4 ms·

Disagree on at least two of these claims. They definitely save time and money. The only way someone can claim they don't is if they've never actually had to t

Disagree on at least two of these claims. They definitely save time and money. The only way someone can claim they don't is if they've never actually had to travel and use taxis. Taxis are horrible, pretty much universally. The drivers will do everything possible to cheat you, the experience is shit, and availability is basically only good at the airport, downtown in that city, and nowhere else. An Uber (I don't really use Lyft since it's basically non-existent outside the US and pre-pandemic I traveled internationally a lot) will meet me wherever I happen to be regardless of where it is in the city, at whatever time I need a ride regardless of hour, pick me up, and take me to my destination via the quickest route determined by a GPS app, for a predetermined non-negotiable price, automatically charged to my credit card or business account without needing to reveal anything or expose any money to a stranger, and without me needing to deal with foreign exchange rates. A taxi does literally none of these things. The only similarity between a taxi and an Uber is that they both are a stranger driving me somewhere in a car. After that, an Uber is a better experience that saves me both time and money every step of the way, while being massively more consistent and reliable. Taxis suck, and there is effectively no way to make them better without essentially cloning what Uber does, which gets us right back where we're at. I'm seeing this more and more these days, and I'm not sure the cause, but a lot of articles in "reputable" newspapers making bold claims that nobody who has had even an inkling of experience with the subject matter would make with a straight face. Uber has many issues, I will grant, but to claim it isn't a better experience in every facet than a taxi isn't just stupid, it's dishonest.

rileymat2 5y ago
> They definitely save time and money. The only way someone can claim they don't is if they've never actually had to travel and use taxis. To be fair, the author had a very specific use case with respect to cost and time, with well known fares and availability from the airport to home. But I think the author would agree with most of your points, it goes on for a bit about how much she does not like Taxis. The interesting claim is the one about eco friendliness and how much driving around without a fare, or going to a fare Uber takes up.
- tristor 5y ago
  I don't think Uber can ever be eco-friendly, because my American-centric point of view is that anything which makes long-distance travel situations easier encourages long distance travel by lowering the barrier and the carbon footprint of long distance travel is inherently atrocious. I, like almost all Americans, own a personal vehicle, so the only time I would use Uber is if I'm traveling a long distance. The carbon footprint of my Uber is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of my trip. I do things like buy carbon offsets with my plane ticket to try to balance this out, but I am not ignorant of the environmental impact of international travel.
  - rileymat2 5y ago
    That is fair, you are probably right. But the author is not making the claims, she is responding to claims made by Uber in the past. Specifically: >In 2015, Uber founder Travis Kalanick gave a TED talk in which he vowed the new rideshare business model would get “more people into fewer cars,” dramatically reduce air pollution and, as he put it, “reclaim our cities today.”
- lhorie 5y ago
  IMHO, the author is mostly reacting negatively to the price impact of two compounding issues that Uber/Lyft faced last year: the first is the out-of-whack supply/demand balance due to covid causing the current low supply of drivers (and a consequent increase in prices due to renewed demand), and the second is fallout of AB5/Prop22 (which netted an increased pay floor, which translated to higher prices in CA). A third factor is the companies' push towards profitability after their IPOs, which also undoubtedly makes a dent in the price calculations. The "planet" angle is IMHO grasping at straws to set a specific tone for the narrative, because frankly who thinks about that when taking a cab? If this wasn't just lip service and carbon emission/congestion actually mattered to her, there's public transit from LAX! I wrote in a comment downthread about an anecdote of a guy that had lost his job due to covid and had found an income safety net w/ Uber. You could argue that he contributes to carbon emissions/congestion by driving, but what exactly is the writer expecting the alternative to be? Sitting at home receiving free stimulus cheques? Working at McDonalds flipping infamously high CO2 producing beef patties? Working as... a cab driver for a cheaper fare for her exact use case, but still incurring roughly the same role in carbon footprint and congestion overall? Trying to twist "I want to have my cake (nice Uber experience) and eat it too (for cheap)" into "think of the environment" just seems like virtue signaling IMHO. She just saw two services that were functionally equivalent for her needs at different prices and took the cheaper one. Most of us would've probably done the same. This is a non-story.
totony 5y ago
This is highly dependent on where you are. I had similar experience with ride sharing apps of drivers straight up scamming me driving around. Uber are concentrated on where it's popular. Good luck finding one if you are in the suburbs, you'll get infinite cancelations and wait forever, where in my experience taxis will never cancel once confirmed and usually confirm wherever you are.

rileymat2 5y ago

> They definitely save time and money. The only way someone can claim they don't is if they've never actually had to travel and use taxis. To be fair, the author had a very specific use case with respect to cost and time, with well known fares and availability from the airport to home. But I think the author would agree with most of your points, it goes on for a bit about how much she does not like Taxis. The interesting claim is the one about eco friendliness and how much driving around without a fare, or going to a fare Uber takes up.

tristor 5y ago
I don't think Uber can ever be eco-friendly, because my American-centric point of view is that anything which makes long-distance travel situations easier encourages long distance travel by lowering the barrier and the carbon footprint of long distance travel is inherently atrocious. I, like almost all Americans, own a personal vehicle, so the only time I would use Uber is if I'm traveling a long distance. The carbon footprint of my Uber is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of my trip. I do things like buy carbon offsets with my plane ticket to try to balance this out, but I am not ignorant of the environmental impact of international travel.
- rileymat2 5y ago
  That is fair, you are probably right. But the author is not making the claims, she is responding to claims made by Uber in the past. Specifically: >In 2015, Uber founder Travis Kalanick gave a TED talk in which he vowed the new rideshare business model would get “more people into fewer cars,” dramatically reduce air pollution and, as he put it, “reclaim our cities today.”
lhorie 5y ago
IMHO, the author is mostly reacting negatively to the price impact of two compounding issues that Uber/Lyft faced last year: the first is the out-of-whack supply/demand balance due to covid causing the current low supply of drivers (and a consequent increase in prices due to renewed demand), and the second is fallout of AB5/Prop22 (which netted an increased pay floor, which translated to higher prices in CA). A third factor is the companies' push towards profitability after their IPOs, which also undoubtedly makes a dent in the price calculations. The "planet" angle is IMHO grasping at straws to set a specific tone for the narrative, because frankly who thinks about that when taking a cab? If this wasn't just lip service and carbon emission/congestion actually mattered to her, there's public transit from LAX! I wrote in a comment downthread about an anecdote of a guy that had lost his job due to covid and had found an income safety net w/ Uber. You could argue that he contributes to carbon emissions/congestion by driving, but what exactly is the writer expecting the alternative to be? Sitting at home receiving free stimulus cheques? Working at McDonalds flipping infamously high CO2 producing beef patties? Working as... a cab driver for a cheaper fare for her exact use case, but still incurring roughly the same role in carbon footprint and congestion overall? Trying to twist "I want to have my cake (nice Uber experience) and eat it too (for cheap)" into "think of the environment" just seems like virtue signaling IMHO. She just saw two services that were functionally equivalent for her needs at different prices and took the cheaper one. Most of us would've probably done the same. This is a non-story.

totony 5y ago

This is highly dependent on where you are. I had similar experience with ride sharing apps of drivers straight up scamming me driving around. Uber are concentrated on where it's popular. Good luck finding one if you are in the suburbs, you'll get infinite cancelations and wait forever, where in my experience taxis will never cancel once confirmed and usually confirm wherever you are.