I always say this whenever this comes up, but, the number of duis since Uber has been operating have dropped precipitously. I don’t want to be on California roads late at night without Uber.

I don't care if uber can't pay back their VCs and goes under because of this ruling. There is a model that has shown to have a service people want and are willing to pay for, the market will find the right price with a different company. Drunk driving reduction has been a good thing about these services, but it doesn't need to be uber.

It could be that the market won't exist (or that the quality of service will diminish because of the lower network effects) if there isn't sufficient demand at a break even price post legislation.

I'll bet you could set up an actual marketplace with automated matchmaking

it probably wouldn't be as good as Uber/Lyft can make things by forcing "contractors" to take unprofitable rides, though

And then you’re back to the NYC pre-2009 model where you can get a cab anywhere in Manhattan but good luck getting home from Bushwick.

yeah, life is so much better now that we can exploit labor to get ubiquitous and cheap rides

I'm fine with raising the prices to something sustainable. There's no reason it has to be below minimum wage + the cost of maintaining the car.

What I'm not okay with is going back to the only option being a oddly smelling yellow cab that will only pick you up in the profitable parts of the city and refuses to take you parts of the city they deem unprofitable on the return trip.

I truly believe that Travis Kalanick has done more to stop drunk driving and end racism than any other for-profit company of the past two decades.

yeah, I hate Uber and Lyft more than most, but I have to admit that you're totally right about it being an unambiguous upgrade over taxi service

I used to get super angry every time I had to take a taxi in the Bay Area. Before I got in I'd say "OK, your credit card reader is working, right?" and they'd swear it is, and then wouldn't you know it? Somehow the machine broke down between the airport and my destination EVERY TIME. The drivers would pitch a hissy fit when I refused to pay cash, and then they'd manually take a print of my card or write down the number.

It cost something like $60 for a 20 minute ride, and they had the audacity to expect a huge tip on top of that. Fuck those guys.

I'm pretty sure they're all lying about their income and hiding it from the government to commit tax fraud. For a brief period before Uber took off, they'd even started using personal Square readers to charge credit cards instead of the official ones built into their cars.

That said, I'm willing to bet that society won't tolerate a return to how things used to be, even if Uber and Lyft leave the state after we shoot down Prop 22. There's such a vast gulf in price difference between a taxi and an uber that I'm sure we can reach a comfortable middle ground where drivers make a living wage without us living under a scumbag taxi rein of terror

Taxis basically predate the app boom. The world has changed a lot since 2011. I suspect that if Uber leaves, some scrappy people will be able make a simple app that does 90% of what Uber does that consumers actually care about, but without the need to pay back billions in VC funding

How did Travis Kalanick end racism?

> I'll bet you could set up an actual marketplace with automated matchmaking > it probably wouldn't be as good as Uber/Lyft can make things by forcing "contractors" to take unprofitable rides, though I think it's hard to tell what would happen. There's no reason that we would necessarily expect that uber drivers would not take lower wages for rides if they had to in a market.

It's hard to know whether Uber deflates the price of rides to keep demand high (and thereby steals surprlus from the drivers) or whether they inflate the price of rides to take a larger cut (and thereby steal surplus from riders).

Of course it's also hard to say whether if the price to the consumer went down the drivers would actually make more without Uber if the theoretical drop in price was less than the extra amount drivers get from Uber's previous cut.

> It's hard to know whether Uber deflates the price of rides to keep demand high (and thereby steals surprlus from the drivers) or whether they inflate the price of rides to take a larger cut (and thereby steal surplus from riders).

Do they do either of these? Their historical approach has been to subsidize the rides, which enriches both passengers and drivers at Uber's expense.

From what I've heard Uber is profitable in markets they are not expanding in.

> There is a model that has shown to have a service people want and are willing to pay for, the market will find the right price with a different company

If the right price is more than outright owning a car I don't see how. Today I don't drive because I can uber. If ubers end up costing me more than $300 a month I'll just get a car.

After you remove the VC funny money subsidy, prices will probably be right around what taxis are today. And we'll be right back where we started. At least there's a nice phone application now and I don't need to call someone to send me a taxi.

Wow, these are some impressive numbers: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2020/06/S5-260-1.pdf

(note: uber launched in 2009)

You can't say there's causation here necessarily, but the correlation is significant.

Important caveat: the number of alcohol-involved deaths & injuries hasn’t really changed, so it could just be a change in the way those crimes are policed.

Yes, but it’s impossible to know how much of that is due to a change in policing. There’s a much less significant drop in the number of alcohol-involved car accident injuries.

If you are a tourist visiting multiple destinations a day that is probably already the case. Bay Area and LA are both spread out enough that rideshare fares quickly add up. Rideshare has always been more for convenience for me - not having to worry about parking or agonizing over traffic.

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't California have public transport? Renting cars isn't the only option I would think?

I dunno, I'm not from the US so maybe I just don't understand.

California is a huge state, and LA, Southern California is huge metropolitan area, so too is the San Francisco Bay area.

Public transportation is mostly buses and some amount of light rail, they are indeed options if you are only traveling short distances, otherwise they are not a timely option if they are any option at all.

Within the city of San Francisco, I mostly travel either by my own car, by walking, or by bus or light rail, but SF is very unique in California, but to get to places in the region, outside the city, public transit is not your best bet

I can only speak for SF. While SF does have a public transportation system it leaves a lot to be desired. It usually runs late or not at all. Sometimes it's faster to walk 40-50min than it is to wait for the bus to stop by.

SF is pretty much the best in the state overall for public transportation, except for maybe small portions of San Diego (like downtown or the UCSD area).

if SF is the best, i REALLY don't wanna see the worst. i've been to SF a bunch of times and every single time i have issues with the public transportation system.

If you are from Europe and you have never visited California, then you have a lot to learn about our crazy transportation. Most of California, and especially Southern California, is car-centric. Los Angeles was the first large city that was built up after the invention of the automobile, and it really shows. Living in LA without a car is a pretty atypical behavior.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nobody-walks-in-la-th...

I live in Australia where the car also reigns supreme. I would say there’s no decent public transportation anywhere in the country outside of the capital cities, and even then it really depends on where you live.

I think a lot of Europeans don't appreciate just how abysmal the public transport options are in practically every American city.

Also Europeans don't appreciate just how geographically spread out stuff in America is compared to Europe.

Australian, so I’m in the exact same abysmal boat!

Public transport in the US, in general, sucks big time. California is no exception.

It's not pervasive and in most parts of the state there isn't any public transit running after the bars close

Possibly. It was only a matter of time before VC-subsidized undercharging for better taxi services ran out.

But Uber/Lyft are a better service than the taxis of old, so I'm inclined to continue using them vs car renting.