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

Save uberX in Seattle

action.uber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: Save uberX in Seattle

#11

Post by [deleted] »

mendicantB wrote: post #6
zobzu wrote: post #3

well, i use uber often and i'll say it out loud: fuck taxis. I don't care. I used to use taxis and buses for anything else than commuting. I don't even need the later with the price of uberx. uberx is cheaper, faster, more reliable. cars are nicer, drivers are very professional, all the time. uberx is always there for you, you don't need to wave at empty taxis that may or may not take you in, and wait 30min because y…

Don't forget to add shake you down for cash vs hit a button on your phone.

[deleted]

Re: Save uberX in Seattle

#12

Post by jacalata »

yajoe wrote: post #9

Don't have a dog in the fight, but interesting how the uberX page doesn't mention specifics of the proposal beyond "put hundreds of drivers out of business and effectively shut UberX down." Where are the links? The specifics? The actual proposal may be found on the city's site [1]. It also would help to provide some context for the types of changes, which both an opinionated summary from the local newspaper [2] and s…

I don't remember anyone talking about a cap on the number of TNCs, you may be confusing that with the very large outcry over a cap on number of drivers. From memory (of the original bill) the drivers are able to get the full for-hire driver license with more intensive testing and then the 16 hour cap doesn't apply? And uber/lyft/etc all refuse to say how many drivers they have now, so fuck 'em, 300 is probably enough.

edit: there might have been an argument that capping the number of drivers would de facto prevent new companies from starting because all the slots would be taken by existing ones?

Re: Save uberX in Seattle

#13

Post by doktrin »

Uber puts out one of these press releases every time they run up against a possible regulatory hurdle. They consistently reek of misplaced indignation, and this one is no exception.

Re: Save uberX in Seattle

#14

Post by ROFISH »

anigbrowl wrote: post #7

Hmm, I spoke up for Uber at SF MTA meetings and made strong arguments for them here against the incumbent taxi monopooly when they were getting off the ground. Although I have never used the service, I believe it provided much-needed competition. On the other hand, I'm disgusted by Uber's bullshit legal argument that drivers are only employed by Uber during the time they have a passenger in the back, as a tactic to a…

I agree. The insurance situation alone is, well, strange.

* Personal insurance does not cover commercial driving. UberX only requires personal insurance to be a driver.

* Uber's own insurance only covers when a passenger is in the car.

* Most insurance companies would consider being "online" as a commercial event. At the very least, Uber telling the driver to drive to a specific destination to pick someone up is definitely a commercial event.

* Therefore in my view of things, many UberX drivers are driving without proper insurance, a misdemeanor offense.

This can be solved by either making UberX/TNC drivers carry commercial insurance at the driver's own cost, or making Uber/TNC's blanket insurance cover the entire time a driver is on-duty as if the driver had full-coverage commercial insurance.

Re: Save uberX in Seattle

#16

Post by rahimnathwani »

ROFISH wrote: post #14
anigbrowl wrote: post #7

Hmm, I spoke up for Uber at SF MTA meetings and made strong arguments for them here against the incumbent taxi monopooly when they were getting off the ground. Although I have never used the service, I believe it provided much-needed competition. On the other hand, I'm disgusted by Uber's bullshit legal argument that drivers are only employed by Uber during the time they have a passenger in the back, as a tactic to a…

I agree. The insurance situation alone is, well, strange. * Personal insurance does not cover commercial driving. UberX only requires personal insurance to be a driver. * Uber's own insurance only covers when a passenger is in the car. * Most insurance companies would consider being "online" as a commercial event. At the very least, Uber telling the driver to drive to a specific destination to pick someone up is defi…

many UberX drivers are driving without proper insurance, a misdemeanor offense

And if that is the case, then Uber's current business model requires that drivers do this. I wonder how much it would cost Uber to increase the insurance coverage such that there is no doubt that a driver is properly insured at all times, and why they have no done this so far.

Re: Save uberX in Seattle

#18

Post by argumentum »

jmduke wrote: post #4
zobzu wrote: post #3

well, i use uber often and i'll say it out loud: fuck taxis. I don't care. I used to use taxis and buses for anything else than commuting. I don't even need the later with the price of uberx. uberx is cheaper, faster, more reliable. cars are nicer, drivers are very professional, all the time. uberx is always there for you, you don't need to wave at empty taxis that may or may not take you in, and wait 30min because y…

Honest question, and I don't mean this in an accusatory fashion: how often do you use the bus?

It may be an honest question, but how is it relevant? Clearly if you're Ubering, you either can't or don't want to use the bus for these trips.
Post reply on HN