31–40 of 41 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a Vancouver resident and the transit is great. The Skytrain is spotty in its coverage. No East/West travel, which I believe is what they're referring to. Also after using Uber in Toronto, I am super jealous and want it here.
Jealousy is one thing, but do you really need it?
While I disagree with the idea that Uber should have to charge $75/ride as a limousine service, it's honestly refreshing to see a place that doesn't let them flout regulation.
No, it's really not. First off, it's not unique: there's a bunch of places where they're outright banned or prevented from operating, such as Austin. Second, forcing them to price rides at $75 a ride is just a tactic to drive them out of business altogether, without the government doing anything to actually make the situation better for its citizens. What enlightened local governments would do is figure out how to en…
Yes, it really is.
> forcing them to price rides at $75 a ride is just a tactic to drive them out of business altogether, without the government doing anything to actually make the situation better for its citizens
They were classified as limos. I said I disagree with that. It's not some great conspiracy to target Uber, it's an application of the law. Would you rather they get lumped in with Taxi's and forced to follow all those regs?
> What enlightened local governments would do is figure out how to enact some sensible regulations on these new Uber-like services, and then let them set their own prices and compete fairly.
I agree. I support any efforts to bring in law changes to let Uber operate.
I don't support letting them just jump into the market and do what they want.
I don't understand the apprehension to using public transportation, especially in a city that has a genuinely good system. If the issue is time, fair enough, Uber could be better, but with good enough planning you can get almost anywhere with buses, the Skytrain, and just walking. If you have an absolutely urgent need to get somewhere, I'd argue that you didn't plan well or you can hire a driver for the day, because…
> I don't understand the apprehension to using public transportation I use public transportation twice a day every weekday but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also, occasionally, need to have need of Uber. They serve different needs, is that so hard to understand? > If you have an absolutely urgent need to get somewhere, I'd argue that you didn't plan well If only there was a service that existed to help you get somewhe…
Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to another. They have different uses, sure, one being for something time sensitive and one for something potentially not, but they do not serve different needs. It's not fair to conflate need with want, because while humans generally need to get from one point to another, they don't need to use Uber. There are other options.
> Somebody should turn that into a business and make money.
That business model exists already, it's called a taxicab/livery service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand the apprehension to using public transportation I use public transportation twice a day every weekday but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also, occasionally, need to have need of Uber. They serve different needs, is that so hard to understand? > If you have an absolutely urgent need to get somewhere, I'd argue that you didn't plan well If only there was a service that existed to help you get somewhe…
> They serve different needs, is that so hard to understand? Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to another. They have different uses, sure, one being for something time sensitive and one for something potentially not, but they do not serve different needs. It's not fair to conflate need with want, because while humans generally need to get from one point to another, they don't need to…
By that argument, you don't need airplanes either because we have greyhound. They don't serve the same need, they serve similar needs.
> They don't need to use Uber. There are other options.
So what? We don't need transit either, everybody could just take 2-4 hours to walk to work. What's the difference? I'm taking your poor argument and extending to the absurd conclusions that result from it. Why must we have fewer poorer options when we could have more better options? Is that not progress?
> That business model exists already, it's called a taxicab/livery service.
Unfortunately, in Vancouver, that service is a monopoly that has too few vehicles to serve the population. It has poor customer service that more often than not fails to deliver. If this were a free market environment, competition would come in and solve the problem but it is not.
Uber could be a better business model, could it not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They serve different needs, is that so hard to understand? Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to another. They have different uses, sure, one being for something time sensitive and one for something potentially not, but they do not serve different needs. It's not fair to conflate need with want, because while humans generally need to get from one point to another, they don't need to…
> Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to another. By that argument, you don't need airplanes either because we have greyhound. They don't serve the same need, they serve similar needs. > They don't need to use Uber. There are other options. So what? We don't need transit either, everybody could just take 2-4 hours to walk to work. What's the difference? I'm taking your poor argument and…
I'm also not saying that there must be fewer options, and I'm saying there are other options, not one single option (e.g. walking). I'm saying that it's not necessary for Uber to exist because other options currently exist that fill the exact same niche, even if those other options are potentially not as efficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, because they serve the same need -- to get you from one place to another. By that argument, you don't need airplanes either because we have greyhound. They don't serve the same need, they serve similar needs. > They don't need to use Uber. There are other options. So what? We don't need transit either, everybody could just take 2-4 hours to walk to work. What's the difference? I'm taking your poor argument and…
Again, from walking to buses to airplanes, they serve the same need, to get you from one point to another. How those methods do it is independent of their purpose, even if one is demonstrably better at serving the need. Arguably the only major difference in need is that it's not physically possible to get to some places with some methods of transportation, e.g. you cannot get from San Francisco to England using a bus…
In theory, we could replace restaurants and kitchens with Soylent. I wouldn't want to do that, because food tastes good and I like having that option.
On the list of things that are useful, Uber is very high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's really not. First off, it's not unique: there's a bunch of places where they're outright banned or prevented from operating, such as Austin. Second, forcing them to price rides at $75 a ride is just a tactic to drive them out of business altogether, without the government doing anything to actually make the situation better for its citizens. What enlightened local governments would do is figure out how to en…
> No, it's really not Yes, it really is. > forcing them to price rides at $75 a ride is just a tactic to drive them out of business altogether, without the government doing anything to actually make the situation better for its citizens They were classified as limos. I said I disagree with that. It's not some great conspiracy to target Uber, it's an application of the law. Would you rather they get lumped in with Tax…
No, I'd rather the local governments get their heads out of their asses and enact some sensible regulation instead of trying to kill the golden goose that's finally giving people a service that actually works well and that they like to use, unlike the taxis, and at a price that's affordable, unlike limos. Uber is a great thing, but it's in uncharted territory regulation-wise and does need some regulation to make sure that employees (yes, that's what they are when they work for you) are treated fairly, that issues about insurance are known and consistent, etc. I don't see anyone attempting to do this at all.
>I don't support letting them just jump into the market and do what they want.
What's your alternative? The problem is that governments actively refuse to govern properly, and instead work to protect incumbents. If Uber waited around for good regulations to be enacted, they'd be waiting decades, if it got done at all (in reality, it wouldn't). The only way to force governments to act is to do what they've done. As the old saying goes, "it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission". There's a reason this saying came about: if you ask permission, most likely you'll be told "no", because people (especially organizations, and most especially governments) hate change. If you go and do it anyway, then the other parties just have to deal with it and are forced to work with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, it's really not Yes, it really is. > forcing them to price rides at $75 a ride is just a tactic to drive them out of business altogether, without the government doing anything to actually make the situation better for its citizens They were classified as limos. I said I disagree with that. It's not some great conspiracy to target Uber, it's an application of the law. Would you rather they get lumped in with Tax…
>They were classified as limos. I said I disagree with that. It's not some great conspiracy to target Uber, it's an application of the law. Would you rather they get lumped in with Taxi's and forced to follow all those regs? No, I'd rather the local governments get their heads out of their asses and enact some sensible regulation instead of trying to kill the golden goose that's finally giving people a service that a…
Pressure governing bodies to bring in regulation to allow you to operate legally.
Uber isn't some small business fighting against an unfair market. It's a multi-billion dollar multinational corporation that deliberately flouts regulation to attempt to gain a foothold and then strongarm their way to a favorable outcome under threat of pulling service and pissing off voters.
He could have rented a car for around $50/day for a compact. Want something more flashy? Mustang Convertible for around $80/day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're not used to public transport in your home city, you probably wouldn't know how to use it in a different city. For example, you can send a text to any bus-stop, and immediately get a list of upcoming bus times. They were also fully integrated to Map apps. This is the sorest spot of "Uber culture" for me: wealthy and educated people who would put skills and pressure into keeping public transit sharp and usabl…
It's not the job of wealthy and educated people to use their skills to fix public transit, any more than it's my job as a private citizen on the East Coast to reform the police department in LA (take your pick which "LA"). That job belongs to the local government. If the local government is incompetent at running public transit in an efficient manner so that both locals and visitors can easily use it to get around, t…