Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 196 posts

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#121

Post by robbyking »

omnivore wrote: post #108

My ugly questions on this are: What about liability for when an Uber or Lyft driver kills someone in an accident driving unsafely? Or just murders someone because they're having a bad day? Or get carjacked? I mean, I guess it's just one spree away from people doing dangerous things?

The only reason to phrase your question the way you did is to increase the FUD surrounding car services like Uber and Lyft. The same question could be asked of any person in any profession.

Regardless, the answer to your question is the first result when you search Google for "Uber liability coverage":

> 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.

http://blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsurance

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#122

Post by tootie »

yumraj wrote: post #30
jefflinwood wrote: post #14

The really interesting story here is that if drivers are so willing to switch networks for better opportunities, there isn't a compelling reason for Uber to have the valuation that they do. The value of Uber isn't really in the tech or the app - it's in the networks of riders and drivers in each city. If each of those can be aggregated into some other kind of service, where Uber, Lyft, etc. are just providers of paym…

This. Basically while there are network effects in the sense that any provider (Uber, Lyft etc.) will need to have some critical mass before there are enough drivers and enough riders, both can subscribe to multiple providers and there is no long-term stickiness at the moment. In other words, this is not a winner take all market with FB/LinkedIn/Twitter type network stickiness and the overall market is still fair gam…

I don't see how there's any network effect to be had. Consider food delivery. I use both seamless and delivery.com. Seamless is a little better and has a wider network of restaurants. But I have 0 lockin and will frequently switch to delivery.com for any exclusive restaurants they have. I have an account on grubhub too although I use it rarely. There's nothing tying to me to any of them. No friend list, no thousands of photos. Just my recent orders which are of limited value. Taxi service is the same. The second that Lyft has lower rates or a close car, everyone will switch in a second. Or flock to option 3 the second it has any advantage.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#123

Post by mbesto »

aetherson wrote: post #39
Pxtl wrote: post #31

I'm going to go ahead and assume there's an app that aggregates Uber/Lyft/whatever and just gets you the closest driver regardless of network. Uber's service goes from being a premium product to a replaceable commodity in a blink.

Well, Uber, Lyft, and whoever will fight such an aggregator for obvious reasons, and attempt to prevent them from accessing their APIs.

And someone just as smart will circumvent their APIs.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#124

Post by AJ007 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #100
prawn wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we'll see at least two main car providers in major cities plus some niche operators, then one major network that allows you to buy your own car to be committed to a pool as an investment.

Do you think we'll see public transit orgs (for example, PACE/CTA in Chicago and its suburbs) purchase their own self-driving vehicles to provide transit services?

This isn't just a city issue, but a country issue too. Vulnerability to both economic sanctions and espionage should be real concerns. You can take a look at the companies operating in Israel for an example of a market this would be an immediate concern. Likewise for companies operating in Washington DC. There are politicians and lobbyists regularly using Uber. Would this DC audience want to use Yongche, Kuaidi, or another Chinese service?

Another interesting consideration is who is building and selling these automated vehicles. Hypothetically a future Google building vehicles could acquire Uber and now they own the entire value chain.

A company such as Google could earn a substantial piece of the rider's revenue from advertising which would make it hard for competitors much like Yahoo & Bing under earned Google on search inventory. At that point it becomes very hard for competitors. Does ad based earnings sound unreasonable? Consider that companies, such as Delta, already are bidding their organic listings down on Google. They rank #1 for their name yet still buy the inventory. You could jump in the car and say KFC -- and KFC pays Google for the ride. Or you say "fried chicken" and Google gets even more money to take you to the nearest KFC (or may be Popeyes in that case.)

Secondly, consider additional activities in the vehicle. A car build to drive itself is going to be configured differently than a manned vehicle. May be a Facebook car arrives and you strap on the complimentary Oculus headset.

I don't know what it is, but don't discount the ability of a self driving car service to substantially differentiate itself beyond competitors in the future.

Any of these options will make it extremely difficult for public transit to compete. Certainly cabs are done without gifted monopolies. (Also worth considering if a self-driving cab company can retain any political power without having a fleet of human drivers)

Whether or not Uber is overvalued, they are taking the money. Probably the better choice. The US stock market keeps hitting highs, at some point there will be a drop, or may be a crises with junk debt (very low yields just like 07) and it is going to be a lot more difficult to raise money over night.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#125

Post by avalaunch »

whitej125 wrote: post #46

Wait, strike? First off...IANAUD. If you become an Uber Driver are you under any sort of contract? Are you now an employee (W-2) of Uber or free agent contractor (1099). If drivers think they can get better fares elsewhere... go nuts and do it. Yay economics! I feel like I am missing something here.

What is IANAUD? I tried googling but nothing came up.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#126

Post by glenra »

kapkapkap wrote: post #68
toomuchtodo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you say self-driving vehicles fit into this? Supposedly they're rolling out in ~3-5 years, and with self-driving vehicles, you no longer need the middle man managing a fleet of contractors. EDIT: I'm willing to me a Long Bet [1] with anyone regarding fully autonomous self driving vehicles in regular use in 6 years. [1] http://longbets.org/ ; http://longbets.org/rules/

Autonomous vehicles that can navigate city roads and do not require any driver behind the wheel are most certainly not 3-5 years away.

By which you mean they already exist today? My parents got a demo ride in one at a google event earlier this year. As long as the city involved is Mountain View, the vehicles already exist.

(Google's current effort relies on extremely detailed mapping of all the roads involved, but given the continued existence of the StreetView program that approach probably scales tolerably well.)

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#127

Post by modfodder »

viscanti wrote: post #58
ivraatiems wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely surprised. I imagine this is just a policy of minimum appeasement, but it's very interesting how rapid the change was. Edit: Also, the strike is going forward - not all of their demands were met. Maybe this is just so Uber can say "hey, we tried to do what they asked?"

Or maybe the strike is closer to what happened last year in SF, where a bunch of drivers who were banned from the uber system because of low quality scores protested for other reasons. Something doesn't add up with the strike anyway (the threat to leave Uber because some trips might be on uberx, but to go to lyft where all their trips would be at that level and they'd make less doesn't make sense). The fact that the…

Or maybe now that a large group of drivers have an impact on Uber, they want to continue to build muscle. If it was something other than accepting UberX fares, Uber wouldn't have caved (they're too smart for that). No this points in at the very least a small shift in negotiating power between Uber and its drivers. The fact that Uber caved makes it pretty clear Uber knows it was in the wrong and they are starting to fear a unified group of drivers.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#128

Post by nchuhoai »

jefflinwood wrote: post #14

The really interesting story here is that if drivers are so willing to switch networks for better opportunities, there isn't a compelling reason for Uber to have the valuation that they do. The value of Uber isn't really in the tech or the app - it's in the networks of riders and drivers in each city. If each of those can be aggregated into some other kind of service, where Uber, Lyft, etc. are just providers of paym…

I think Uber realizes this, thus their strategy is to eliminate Lyft and any future competitors from entering the market as soon as possible. AFAIK, Lyft currently makes no money on its operations while Uber does (by virtue of their greater scale).

I'm afraid of a world in which Lyft is forced to quite (as you only so long sustain on VC money), and Uber then abusing it's monopoly power.

The difference to the existing cab market is the extraordinary scale and growth Uber posses. They can simply afford to undercut everyone's prices for the short term with their billion of dollars in VC money.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#129

Post by findjashua »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #41
yumraj wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Basically while there are network effects in the sense that any provider (Uber, Lyft etc.) will need to have some critical mass before there are enough drivers and enough riders, both can subscribe to multiple providers and there is no long-term stickiness at the moment. In other words, this is not a winner take all market with FB/LinkedIn/Twitter type network stickiness and the overall market is still fair gam…

How would you say self-driving vehicles fit into this? Supposedly they're rolling out in ~3-5 years, and with self-driving vehicles, you no longer need the middle man managing a fleet of contractors. EDIT: I'm willing to me a Long Bet [1] with anyone regarding fully autonomous self driving vehicles in regular use in 6 years. [1] http://longbets.org/ ; http://longbets.org/rules/

I think the 'self-driving' feature of the car will be more like an autopilot - you'd still need a human at the wheel to occasionally override the system.

Hence, I see the self-driving car to be more of a competition to short-term rentals like Zipcar. In situations where you don't want to drive (have to work/talk on phone; after a you've had a few drinks etc), you'd still need a driver.

Re: Uber Drivers “Strike” and Switch to Lyft Over Fares and Conditions

#130

Post by dnautics »

avalaunch wrote: post #120
jkestner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's plenty of drivers right now driving for multiple services. The more services there are, the more competition there is for drivers' time, which means drivers have more leverage. We're gonna need an Uber for Ubers. But of course a middleman is necessary - who's going to match customers and available drivers? But if drivers have the leverage, it could resemble more of an agent relationship. Why haven't Uber/Ly…

Best guess: Uber/Lyft can't demand exclusivity from their drivers without crossing a line clearly delineated by the IRS. Doing so would be considered an "inappropriate degree of control" and the drivers would no longer be considered independent contractors, but instead employees. Neither Uber nor Lyft would want that. Penalizing drivers that don't accept a high percentage of rides offered them is Uber's attempt to de…

It's state-by-state/region-by-region. IIRC, California specifically disallows non-compete clauses in general [citation needed]. Seattle outlaws driving for more than one service.
Post reply on HN