Save uberX in Seattle(action.uber.org)
action.uber.org
Save uberX in Seattle
https://action.uber.org/seattle/
17 comments
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?
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?
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 avoid liability in the case of an UberX driver that hit and killed a 6 year old child in SF last New Year's Eve. If they're logged into your app and checking for fares, then it's little different from being available for despatch in the same manner as a legacy cab (see http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Uber-sued-over-girl-s-... for a summary).
Uber is trying to have its cake and eat it here. I'm not inclined to support them if they're going to build their business model around offloading externalities onto the public.
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 avoid liability in the case of an UberX driver that hit and killed a 6 year old child in SF last New Year's Eve. If they're logged into your app and checking for fares, then it's little different from being available for despatch in the same manner as a legacy cab (see http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Uber-sued-over-girl-s-... for a summary).
Uber is trying to have its cake and eat it here. I'm not inclined to support them if they're going to build their business model around offloading externalities onto the public.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
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 you're not at the right place. uber is there in 5. always.
So yeah, fuck regular taxis. Sorry guys. You don't cut it anymore.
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 you're not at the right place. uber is there in 5. always.
So yeah, fuck regular taxis. Sorry guys. You don't cut it anymore.
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.
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.
Uber is great for getting a lift right away on a friday night. If cab companies weren't run so dirt cheaply they would have a quality dispatch system like uber has.
However uber fails for the early am scheduled ride for things like plane rides. I can't depend that uber is possibly going to get me a lift. Taxis DO show up on time super early am.
Last two times I've flow early I've tried to get a uber, and both times failed to see a single one on the app. Told uber about it, they said "we dunno we had plenty of cars"
However uber fails for the early am scheduled ride for things like plane rides. I can't depend that uber is possibly going to get me a lift. Taxis DO show up on time super early am.
Last two times I've flow early I've tried to get a uber, and both times failed to see a single one on the app. Told uber about it, they said "we dunno we had plenty of cars"
Given this is for commercial interests and uber's prior similar gambits, I find the use of the .org domain in bad taste.
Maybe that is just me.
Maybe that is just me.
seattle appears to be the focus of large astroturfing of comment pages and council meetings on behalf of lyft and uber. the problem of an wild-west/unregulated for-hire-car industry has a solid history in all major u.s. cities. in the end, despite some vehement haters of the yellow cab hegemony (and astroturfers, of which there are many with lots of money backing), some solid citizen protections must be kept in place or it devolves into hazardous polluting uninsured lawyer-fest http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/goldy/Author?oid=4904583
Yawn... this is a company that has raised millions. They can do their own lobbying.
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 somewhat impartial summary from a local tech site [3] do fairly well.
For the tl;dr who don't want to click away:
1. Seattle defines uberX, Lyft, etc as Transportation Network Companies (TNC) and declares all drivers as "for-hire" drivers, which is a legal distinction that means Seattle can regulate them.
2. TNCs are taxed at $50k for first year. Second year is the greater of $50k or .35% of gross revenue.
3. No more than 300 drivers may be associated with each TNC (it's a permit lottery regime, if you are curious), and each driver can work only 16 hours.
Yes, that means that each TNC is limited to 300 x 16 = 4800 hours of work per week. A previous proposal had a limit of 100 drivers [5]
4. Drivers can't double dip: They can't both drive for-hire cars and also do uberX on the side. They also can't work for both uberX and Lyft.
5. I can't find a cap on the number of TNCs that will be licensed, even though that seems to be one of the (perhaps past?) sticking points.
6. Rates may either be flat-rate between preset zones OR subject to RCW Chapter 19.94. RCW Chapter 19.94 [4] defines appropriate measurement devices that may be used with commerce, which I think precludes most cell phones... uberX would need to install meters it seems.
Details likely only I will find interesting:
1. TNCs have to have valid insurance for all vehicles, and this insurance looks like it is stricter than what uberX and Lyft currently have.
2. TNCs must have an office in Seattle that is open and personally staffed all business days between nine a.m. (9:00 a.m.) and five p.m. (5:00 p.m.) with toll-free number
3. The TNC shall submit to the Director a report detailing all rides that were requested but not accepted by TNC drivers. The report shall include the location and zip code of each rejected ride. There are penalties for discriminating against underserved zip codes.
4. 30% increase in the total number of taxicabs, including an immediate increase of 8% "today. "
[1] http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/taxis.html
[2] http://blogs.seattletimes.com/opinionnw/2014/02/14/seattle-u...
[3] http://www.geekwire.com/2014/seattle-delays-ride-sharing-vot...
[4] http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.94
[5] http://www.geekwire.com/2013/sidecar-uber-express-disappoint...
Edit: Formatting and spelling