7 ms·

Perhaps that should be phrased "the availability of drivers using a ride sharing platform has helped reduce drunk driving accidents." If Uber doesn't accept dr

Perhaps that should be phrased "the availability of drivers using a ride sharing platform has helped reduce drunk driving accidents." If Uber doesn't accept drivers as employees and isn't responsible for their actions, it shouldn't be credited with their collective contributions to a safer society.

webwielder2 10y ago
Huh? "Employees" are a matter of legality, not causality.
lend000 10y ago
That's a strangely bitter way of looking at things. Ride sharing companies, including Uber, have brought tremendous benefits to society, and drunk driving prevention is probably at the top of the list. Uber has made the largest difference of all these companies because it has been the most aggressive in disrupting rent-seekers like taxi companies. The drivers and the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy should also be credited, but not to the discredit of the companies that created the ride-sharing platforms that made it all possible.
- jellicle 10y ago
  Incorrect. Independent contractors cheerfully 'sharing' their vehicles have made 100% of the difference; Uber does not employ anyone to drive anywhere. The number of drunks driven home by Uber employees is ~0. Thanks independent contractors!
  - jryle70 10y ago
    This is disingenuous at best. Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market? It's fair to criticize Uber's aggressive and shady practices, it's also fair to acknowledge the enormous changes that it has brought about to the transportation landscape.
    - giaour 10y ago
      > Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market? A fair number were. I lived in Harlem from 2008-2011, and we often had to hail off-duty black car service vehicles due to the dearth of medallion cabs outside of central Manhattan. These were commonly known as "gypsy cabs," and the drivers were picking people up to make money on the side. I believe it was technically illegal but very, very common.
    - strictnein 10y ago
      Actually most taxi drivers are independent contractors, which makes it even clearer that Uber added something to the equation, and always makes it kind of funny how upset people are about Uber drivers not being full time employees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/29/labor-boards-shift-in-legal-interpretation-could-allow-thousands-of-taxi-drivers-to-unionize/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/29/labor...
      - IanCal 10y ago
        I'm happy with uber having contractors, workers or employees (three distinct categories in the UK). What I'm not happy with is them picking and choosing the parts of those definitions which benefit themselves. I don't think it's particularly amusing to be upset at a multi-billion dollar company trying to skirt employment laws.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    By that logic, has then the AppStore not created any apps, Ebay not sold any goods, Kickstarter not created any products, and GoFundMe not funded any projects?
- billions 10y ago
  Unfortunately this does not play into the mass media narrative of today. Hopefully HN can evaluate statistics more objectively
- username223 10y ago
  Perhaps, but don't call it "sharing," because sharing is reciprocal. If it were actually sharing, you would be driving for Uber as much as the people who chauffeur you around. Call them what they are: unlicensed taxis. Also, "the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy" is just another way of saying "many people are desperate enough to do sub-minimum-wage piecework."
  - zaroth 10y ago
    Platforms should provide the opportunity to monetize your time in all sorts of ways. Ridesharing is just one example of ways people do it, and anything that adds liquidity to the overall ability to monetize time and existing capital is a good thing. Everything else is just supply and demand. I don't see why we should stop anyone from ridesharing with the Uber platform, as long as the terms are clear enough. People are expected to think and make their own best judgments with these sorts of things, to some extent.
  - nikcub 10y ago
    > because sharing is reciprocal. This didn't sound right so I looked it up[0] No mention of it being reciprocal - which makes sense for almost every use of "sharing" I can think of When I share my sandwich I'm not receiving any other sandwich from anybody else (perhaps if I was I'd share more often) Anyway, its not easy to defend Uber and I don't want to be labeled that way - since I've boycotted the service more than once, but some of the arguments in this thread on this page seem really petty [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing
    - IanCal 10y ago
      I agree that reciprocal doesn't really describe it. Perhaps the concept they were trying to get at is that sharing suggests everyone involved is getting the same thing in some way. If I share a ride with you, it's because we're both going the same way. What's actually happening with uber is we each want something different. They want my money, and I want to be taken somewhere. It is, however, an highly successful branding exercise.
    - 10y ago
- Dotnaught 10y ago
  "Bitter" is a strangely ad hominem argument. The thing is that Uber explicitly disclaims responsibility for its drivers in its terms of service. And in court, when an Uber driver is accused of a crime, Uber maintains it's not responsible. Eg.: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a242e2ad2fab4f57805aa047f8c06434/fine-print-says-riders-cant-blame-uber-unsafe-drivers http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a242e2ad2fab4f57805aa047f8c06... It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones.
  - lend000 10y ago
    > It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones. The world is not so black and white my friend. Uber is most definitely credited with both negative and positive outcomes; however, 'an Uber driver is accused of a crime' is not a good example, as such an accusation does not reflect on Uber anymore than you being accused of committing a crime reflects on your employer, assuming you work for a large company. If, however, there was an example that read 'Uber drivers commit crimes on the job at a statistically significant rate compared to taxis, Lyft, etc.,' then we have a means to blame the platform itself. Or in the case of the sexual harassment allegations, if this is a systemic problem at high levels of leadership, then that's a major, blameworthy issue.
sebleon 10y ago
Cheer up, sounds like you're having a rough day!
ardit33 10y ago
Bitter/hating much? I know Uber is not liked, but the fact that they have done a great job at disturbing the market in a great way. (Lyft as well, but they are still a minority player) Having have to deal with NYC cabs often, when they will lock the doors and ask where you are going before letting you in, Uber is a great improvement overall. Also, a NYC taxi medallion would cost 500k to almost 750k (that's like a mortgage). Basically half of your fare is going to some dude's coffers, and not to the drivers and taxis. Classical rent seeking behaviour caused by misguided regulation. Glad to see an outsider disrupt it.
- JohnJamesRambo 10y ago
  But aren't they just disrupting it temporarily? My understanding is that VC funding is propping up those low fares. I guess it is good until that runs out though.
  - kornish 10y ago
    Well, part of Uber's strategy was to subsidize rides with VC funding until they could have fleets of self-driving cars to provide rides at truly low costs (and thus efficient unit economics). We'll see how well that plays out in light of the Waymo lawsuit.
  - thinkloop 10y ago
    The medallion is a huge cost, that alone might be enough - not to mention economies of scale, logistics expertise, data collection value, uber pool network effect, etc.
    - giaour 10y ago
      It's not like medallion cabs were the only game in town before Uber came along. Black car services have been popular as taxi alternatives for decades.
      - dx034 10y ago
        But were only an option if you are from the city. There's a considerable risk ordering any minicab service if you don't know your way around the city. Uber and Lyft change that by verifying drivers.
dumbasswebsite 10y ago
That's some kind of bullshit. If "ride sharing" was the only causative factor then taxis would have addressed this already, given "ride sharing" is a euphemism for taxi.
- lewis500 10y ago
  Not really. If the marginal convenience and cheaper price of ride sharing firms led more drunk people to use them then it would be ride sharing that did it. Also, since there have always been taxis, it would have been a big coincidence to observe the statistical difference at the same time as the rise of ride sharing. Obviously, "ride sharing" is a bad description, but so what? The word "cab" is left over from horse drawn carriages.
  - brianleb 10y ago
    Taxis and modern ride sharing services may appear to 'offer the same product,' but they do it in different ways. The accessibility of Uber and Lyft via smart phone apps put them worlds ahead. Go back ten years. You need a taxi after leaving a social event. Your choice: bar, movie theater, wedding reception, whatever. Go stand outside in the wind/rain/snow/etc. on the corner of the intersection and hope that you aren't racially profiled and ignored by the driver and eventually someone will decide they want to pick you up... but for some strange reason they don't seem to turn on the meter and funny thing, when you arrive, the credit card machine is broken. This is the product that taxis have cultivated over decades of service. Meanwhile, now, I sit inside protected from the elements, summon an Uber or Lyft on my phone quicker than it takes to call the taxi service (much less flag one down), and pay less than the taxi would have cost me. In my personal experience, I can get picked up by an Uber faster than I can even talk to a human being on the phone at a taxi dispatch. You think this is the same service? It's not. Taxis are and have been a joke, and the evidence is in the walls they have built around themselves. The medallion system in New York as a prime example. What could be more absurd? What could be the logic, if not to fend off competition? Taxis have not offered the service that Uber and Lyft offer in decades, and even now that they are scrambling to roll out their own apps, they still fail to provide reliability. They have been playing by their own rules for so long, taxis completely lost sight of how to be a service industry.
notliketherest 10y ago
That is a such a bullshit argument you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
- itchyjunk 10y ago
  Would you mind sharing your counter argument? Although I don't necessarily agree with the parent, asking him to be ashamed seems to be an even weaker argument.
xkcd-sucks 10y ago
Yeah, on the other hand people seem to use "uber" to mean "hired car" in the same way kleenex and xerox mean their unbranded equivalents
hueving 10y ago
Yeah, before Uber it was definitely easy to find someone to drive you home at 3 am from an arbitrary location with a full digital payment and accountability system.
jpttsn 10y ago
That's like saying Hacker News can't be considered a nice place to discuss things, until they employ everyone who contributes to the discussion.
- minikites 10y ago
  If someone starts posting threats or illegal material as discussion comments, wouldn't Hacker News be responsible for deleting it or else they would face penalties? Uber argues they shouldn't face penalties when an Uber driver does something illegal since they are "independent contractors".
  - jpttsn 10y ago
    In theory, Hacker News could still be a nice place to discuss things. I'm uninterested in Uber; I'm saying that Ggp is being silly.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Not really, under U.S. law HN or any other web forum is only responsible for deleting libelous or infringing comments after being notified: Digital Harbor, DCMA, etc. The analogous situation for Uber would be "allowing a driver to continue using the platform after being notified of illegal on-the-job activity."

webwielder2 10y ago

Huh? "Employees" are a matter of legality, not causality.

lend000 10y ago

That's a strangely bitter way of looking at things. Ride sharing companies, including Uber, have brought tremendous benefits to society, and drunk driving prevention is probably at the top of the list. Uber has made the largest difference of all these companies because it has been the most aggressive in disrupting rent-seekers like taxi companies. The drivers and the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy should also be credited, but not to the discredit of the companies that created the ride-sharing platforms that made it all possible.

jellicle 10y ago
Incorrect. Independent contractors cheerfully 'sharing' their vehicles have made 100% of the difference; Uber does not employ anyone to drive anywhere. The number of drunks driven home by Uber employees is ~0. Thanks independent contractors!
- jryle70 10y ago
  This is disingenuous at best. Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market? It's fair to criticize Uber's aggressive and shady practices, it's also fair to acknowledge the enormous changes that it has brought about to the transportation landscape.
  - giaour 10y ago
    > Before Uber, how many of those "independent contractors" were in the market? A fair number were. I lived in Harlem from 2008-2011, and we often had to hail off-duty black car service vehicles due to the dearth of medallion cabs outside of central Manhattan. These were commonly known as "gypsy cabs," and the drivers were picking people up to make money on the side. I believe it was technically illegal but very, very common.
  - strictnein 10y ago
    Actually most taxi drivers are independent contractors, which makes it even clearer that Uber added something to the equation, and always makes it kind of funny how upset people are about Uber drivers not being full time employees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/29/labor-boards-shift-in-legal-interpretation-could-allow-thousands-of-taxi-drivers-to-unionize/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/29/labor...
    - IanCal 10y ago
      I'm happy with uber having contractors, workers or employees (three distinct categories in the UK). What I'm not happy with is them picking and choosing the parts of those definitions which benefit themselves. I don't think it's particularly amusing to be upset at a multi-billion dollar company trying to skirt employment laws.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  By that logic, has then the AppStore not created any apps, Ebay not sold any goods, Kickstarter not created any products, and GoFundMe not funded any projects?
billions 10y ago
Unfortunately this does not play into the mass media narrative of today. Hopefully HN can evaluate statistics more objectively
username223 10y ago
Perhaps, but don't call it "sharing," because sharing is reciprocal. If it were actually sharing, you would be driving for Uber as much as the people who chauffeur you around. Call them what they are: unlicensed taxis. Also, "the general willingness of people to embrace the gig economy" is just another way of saying "many people are desperate enough to do sub-minimum-wage piecework."
- zaroth 10y ago
  Platforms should provide the opportunity to monetize your time in all sorts of ways. Ridesharing is just one example of ways people do it, and anything that adds liquidity to the overall ability to monetize time and existing capital is a good thing. Everything else is just supply and demand. I don't see why we should stop anyone from ridesharing with the Uber platform, as long as the terms are clear enough. People are expected to think and make their own best judgments with these sorts of things, to some extent.
- nikcub 10y ago
  > because sharing is reciprocal. This didn't sound right so I looked it up[0] No mention of it being reciprocal - which makes sense for almost every use of "sharing" I can think of When I share my sandwich I'm not receiving any other sandwich from anybody else (perhaps if I was I'd share more often) Anyway, its not easy to defend Uber and I don't want to be labeled that way - since I've boycotted the service more than once, but some of the arguments in this thread on this page seem really petty [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sharing
  - IanCal 10y ago
    I agree that reciprocal doesn't really describe it. Perhaps the concept they were trying to get at is that sharing suggests everyone involved is getting the same thing in some way. If I share a ride with you, it's because we're both going the same way. What's actually happening with uber is we each want something different. They want my money, and I want to be taken somewhere. It is, however, an highly successful branding exercise.
  - 10y ago
Dotnaught 10y ago
"Bitter" is a strangely ad hominem argument. The thing is that Uber explicitly disclaims responsibility for its drivers in its terms of service. And in court, when an Uber driver is accused of a crime, Uber maintains it's not responsible. Eg.: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a242e2ad2fab4f57805aa047f8c06434/fine-print-says-riders-cant-blame-uber-unsafe-drivers http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a242e2ad2fab4f57805aa047f8c06... It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones.
- lend000 10y ago
  > It's inconsistent to credit Uber with positive outcomes and not negative ones. The world is not so black and white my friend. Uber is most definitely credited with both negative and positive outcomes; however, 'an Uber driver is accused of a crime' is not a good example, as such an accusation does not reflect on Uber anymore than you being accused of committing a crime reflects on your employer, assuming you work for a large company. If, however, there was an example that read 'Uber drivers commit crimes on the job at a statistically significant rate compared to taxis, Lyft, etc.,' then we have a means to blame the platform itself. Or in the case of the sexual harassment allegations, if this is a systemic problem at high levels of leadership, then that's a major, blameworthy issue.

sebleon 10y ago

Cheer up, sounds like you're having a rough day!

ardit33 10y ago

Bitter/hating much? I know Uber is not liked, but the fact that they have done a great job at disturbing the market in a great way. (Lyft as well, but they are still a minority player) Having have to deal with NYC cabs often, when they will lock the doors and ask where you are going before letting you in, Uber is a great improvement overall. Also, a NYC taxi medallion would cost 500k to almost 750k (that's like a mortgage). Basically half of your fare is going to some dude's coffers, and not to the drivers and taxis. Classical rent seeking behaviour caused by misguided regulation. Glad to see an outsider disrupt it.

JohnJamesRambo 10y ago
But aren't they just disrupting it temporarily? My understanding is that VC funding is propping up those low fares. I guess it is good until that runs out though.
- kornish 10y ago
  Well, part of Uber's strategy was to subsidize rides with VC funding until they could have fleets of self-driving cars to provide rides at truly low costs (and thus efficient unit economics). We'll see how well that plays out in light of the Waymo lawsuit.
- thinkloop 10y ago
  The medallion is a huge cost, that alone might be enough - not to mention economies of scale, logistics expertise, data collection value, uber pool network effect, etc.
  - giaour 10y ago
    It's not like medallion cabs were the only game in town before Uber came along. Black car services have been popular as taxi alternatives for decades.
    - dx034 10y ago
      But were only an option if you are from the city. There's a considerable risk ordering any minicab service if you don't know your way around the city. Uber and Lyft change that by verifying drivers.

dumbasswebsite 10y ago

That's some kind of bullshit. If "ride sharing" was the only causative factor then taxis would have addressed this already, given "ride sharing" is a euphemism for taxi.

lewis500 10y ago
Not really. If the marginal convenience and cheaper price of ride sharing firms led more drunk people to use them then it would be ride sharing that did it. Also, since there have always been taxis, it would have been a big coincidence to observe the statistical difference at the same time as the rise of ride sharing. Obviously, "ride sharing" is a bad description, but so what? The word "cab" is left over from horse drawn carriages.
- brianleb 10y ago
  Taxis and modern ride sharing services may appear to 'offer the same product,' but they do it in different ways. The accessibility of Uber and Lyft via smart phone apps put them worlds ahead. Go back ten years. You need a taxi after leaving a social event. Your choice: bar, movie theater, wedding reception, whatever. Go stand outside in the wind/rain/snow/etc. on the corner of the intersection and hope that you aren't racially profiled and ignored by the driver and eventually someone will decide they want to pick you up... but for some strange reason they don't seem to turn on the meter and funny thing, when you arrive, the credit card machine is broken. This is the product that taxis have cultivated over decades of service. Meanwhile, now, I sit inside protected from the elements, summon an Uber or Lyft on my phone quicker than it takes to call the taxi service (much less flag one down), and pay less than the taxi would have cost me. In my personal experience, I can get picked up by an Uber faster than I can even talk to a human being on the phone at a taxi dispatch. You think this is the same service? It's not. Taxis are and have been a joke, and the evidence is in the walls they have built around themselves. The medallion system in New York as a prime example. What could be more absurd? What could be the logic, if not to fend off competition? Taxis have not offered the service that Uber and Lyft offer in decades, and even now that they are scrambling to roll out their own apps, they still fail to provide reliability. They have been playing by their own rules for so long, taxis completely lost sight of how to be a service industry.

notliketherest 10y ago

That is a such a bullshit argument you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

itchyjunk 10y ago
Would you mind sharing your counter argument? Although I don't necessarily agree with the parent, asking him to be ashamed seems to be an even weaker argument.

xkcd-sucks 10y ago

Yeah, on the other hand people seem to use "uber" to mean "hired car" in the same way kleenex and xerox mean their unbranded equivalents

hueving 10y ago

Yeah, before Uber it was definitely easy to find someone to drive you home at 3 am from an arbitrary location with a full digital payment and accountability system.

jpttsn 10y ago

That's like saying Hacker News can't be considered a nice place to discuss things, until they employ everyone who contributes to the discussion.

minikites 10y ago
If someone starts posting threats or illegal material as discussion comments, wouldn't Hacker News be responsible for deleting it or else they would face penalties? Uber argues they shouldn't face penalties when an Uber driver does something illegal since they are "independent contractors".
- jpttsn 10y ago
  In theory, Hacker News could still be a nice place to discuss things. I'm uninterested in Uber; I'm saying that Ggp is being silly.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Not really, under U.S. law HN or any other web forum is only responsible for deleting libelous or infringing comments after being notified: Digital Harbor, DCMA, etc. The analogous situation for Uber would be "allowing a driver to continue using the platform after being notified of illegal on-the-job activity."