3 ms·
The attactiveness of Uber varies with regards to locality in the United States. Many cities have taxi systems which are deeply non-functional: a) So few taxi
by patio11 14y ago
The attactiveness of Uber varies with regards to locality in the United States. Many cities have taxi systems which are deeply non-functional:
a) So few taxis on the roads (because the laws forbid anyone from adding more) that it is virtually impossible to hail one, like San Francisco.
b) Drivers who habitually discriminate against customers by race, desired travel location, etc.
c) Routine fraud conducted by drivers over e.g. whether a payments mechanism which is legally required such as, say, the credit card machine is actually functioning or not. (Taxi drivers in the US prefer to be paid in cash because it makes fraud easier.)
By comparison, Uber is "You push a button. A car picks you up and drives you to your destination. You do not get cheated." This is a severe competitive threat to taxis in many US cities, even at a hefty premium to what taxis are charging.
- lifeisstillgood 14y agoHmmm, I am a big fan of Addison-Lee cabs, a firm that runs its own fleet, and well, just turns up. You can have an account or pay cash, they turn up, will drive my dad 30 miles into town or me 2 miles across. They basically have been a severe competitive threat to local mini cab firms in London, and, well, no-one sued, they just upped the game or got out. I have not got into a cab recently that I did not book on the phone and where cabbies have a sat nav, a smartphone and never use the radio, just get jobs from their dashboard. Is it just me being a bit astonished that it seems only one firm in the continental USA has thought "I know lets be better" P.S. An (ex-) Londoners perspective on your other points are amusing - every cabbie wants to be paid in cash, they are famous for racisim and and you will never get a taxi south of the river at this time on a Friday mate) But the system works. As an infrequent New Yorker it seemed to work there.