No they're not. Try getting an Uber as a handicapped person.
"I have not heard anybody raise compelling objections to Uber's model based on objective harm to consumers or market non-participants (negative externalities)."
Then you have not been listening.
So you ended up with a bunch of drivers that were driving around with non-commercial policies that the insurance company could easily disclaim in the event of a serious accident, as commercial use would invalidate the entire policy.
You are aware Uber skimps on background checks that result in real harm to real people [among other problems] right? They also actively fight taxi-equivalent background check requirements?
I think the problem is people really do not understand why the vast majority of these regulations exist in the first place. The vast majority are not instances of "regulatory capture" but basic safety like "Hey, don't hire ex-cons in a line of work where they can trap you in a car" and those are what Uber focuses on repealing/fighting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/technology/ubers-system-fo...
> And in California, Uber and other companies like it helped kill a law that would have required drivers to undergo a background check by the state’s Justice Department, as is required of taxi drivers.
> Uber champions its “industry-leading standards” for vetting its drivers. On its website, it describes its background checks as “often more rigorous” than those in the traditional taxi industry.
> But in statehouses across the country, Uber has fought against legislation requiring background checks as strong as those demanded of traditional taxis. Other ride-sharing companies like Lyft and Sidecar, Uber’s chief rivals, have also pushed against the laws, but supporters of stronger background checks say Uber has been by far the most aggressive.
http://www.cnet.com/news/ubers-background-checks-dont-catch-...
> The driver, Duncan Eric Burton, 57, is an ex-con. He'd spent 14 years in federal prison on drug charges and was released in 2012, according to the Houston Chronicle. And he had cleared Uber's background check.
> How does that happen? The city of Houston believes Uber's background checks aren't thorough enough. That's why Houston is among the few cities to require every Uber driver to be licensed by the city and undergo FBI fingerprint checks. But while the city requires it, Uber doesn't -- allowing people to still drive for the ride-hailing service as long as the authorities don't catch them.
> Case in point: one applicant who cleared Uber's background checks had 24 alias names, five listed birth dates, 10 listed Social Security numbers and an active warrant for arrest, according to a report released last week by Houston's Administration and Regulatory Affairs Department.
https://pando.com/2014/01/06/exclusive-uber-driver-accused-o...
> However, Pando has since learned that the driver -- 28-year-old San Francisco resident Daveea Whitmire -- has a criminal record, including felony and misdemeanor charges, and at least one felony conviction involving prison time. How, or why, Uber missed -- or ignored -- this criminal history is unclear.
Surge pricing is so intransparent that Im 100% sure that has been gamed against the consumer and the drivers in favor of Uber. Not only that, Uber doesnt tell you how much it costs while its going which is also a huge disadvantage for the consumer. Who knows what happens between what you paid to Uber and what the driver received?
>surge pricing is so intransparent that Im 100% sure that has been gamed against the consumer and drivers in favor of Uber
I guess this isn't "false" since you're just stating your belief, but if it's totally opaque to you, then how can you be so sure? I mean, OK, I guess, but... [citation needed].
>Uber doesn't tell you how much it costs
What? Yes it does - it tells you up front the multiple you'll pay, and even makes you manually type it in to confirm before your ride is started.
>Who knows what happens between what you paid to Uber and what the driver received?
The driver gets the same 80% that they get during non-surge times. That's why surge pricing works: it summons more drivers to the street by paying them more.
This is all very publicly known stuff; I don't understand your complaints here. By all means, don't ride it if you don't like it, and criticism is fair game, but try to get the basic facts straight.
You really think a for-profit company that doesn't have to or doesn't disclose the process to do surge pricing, having the knowledge and capacity to use surge pricing to maximize profit, will sacrifice profits in favour of the consumer?
Its opaque on Uber/Lyft, it's not opaque on taxis, so thats definitely a reason to dislike Uber(Sidecar does disclose prices before you get on the car)
> What? Yes it does - it tells you up front the multiple you'll pay, and even makes you manually type it in to confirm before your ride is started.
A multiple is not the same as the number you are going to pay. A multiple of what? I don't see a ticker like I do in a cab that tells me they are not gaming the numbers.
You say the driver gets the same 80%, but I dont know how much it cost me until I'm out of the car. If Uber tells me it cost me 10 dollars, and tells the driver that trip was billed 8 dollars for him, I would never know, and neither would the driver.
Its specially confusing to try to guess if 25%+ Uber, 50%+ Lyft, Taxi prices are. At least if they all had the "N per ride, M per time or distance" you would be able to compare.
Opposition to Uber is a clear case of regulatory capture. Every negative outcome that regulation is meant to mitigate (accountability, safety, reliability, discrimination, non-predatory pricing) is better served by Uber (and two-factor location tracking) than traditional cabs. I have not heard anybody raise compelling objections to Uber's model based on objective harm to consumers or market non-participants (negative externalities).
Airbnb's model, on the other hand, is rife with negative externalities. The most significant of these are the degradation of communities that were never meant to accommodate de facto hotels (noise, parking, transient traffic), and the drying up of affordable housing stock for people who actually intend to live in the homes they purchase.