In my eyes Uber and Lyft have lost all moral high ground. These companies are just not following regulations to make more money. This money was going towards drivers, but it's clear that that's no longer the case. If you have any moral qualms about Walmart's treatment of employees, I don't see how you cannot have issues with Uber.
If I can commute across the bay so can everyone else.
Of course, in this case I think it's pretty clear that Lyft and Uber are subsidizing the rides and paying drivers much more than the cost of the ride. If wealthy investors want to pay people to drive me around, I'm game.
Plus there's Sidecar, which will surely die soon because nobody even knows it exists.
Maybe. But maybe instead:
Routing and capital intensity (lack of car idle-times) continues to improve. Shared-rides in larger-vehicles (vans) grow in proportion and convenience. Cities expand pick-up/drop-off zones for car services. Attempts at monopoly price hikes spur freelance/coop/upstart competitors along the most profitable corridors, able to snipe Uber rides via overlay apps/services. So costs and prices stay low long enough until...
Driverless vehicles become the major mode of urban short-trip car travel. Driver costs are eliminated, insurance costs reduced, and capacity/intensity further improved – with high-capacity vehicles that tirelessly reposition without breaks/distractions. Automated rides stay nearly as cheap as 'mass' transit on dedicated rails, indefinitely.
Price wars can be horrible for consumers, that's why some forms of them are illegal[0]. If Lyft and Uber talk to each other about gutting prices to put cabs out of business it's illegal. If they read the same econ books and independently come to the conclusion that it's the best thing to do, it's legal.
We regulate the cab industry to insulate it from this type of thing, because once the high prices and bad service that come with market concentration happen it may be months or longer before better options become available.
Needless to say, not a happy customer at this point.
I have a lot of strong opinions about why Uber is a godsend for people with disabilities that still let them get into a car. It grates on me when people bring up "the disabled" in support of any sort of public transit, when my experience has always been that it may work, or be half assed, and the perspective of the agencies when you ask for change (like, say, design a bus such that everyone gets on the same way, or a train station that only uses elevators (with hidden away backup stairs) such that if they are broken people will care) is to be grateful to have been invited to the party at all.In fact, that seems like a great policy idea.
So, my commute isn't bad by any means but I decided to give Lyft Line a shot to see if I could do any better. The first day I tried hailing one in the morning, the app hung up looking for drivers; it said 1 minute to match with a driver but I waited 3 before quitting the app and deciding to take Muni. That afternoon, I tried again but ran into the same issue. The next afternoon, I was finally able to line up a ride but had to wait 10 minutes for the driver to get to me. Once he did and we were on our way, I had the joyful experience of sitting in traffic for blocks on end while watching Munis zip by in the designated lanes beside us. Not including wait time, the ride took around 20 minutes (double my normal commute time).
I'm sure there are some routes for which Line is a better option than public transportation, but I personally have a much better experience on Muni than I did with Line. I get why they're focused on rush hour; a service like Line requires a critical mass of people to use the app concurrently in order to make it work. But, the downside of this is that the times when it reaches this point are the times when traffic is the worst and public transportation offers a superior alternative in many cases. We'll see if this ends up taking off, but I know I won't be using it for my commute. Maybe this would be better suited for one-off events like Outside Lands, Giants games etc. but I'd imagine they'd run into the same problems.
It’s heartening to see a company just focused on the “user” and not just world domination.
This isn't because the company is "focused on the user", it's because the company is focused on the competition. If that goes away (unlikely for Lyft to see Uber go away) don't expect high standards.
This attitudinal difference is most acute when the driver drives for both: they generally like Lyft better for how the company treats them but are also on Uber to ensure steadier business.
However, government is still essential to deciding the “rules of the game” and in interpreting and enforcing those rules.
I think long term something like robot driven 6-rider lyft-line style vans is probably the future of public transit (hopefully) :)
Ron Swanson, is that you?
Edit: thanks for downvoting a valid point. It's weird that HN doesn't see it for what it is.
