#DeleteUber

[Gelston]

You folks heard of this? What do you think? Do you feel Uber is a bunch of scabs, even though they aren't part of the Taxi Cab union, and Lyft and Buses and all that still ran to the JFK Airport too?

[Androidpk]

Capitalism.

[Gelston]

Capitalism.

Yeah. I'm sure the people stranded at JFK are ardent Uber supporters now. Uber even cut off the automated surge pricing increase.

[Geijon Khyree]

I heard all of their employees trapped outside the country are being paid by the company. It's second hand though.

[Gelston]

I heard all of their employees trapped outside the country are being paid by the company. It's second hand though.

Yeah, 3m set aside to them... Few people are mentioning that though.

[drauz]

Never needed it. Friends at work almost exclusively use Uber though, taxis are way overpriced and Uber is reasonably priced they say.

[Gelston]

I think one of the biggest things this shows is that cabs are becoming more and more unneeded.

[Taernath]

Not a fan of taxis but Uber isn't entirely spotless in their practices either. Self driving cars will make it all irrelevant, eventually.

[Gelston]

Not a fan of taxis but Uber isn't entirely spotless in their practices either. Self driving cars will make it all irrelevant, eventually.

Yes and no. Self driving will still require Uber to purchase the vehicles. Way it is now, they don't really have to buy shit.

[Taernath]

Yes and no. Self driving will still require Uber to purchase the vehicles. Way it is now, they don't really have to buy shit.

I don't think Uber will be the only company using self driving cars. Once they become more feasible the playing field will be much more level.

[Gelston]

I don't think Uber will be the only company using self driving cars. Once they become more feasible the playing field will be much more level.

Mmmm... Humans are probably still cheaper. They are basically self driving cars that they don't have to pay for the gas and maintenance fees of, and have very little liability for.

[drauz]

Mmmm... Humans are probably still cheaper. They are basically self driving cars that they don't have to pay for the gas and maintenance fees of, and have very little liability for.

Don't they get sued for what their drivers do to passengers?

[Gelston]

Don't they get sued for what their drivers do to passengers?

Well, maybe. They have been sued, but they settled for undisclosed amounts before the judgement went through... So we aren't 100% sure. Still, I think you have a lot less liability over a human doing what humans do, as opposed to a 100% owned self driving car.

[Taernath]

Mmmm... Humans are probably still cheaper. They are basically self driving cars that they don't have to pay for the gas and maintenance fees of, and have very little liability for.

I'm doubtful they'll be able to skate around regulations forever.

[drauz]

Places like NY have insane taxi regulations, those medallions sell for millions if I'm not mistaken.

[Gelston]

Places like NY have insane taxi regulations, those medallions sell for millions if I'm not mistaken.

According to google, what used to sell for 1m is now at around 500k, due mostly to Uber.... Which has fucked a lot of independent cabbies who bought one for 1m with a loan.

[drauz]

According to google, what used to sell for 1m is now at around 500k, due mostly to Uber.... Which has fucked a lot of independent cabbies who bought one for 1m with a loan.

Well they have artificially suppressed the supply.

I don't blame Uber for trying to supply a wanted service at prices consumers are willing to pay.

[Gelston]

Well they have artificially suppressed the supply.

I don't blame Uber for trying to supply a wanted service at prices consumers are willing to pay.

Definitely not, and I have no idea why NYC ever kept the number of cabs low. From 1937, to 1996 they only allowed 11,000ish cabs. There are now 13000ish cabs. NYC is obviously a lot larger now then it was in the 30s, but only 2k more cabs. Just seems odd.

[BigWorm]

Uber is absolutely heading towards autonomous cars. They already have pilot programs up and running. They are reliant on their drivers to provide the supply half of the equation, but long term it is clear they are not interested in human drivers. Sure they will have to make a capital investment to buy cars, but they are already spending money helping drivers get car loans through their financing program. Lyft's brand is more about the experience (ie pink mustaches, you pick the music, "it's fun!"), so I could definitely see them sticking with human drivers for longer.

If you think that cabs/ride services are becoming unneeded, you haven't seen how much ridership Uber and Lyft have in so many cities around the world. As drauz mentioned, for some people taking an Uber pool to work is a price competitive option to taking public transportation. Even relying on Uber instead of buying a car is a valid option for some people who live in cities with decent public transportation. Uber is the ultimate designated driver. An Uber to the airport is usually a little more than half the price of a cab. When travelling, it can be a vastly superior option to renting a car.

Uber mostly gets out of being responsible for the drivers because they are technically contractors and not employees. This is one of the many things they've been sued for.

Many people underestimate how many money Uber has to spend. They've raised about $10b total and in 2016 alone they lost about $2b and didn't even blink an eye. They are focusing almost entirely on growth, and they are using their massive war chest to subsidize rides and fend off legal challenges. They are rushing to get into as many markets as possible to stake their claim which is why they are so willing to disregard regulation and risk legal issues.

At home, I pretty only use Uber for trips to the airport and a very rarely a ride home after a night out, but I use it a ton when I am travelling.

[BigWorm]

Definitely not, and I have no idea why NYC ever kept the number of cabs low. From 1937, to 1996 they only allowed 11,000ish cabs. There are now 13000ish cabs. NYC is obviously a lot larger now then it was in the 30s, but only 2k more cabs. Just seems odd.

Taxi commission care about keeping drivers happy, not riders. Until Uber came along, they didn't really have any competition so there was minimal incentive to do anything to improve the rider experience. Now they have a fire lit under their ass.

[Gelston]

If you think that cabs/ride services are becoming unneeded, you haven't seen how much ridership Uber and Lyft have in so many cities around the world. As drauz mentioned, for some people taking an Uber pool to work is a price competitive option to taking public transportation. Even relying on Uber instead of buying a car is a valid option for some people who live in cities with decent public transportation. Uber is the ultimate designated driver. An Uber to the airport is usually a little more than half the price of a cab. When travelling, it can be a vastly superior option to renting a car.

Uber mostly gets out of being responsible for the drivers because they are technically contractors and not employees. This is one of the many things they've been sued for.

I said Cabs, specifically. As in, being supplanted by Uber. You did nothing but back what I said.

[BigWorm]

I don't think Uber will be the only company using self driving cars. Once they become more feasible the playing field will be much more level.

Self driving cars that can handle the typical Uber ride are still pretty far away. City streets and human pickups are going to take a while to get right in a automated fashion. Its a solvable problem, but it will take some time.

However, Uber also recently acquired a company called Otto (http://ot.to/). They make self-driving long haul trucks. We've worked out most of the kinks in highway driving for autonomous vehicles. While they start running into the same issues that Uber pickups face once they get close to their destination, that just means that they'll use humans for the last mile. The big question to me is whether they will have a human in the truck the entire time who takes over when they get to an unfamiliar destination city or whether the cab will be empty until a local driver hops in and takes over. My guess is probably the latter, but it may take a while to get there. Either way, I think this is probably going to put a lot of truckers out of work.

[BigWorm]

I said Cabs, specifically. As in, being supplanted by Uber. You did nothing but back what I said.

Cool, so we agree. You don't have to be so angry about it dude.

[Gelston]

Either way, I think this is probably going to put a lot of truckers out of work.

The Truckers have a pretty powerful lobby. I don't think that'll come anytime soon.


Cool, so we agree. You don't have to be so angry about it dude.

That wasn't angry....

[Neveragain]

I drove for Uber until I got the bonus they offer then quit. They got pretty pissy, they spam you with texts to get you back out on the road. One of the last texts read something like "Remember Uber doesn't need you" I was like WTF.

[Gelston]

I drove for Uber until I got the bonus they offer then quit. They got pretty pissy, they spam you with texts to get you back out on the road. One of the last texts read something like "Remember Uber doesn't need you" I was like WTF.

I've heard some bad words about Uber from Lyft drivers. They said they like driving for Lyft better... Then again, I heard some people drive for both, so whatever.

[drauz]

Self driving cars that can handle the typical Uber ride are still pretty far away. City streets and human pickups are going to take a while to get right in a automated fashion. Its a solvable problem, but it will take some time.

However, Uber also recently acquired a company called Otto (http://ot.to/). They make self-driving long haul trucks. We've worked out most of the kinks in highway driving for autonomous vehicles. While they start running into the same issues that Uber pickups face once they get close to their destination, that just means that they'll use humans for the last mile. The big question to me is whether they will have a human in the truck the entire time who takes over when they get to an unfamiliar destination city or whether the cab will be empty until a local driver hops in and takes over. My guess is probably the latter, but it may take a while to get there. Either way, I think this is probably going to put a lot of truckers out of work.

I imagine the trucks would have to go to a close location and someone would have to actually put them on the dock.

[BigWorm]

The Truckers have a pretty powerful lobby. I don't think that'll come anytime soon.

UAW/USW/UMW/etc thought the same thing and look where they're at now. More so than many other unions, the power of the teamsters has always been in their large numbers and national reach. This is going to be harder and harder to keep up when companies start switching to autonomous vehicles and they keep losing members. If you talk to a teamster now, you are likely to hear about all the Canadian and Mexican drivers on the highway due to NAFTA, but IMHO self-driving vehicles are going to hit them much harder.

[drauz]

Self driving cars that can handle the typical Uber ride are still pretty far away. City streets and human pickups are going to take a while to get right in a automated fashion. Its a solvable problem, but it will take some time.

The only reason I could see there being a need for actual people behind the wheel is for blind or disabled passengers. They wouldn't be allowed to discriminate their passengers and the blind person wouldn't be able to find the car by themselves, I think.

[BigWorm]

I imagine the trucks would have to go to a close location and someone would have to actually put them on the dock.

Right, but is that more likely to be someone who works at the dock or someone who rides in that truck the entire way there? Even if it is someone who rides the entire time, the truck can be driving while they are sleeping unlike the strict rules drivers have now for how many hours they are allowed to work. This alone seems likely to reduce the total number of drivers needed overall by a meaningful amount.

[BigWorm]

The only reason I could see there being a need for actual people behind the wheel is for blind or disabled passengers. They wouldn't be allowed to discriminate their passengers and the blind person wouldn't be able to find the car by themselves, I think.

They've already carved out a product line for these situations, called Uber Access (https://accessibility.uber.com/). They charge the same amount as their lowest cost option, so they must be heavily subsidizing this. I think this is probably a pretty small part of their business.

[Neveragain]

I've heard some bad words about Uber from Lyft drivers. They said they like driving for Lyft better... Then again, I heard some people drive for both, so whatever.

It was OK when I started out, then they just kept adding more and more drivers to the area and it became a waste of time. I worked a college campus area, I don't deal well with really drunk people and that was most of the business.

[drauz]

Right, but is that more likely to be someone who works at the dock or someone who rides in that truck the entire way there? Even if it is someone who rides the entire time, the truck can be driving while they are sleeping unlike the strict rules drivers have now for how many hours they are allowed to work. This alone seems likely to reduce the total number of drivers needed overall by a meaningful amount.

Oh I was agreeing, it would be dumb to pay someone for the whole trip for 5 minutes of work. It would definitely be someone at the pickup and drop off locations. Was just saying some of those places are super tight and I don't see the navigation system being able to handle those tight confinements anytime soon.

[drauz]

They've already carved out a product line for these situations, called Uber Access (https://accessibility.uber.com/). They charge the same amount as their lowest cost option, so they must be heavily subsidizing this. I think this is probably a pretty small part of their business.

I mean for driverless cars. They would have the most trouble finding the actual car. Those seem like whats in place with a driver in the car. Even when they went to driverless cars for the majority of the fleet, they would keep a few cars with drivers for the people with disabilities.

[BigWorm]

We are agreeing again I think. They will probably have to keep some drivers for programs like Uber Access, but the vast majority of their fleet will probably go driverless imho. I could also see them keeping drivers in a high end option like Uber Black.

[Ceyrin]

The Truckers have a pretty powerful lobby. I don't think that'll come anytime soon.



That wasn't angry....

He needed you to understand that he was right, and right first.

[Back]

I had a discussion about #deleteuber with a friend of mine on FB. I thought that all it amounted to was armchair pseudo activism. "People are protesting at JFK. Cabs are too. But Uber is giving rides! I'll delete my app!" which is pretty much self serving bullshit.

My friend then claimed it was because the CEO of Uber is "colluding" with Trump by being on his business council along with the CEOs of GE, IBM, Wal-Mart and a whole list of major companies. I told my friend thats a lot to boycott.

So I gave him a list of all companies Trump has ties to directly or indirectly so that my friend could boycott them all.

This is a google spreadsheet --------> https://grabyourwallet.org/ (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgrabyourwallet.org%2F&h=ATMJ1ux10p_s6JITE5iHlZkiPFubo6oo48CEZ5HAaUyepaTT pDKEQheY5IS_qT5nktWDxLz1dNn-naYFHaagv08XRiPvA54udOTP3rRXy8wNNFf4Lf2F9awt0QwfcE BdLM8)

[Neveragain]

I had a discussion about #deleteuber with a friend of mine on FB. I thought that all it amounted to was armchair pseudo activism. "People are protesting at JFK. Cabs are too. But Uber is giving rides! I'll delete my app!" which is pretty much self serving bullshit.

My friend then claimed it was because the CEO of Uber is "colluding" with Trump by being on his business council along with the CEOs of GE, IBM, Wal-Mart and a whole list of major companies. I told my friend thats a lot to boycott.

So I gave him a list of all companies Trump has ties to directly or indirectly so that my friend could boycott them all.

This is a google spreadsheet --------> https://grabyourwallet.org/ (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgrabyourwallet.org%2F&h=ATMJ1ux10p_s6JITE5iHlZkiPFubo6oo48CEZ5HAaUyepaTT pDKEQheY5IS_qT5nktWDxLz1dNn-naYFHaagv08XRiPvA54udOTP3rRXy8wNNFf4Lf2F9awt0QwfcE BdLM8)

I totally would have clicked that link if it read grabyourwalletbythepussy.org

[Archigeek]

Definitely not, and I have no idea why NYC ever kept the number of cabs low. From 1937, to 1996 they only allowed 11,000ish cabs. There are now 13000ish cabs. NYC is obviously a lot larger now then it was in the 30s, but only 2k more cabs. Just seems odd.

They suppress the number of cabs because the streets are often at near-grid lock the way it is now. They suppress the number of cars on the streets in a lot of ways, not just the number of cabs. NYC is not any larger than it was in the 30's; it's the same size, with basically the same streets.

[kutter]

They suppress the number of cabs because the streets are often at near-grid lock the way it is now. They suppress the number of cars on the streets in a lot of ways, not just the number of cars. NYC is not any larger than it was in the 30's; it's the same size, with basically the same streets.

While true, the understanding of dealing with traffic, ie. the actual engineering of traffic patterns has improved dramatically. So while there may be more cars, the ability to move them around in a more efficient manner has increased dramatically. This of course is not withstanding the inconsiderate asshats that consider themselves so important that they have to fuck up the works for everyone else and do shit like block intersections when lights change.

[Archigeek]

While true, the understanding of dealing with traffic, ie. the actual engineering of traffic patterns has improved dramatically. So while there may be more cars, the ability to move them around in a more efficient manner has increased dramatically. This of course is not withstanding the inconsiderate asshats that consider themselves so important that they have to fuck up the works for everyone else and do shit like block intersections when lights change.

I've worked with one of the most well respected traffic engineers in NYC, Sam Schwartz, (aka: Gridlock Sam), and Sam would agree with you that the engineering has improved, in fact he's a big part of that improvement. That doesn't change why NYC tries to limit cars on the street. In fact, I'd wager that limiting cars is part and parcel with traffic engineering in NYC.

If you're curious, I worked with Sam on the Costco store in Spanish Harlem on 116th St, where we had to fight tooth and nail to be allowed to build a parking garage, which is the opposite of how it is in most cities where they insist that you provide x parking stalls per square foot of building. In NYC, they don't want more parking stalls because more parking stalls means more cars, and they want less cars. Take the subway, or walk. Those are the ways that most New Yorkers prefer to get around if they can.