continues the positive work of adapting to the new challenges, we believe that the value of the medallions will remain strong," Toran added.

Ed Healy, 69, a taxi driver for more than 25 years, said he sold his medallion a year ago because it appeared to him The City was not going to regulate the app-based ride services. He now drives for DeSoto two or three days a week.

"The state is allowing these people to put in all the vehicles they want, whether they are needed or not," Healy said of the app-based ride services.

WILD, WILD WEST

Korengold said his main issue is that The City still cannot crack down on the state-regulated ride services. A state audit last month found that CPUC failed to enforce safety laws around limousine and bus companies and lacks properly trained investigators.

Luxor Cab, the second-largest taxi company in The City, is not considering converting its entire 220-vehicle fleet to a sedan service, Assistant Manager Charles Rathbone said. But it is keeping an open mind about getting TCP licenses for vehicles to operate them commercially or getting TNC licenses.

"We're not about to abandon the medallion system that has worked so well in San Francisco for generations," Rathbone said.

While there are cabs that aren't leaving company lots, a number of drivers are returning to the cab industry, noted Steve Humphreys, CEO of the app Flywheel that is working with every taxi company in The City.

Kim's own reservations around the sedan service route are based on his belief that vehicles transporting people should be subject to regulation.

"Of course I want to be a business that is not losing money, but I don't want to see the industry become deregulated, because it's not in our public interest," Kim said.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 03:34

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

enraged_camel posted:

A taxi company is changing its business model as opposed to lobbying politicians to shackle Uber with regulations.

Since you didn't answer, what's your position on Uber having industry standard background checks?

# ? Aug 5, 2014 03:36

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

computer parts posted:

Since you didn't answer, what's your position on Uber having industry standard background checks?

I'm OK with it.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 03:38

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

enraged_camel posted:

A taxi company is changing its business model as opposed to lobbying politicians to shackle Uber with regulations.

Haha the first paragraph gives it all away:

quote:

If Uber, Lyft and others are allowed to expose loopholes in the regulatory process -- which boost their bottom lines exponentially -- then so too can the traditional taxi industry, he realized.

True innovators right there. :rolleyes:

# ? Aug 5, 2014 03:45

Stanos: Sep 22, 2009; The best 57 in hockey.

I don't know how you read that and think 'drat, that's so neat this disruption is happening' instead of seeing it as 'Well if they can flaunt the law, so can we!'

It's a net loss for the average person. Thanks dipshit 'sharing economy'!

# ? Aug 5, 2014 04:09

Soy Division: Aug 12, 2004

twodot posted:

Is there good evidence these laws work? The sorts of people that can be long hauled (people unfamiliar to the region) also seem like the people least likely to aware of flat-rates. There's been anecdotes of cab drivers lying about where the borders of flat-rate zones are, and implementing new laws to stop people who were violating old laws (long hauling is to my knowledge disallowed anywhere that has taxis) is always suspicious to me.

Zones were a huge disaster in DC, there's all kinds of ways drivers can scam the zone system - lying to tourists who don't know the city geography, taking alternate routes that cover as many zones as possible, etc.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 08:19

Craptacular!: Jul 9, 2001; Fuck the DH

twodot posted:

Is there good evidence these laws work? The sorts of people that can be long hauled (people unfamiliar to the region) also seem like the people least likely to aware of flat-rates. There's been anecdotes of cab drivers lying about where the borders of flat-rate zones are, and implementing new laws to stop people who were violating old laws (long hauling is to my knowledge disallowed anywhere that has taxis) is always suspicious to me.

You put up a sign at the airport with a list of the major resorts in town and what the rate is, and keep it up to date. The airport belongs to the county, so it shouldn't be that hard.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 19:38

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

It should go without saying that if you ever have the itch to let a perfect stranger use your ATM card, it's best that you don't follow through with it. If that person happens to be a taxi driver who you suspect might be wearing a woman's wig and padded breasts, that rule now doubly applies.

A Maryland man pleaded guilty in the D.C. Superior Court Monday to an elaborate scheme whereby he posed as a taxi driver and picked up young, drunk people in busy neighborhoods in order to scam them out of money, according to a U.S. Department of Justice press release.

Nyerere Mitchell, 50, in a period lasting from at least April 2009 until his arrest in November 2013 , is said to have stolen more than $200,000 from more than 60 D.C.-area residents by convincing them to let him use their ATM cards and pins to withdraw the money to pay for their rides. He did so while driving a silver-colored SUV Range Rover and dressing as a woman.

To pull off the hoax, the press release says, Mitchell pulled into drive-through ATMs on Wisconsin Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, where only he could reach the machine because it was located on the driver's side of the vehicle.

He would then withdraw hundreds of dollars more than the $10 to $40 necessary to pay for the ride.

Mitchell obtained so many cards over time that he would often substitute one person's card with another without them knowing and, over the course of a few days, would purchase money orders, which he deposited into his credit union account.

At the time of his arrest last November, Metropolitan police found 205 credit cards stuffed in plastic bags inside a shoe box.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 19:53

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Related

Uh but I thought it was proven in this thread that only those regulation flaunting Uber drivers break the law and not honest cabbies. Clearly he was an Uber driver involved in a false flag operation. :smug:

# ? Aug 5, 2014 21:35

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

axeil posted:

Uh but I thought it was proven in this thread that only those regulation flaunting Uber drivers break the law and not honest cabbies. Clearly he was an Uber driver involved in a false flag operation.

So you're down to complaining that people breaking the law by pretending to be cabbies without license are "real cabbies", aces!

# ? Aug 5, 2014 21:37

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

axeil posted:

Uh but I thought it was proven in this thread that only those regulation flaunting Uber drivers break the law and not honest cabbies. Clearly he was an Uber driver involved in a false flag operation.

Remember, you can't hate when uber and ~~cabs~~ random people pretending to be cabs break the law, only one or the other. You must choose your allegiance.

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Aug 5, 2014

# ? Aug 5, 2014 21:42

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

"A guy pretended to be a cab in a private vehicle and that's why cabs are bad and private vehicles doing the work of cabs are good." - a dumb guy

# ? Aug 5, 2014 21:45

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Best Friends posted:

"A guy pretended to be a cab in a private vehicle and that's why cabs are bad and private vehicles doing the work of cabs are good." - a dumb guy

It's a lot easier to pretend to be a cabbie (especially before they mandated the new done lights) than it is to pretend to be the person whose car was specifically assigned to you and whose name, car make and model, and license plate you know. There are some advantages to not taking a street hail!

(There was also the fake cabbie rapist a few years back in DC.)

# ? Aug 5, 2014 22:24

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Kalman posted:

It's a lot easier to pretend to be a cabbie (especially before they mandated the new done lights) than it is to pretend to be the person whose car was specifically assigned to you and whose name, car make and model, and license plate you know.

So now those lights and signage regulations are good not bad? I'm sure its not too hard to put on a pink mustache on your car and troll airports looking for the person who looks like they are waiting for you.

Kalman posted:

There are some advantages to not taking a street hail!

Indeed, that's why a lot of people take radio cabs.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 22:30

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

Kalman posted:

It's a lot easier to pretend to be a cabbie (especially before they mandated the new done lights) than it is to pretend to be the person whose car was specifically assigned to you and whose name, car make and model, and license plate you know. There are some advantages to not taking a street hail!

This must be why "I got into the wrong Uber car" stories are just completely unheard of.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 22:40

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Trabisnikof posted:

So now those lights and signage regulations are good not bad?

I said they were bad for dispatch services. Standardized lighting is great for things where you have to see them to flag them down, and standardized cab signage/paint (which DC cabbies were incredibly resistant to) are great for giving people a reason to trust that you are who you appear to be.

Both of those things are useless when applied to a system in which specific cars go to specific places for specific people who know which car to expect.

quote:

I'm sure its not too hard to put on a pink mustache on your car and troll airports looking for the person who looks like they are waiting for you.

I have no idea if Lyft does this, but for Uber the app shows me the drivers face, license plate, and car make. So "trolling for people who look like they're waiting for you" doesn't work because they aren't waiting for a pink mustache, they're waiting for a specific car. And the driver is supposed to ask "Are you Kalman?" both to confirm that it's the right passenger and to make it harder to impersonate a driver.

quote:

Indeed, that's why a lot of people take radio cabs.

If they showed up and took credit cards, I would have done so as well. They didn't, so I started using Uber, and inertia (and a generally better experience) keeps me there.

Best Friends posted:

This must be why "I got into the wrong Uber car" stories are just completely unheard of.

There's always an idiot out there. You have to be one to get into the wrong car. (Especially since a driver has nothing to gain and everything to lose by picking up the wrong passenger, since they won't get paid and will get a bad review for no showing on their actual passenger.)

Kalman fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Aug 5, 2014

# ? Aug 5, 2014 22:43

Best Friends: Nov 4, 2011

Kalman posted:

There's always an idiot out there. You have to be one to get into the wrong car. (Especially since a driver has nothing to gain and everything to lose by picking up the wrong passenger, since they won't get paid and will get a bad review for no showing on their actual passenger.)

It happens all the time and that is because "I am drunk but I know I am supposed to get into a private car right now" is a lot easier to get wrong than correctly differentiating between a private vehicle and a licensed cab.

Trying to pretend a guy who imitated cabs couldn't do that with Uber, a service where he wouldn't even have to imitate a certain vehicle configuration, is the height of absurdity especially since "I got into the wrong Uber car lol" is about the most common Uber story out there. Why are you so in the tank for a private company that you feel compelled to make arguments this disingenuous?

# ? Aug 5, 2014 23:33

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Kalman posted:

It's a lot easier to pretend to be a cabbie (especially before they mandated the new done lights) than it is to pretend to be the person whose car was specifically assigned to you and whose name, car make and model, and license plate you know. There are some advantages to not taking a street hail!

(There was also the fake cabbie rapist a few years back in DC.)

Good point, I guess only people with smartphones with data plans and credit cards should be able to take cabs.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 00:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 12:21

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Condiv posted:

Good point, I guess only people with smartphones with data plans and credit cards should be able to take cabs.

So a majority of the country, steadily increasing?

Okay.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 00:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Uber vs Taxis: The New Urban Warfare

«‹›32 »