141–150 of 196 posts
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not optimistic about municipalities running anything efficiently. However, this would provide great opportunities to get rid of public transit as we know it. Private sector rides could simply be subsidized for low income users. How much more convenient would this be vs taking the bus?
A municipality can't write a check every year to a white label service that sits between its citizens and the self-driving vehicles, maintenance facilities, and charging stations built to provide automated mobility? My city provides roads, fire, police, and other services in a pretty efficient manner. If yours doesn't, I suggest you campaign for more transparency.
Mine doesn't. I saw a ladder truck, a fire engine, and multiple other vehicles show up when one guy passed out and need medical care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe the networks now are quite weak. But in a future where a large percent of rides are shared by 3 passengers on average, or maybe even more via SUV(for cost savings of course), being the dominant provider is tied directly achieving optimal routes and average share ratios. In such a future , the network effects over riders is much stronger , and it's probably a "winner takes most" market.
That's true, IF passengers are interested in sharing a ride with two other passengers (and if they're interested in trading cost savings for the delays involved in that). I kind of doubt that there will ever be a day when rides have an average of 3 passengers. Figure that if your base fare is $20, the first person you share with saves you $10 (or maybe $9 or something if you have to shore up the profits of the hailin…
But the end goal is to replace a large part of private transportation. And with car occupancy of 3 passenger and a drivers ,maybe cars start to get special road rights(as a tool to decrease traffic - it's part of some future roads in israel).
At that point, with UBER running a large part of the traffic and being able to create optimal routes, together with special road right , the difference in delay might not be that big versus driving , and you don't need to drive.
Yes, there are many if's here, as in all visions. but it might come to pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A municipality can't write a check every year to a white label service that sits between its citizens and the self-driving vehicles, maintenance facilities, and charging stations built to provide automated mobility? My city provides roads, fire, police, and other services in a pretty efficient manner. If yours doesn't, I suggest you campaign for more transparency.
> My city provides roads, fire, police, and other services in a pretty efficient manner. Mine doesn't. I saw a ladder truck, a fire engine, and multiple other vehicles show up when one guy passed out and need medical care.
Don't take my word for it though, the Mayor of Provo answered the question much better:
http://provomayor.com/2011/03/04/why-do-we-send-a-fire-truck...
"I’m often asked why we send a fire truck on every medical call. Does it really require an ambulance and a fire truck for many of the minor injuries? It seems a waste to drive a very fuel-inefficient fire engine to something where the additional personnel are not needed.
While there are some calls for emergency medical assistance that can easily be handled with just the two personnel on the ambulance, there are many that require additional help. Nearly every EMS system sends a unit to “back” the ambulance for a number of reasons. First, nearly every life threatening emergency incident is best handled with at least two paramedics in addition to the driver. Second, there is not always enough reliable information on the patient condition to determine if additional help is needed. Valuable time may be lost if additional personnel are not dispatched until the ambulance arrives and makes an assessment. Finally, even so called “routine” medical calls often require the patient to be lifted into the back of the ambulance. Even if the patient is not obese, it is safer for the patient and for the backs of the medics to have additional help to lift.
When the fire truck is not needed on an incident, it is released to go back into service as soon as possible. The cost of the fuel to have the extra help immediately available when it is needed is a small cost when compared to the loss of precious minutes when a life is on the line."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That may be the case at first, but I can guarantee you will not still need a driver forever.
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.
This. Although I don't understand the argument from the driver's side. They're upset about sometimes getting trips from uberx (and apparently making more doing so), so they're going to a place that pays less per trip and per hour? Something doesn't add up there. If there was a factual claim here, I have to believe that they'd be sharing their numbers. It would be trivial for them to show a decrease in earnings (they…
They're trying to convince Uber to stop doing what they don't want (according to them, they do not make more by accepting UberX fares, no matter what the company says) by denying them labour. In the meantime, they're doing work elsewhere, although are hoping not to permanently work there; they're hoping that Uber will cave in.
Denial of labour ("striking") is a tried-and-tested approach to persuading companies to do what the labourers want. They can't operate without labour, so labourers organise to deny them that until they get better working conditions/better pay/etc.
Assuming enough labourers agree to deny labour, this will work unless (a) what the labourers want, the company literally cannot provide without going bust, or (b) there are enough people looking for jobs and willing to put up with the bad terms that the company can hire them to replace the striking labourers.
This is a relatively simple idea, and has been a thing since the Industrial Revolution; I'm not really sure what you're not getting.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A municipality can't write a check every year to a white label service that sits between its citizens and the self-driving vehicles, maintenance facilities, and charging stations built to provide automated mobility? My city provides roads, fire, police, and other services in a pretty efficient manner. If yours doesn't, I suggest you campaign for more transparency.
> My city provides roads, fire, police, and other services in a pretty efficient manner. Mine doesn't. I saw a ladder truck, a fire engine, and multiple other vehicles show up when one guy passed out and need medical care.