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

The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#61

Post by fminor »

snitko wrote: post #23
fminor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia introduced legislation around taxis in 2011 because customers were routinely being ripped off. snitko's post is based on bad info.

That's first hand info. I live in Russia. You go out any time of day, raise a hand and chances are, a private car would stop. Taxis are limited to by-phone-orders, but are also very cheap due to a very light regulation. Not once was I ripped off or heard of anyone being ripped off.

If one of these random cars gets into an accident and you're hurt, who pays for your medical care?

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#62

Post by [deleted] »

baddox wrote: post #59
lazylizard wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if its just sharing the car, then there's already carpools? uber is a way for people without a cab license to operate a cab service?

Of course there are already carpools. Those generally imply that driver and passengers were already taking the same route, and they all usually know one another. Ridesharing services extend that to rides the driver would not otherwise be taking. Again, what's being shared is the car itself.

[deleted]

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#63

Post by snitko »

fminor wrote: post #61
snitko wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's first hand info. I live in Russia. You go out any time of day, raise a hand and chances are, a private car would stop. Taxis are limited to by-phone-orders, but are also very cheap due to a very light regulation. Not once was I ripped off or heard of anyone being ripped off.

If one of these random cars gets into an accident and you're hurt, who pays for your medical care?

I do. What's wrong with obtaining an insurance? It's my choice. You want an insured taxi service - get one and pay more. I want cheaper taxi and I don't want government to mess with my choices.

It seems to me, westerners became so helpless and dependent on third parties (and government), it amazes me. Especially in the US. It used to the land of self sufficient entrepreneurial people. Now it's just a nanny state.

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#64

Post by foobarqux »

wutbrodo wrote: post #58
foobarqux wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume demand in major cities doesn't really change that much so that the schedule is announced and updated very rarely (similar to public transportation). Yes, you would occasionally sacrifice some availability but I think people prefer that trade-off.

> I assume demand in major cities doesn't really change that much so that the schedule is announced and updated very rarely (similar to public transportation). This is way way way off. Looking just at my experience in San Francisco: weather patterns (in detail, across different parts of the city), public transit issues, tourism, events, fluctuations in the city's population and travel across various holidays/festival…

> It's not market fundamentalism to acknowledge that what the market is good at is this sort of massively decentralized, million-variable price optimization

Note that Uber isn't a free market because the drivers aren't setting prices.

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#65

Post by fminor »

snitko wrote: post #63
fminor wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one of these random cars gets into an accident and you're hurt, who pays for your medical care?

I do. What's wrong with obtaining an insurance? It's my choice. You want an insured taxi service - get one and pay more. I want cheaper taxi and I don't want government to mess with my choices. It seems to me, westerners became so helpless and dependent on third parties (and government), it amazes me. Especially in the US. It used to the land of self sufficient entrepreneurial people. Now it's just a nanny state.

I was only asking because in the US, if you're a passenger in improperly insured car, you're pretty much fucked.

Private health insurance won't cover you. The driver's auto insurance won't cover you. Your private auto insurance won't cover you.

There simply isn't a generally available american insurance policy which provides coverage for catastrophic injuries that occur while in a private vehicle that's being driven commercially.

It saddens (but doesn't surprise) me that you felt free to jump to an unsupported, bigoted conclusion, and then to spew hatred at me. Typical HN. Asshole.

Re: The Anti-Uber Way of Disrupting Transportation, Politely

#66

Post by wutbrodo »

foobarqux wrote: post #64
wutbrodo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume demand in major cities doesn't really change that much so that the schedule is announced and updated very rarely (similar to public transportation). This is way way way off. Looking just at my experience in San Francisco: weather patterns (in detail, across different parts of the city), public transit issues, tourism, events, fluctuations in the city's population and travel across various holidays/festival…

> It's not market fundamentalism to acknowledge that what the market is good at is this sort of massively decentralized, million-variable price optimization Note that Uber isn't a free market because the drivers aren't setting prices.

Yea for sure, but it's not a binary distinction. "Allowing the price to float" is the concept we're discussing in general, and Uber is further along the spectrum towards a fully-floating price.
Post reply on HN