Black cars existed before Uber and Lyft -- in fact, that was how Uber started.
Uber, in fact, still offers black cars (professional drivers) as an option.
Uber, in fact, still offers black cars (professional drivers) as an option.
In my experience, Uber Black means the driver owns a professional-grade car. Whether they’re a professional driver who treats their clients professionally, e.g. not taking phone calls during the ride, is another matter.
Can you clarify? From https://www.uber.com/us/en/ride/uberblack/, the only obvious location dependency is that drivers must "meet state- or local-level livery regulations" -- I think this just means that for this subset of drivers, Uber chooses to actually verify that they're following the law? Which I know is a deviation from their usual model, but seems like it's very literally the least they could do. Is there more per-geo (per-country?) variation in what "Black" means that's not documented there?
I guess that’s consistent? Some places have stronger regs for a livery license?
Predictable pricing, predictable arrival, automated booking, and an ability to complain to someone was significantly more important.
(From what I've read, this happened naturally in other countries, but in US, the taxi monopoly was so bad, we needed something crazy like Uber)
Depends on the city but definitely not the case everywhere in India. Uber and Ola (a local Uber alternative) massively forced taxi/auto (tuktuk) unions to weaken their bargaining position.
There’s still a mafia eg in Goa where they literally threaten Uber drivers, but it’s relatively very different post Uber.
Taxi's here worked one of two ways. You either negotiated a price before leaving, or they ran a meter and went some crazy route then when you got to the destination clicked a bunch of buttons and the total went up by $15-$20.
When negotiating a price, it was usually $10 per person, for about a 3-4 mile ride, and they wouldn't take you right away if less than 4 people. They would encourage you to load like 8 or 10 people in (All Taxi's were vans) and would try to pick up other people along the way. Tipping was all but mandatory. So add another $2-3 per person.
Uber/Lyft on the other hand was $5-6 or $2-3 for the shared one. An SUV was like $12-$20 that could seat 7, and the whole booking on the phone and tracking was excellent. Uber was so cheap that I would frequently book them because it was easier than going down into the parking garage since I could just meet the Uber on the street.
A cheap ride in 5-10 minutes was available pretty much 24 hours a day. Now surge pricing was a whole different beast, but I never got caught in that.
Not only that, the first 2 years it was completely free. Because I got a $25 credit for signing up and then $25 for ever referral. I had a prepaid phone from some spring MVNO that let you change your number by just texting a shortcode. I would just make a new account every night before I went out and have $50 in free rides.
Now Lfyt and Uber are expensive, there's practically none available unless it's the middle of the day. Taxi's are down to pretty much $5 per person to go most places, but they are just completely destroyed unsafe cars. The last one I took was a longer ride $10 or $20 and it had no seat belts and the driver was so large I have no idea how he got in and out of the car.
I admit I'm usually taking public transit while traveling if it's reasonably convenient but cheaper ride-share (or taxi) options can tilt the balance when public transit is complicated/awkward. Rent a car for long distance and rural. (I did start using Uber/Lyft in some situations in areas like Silicon Valley where I would previously have reflexively rented a car.) Around where I live, driving my car is the only real alternative except in special cases. And I essentially always take a pre-booked private car back and forth to the airport.
So, for me, more about ease but if I tended to rely on taxi-type services in cities more, it would probably be more about cost which is probably the case with many people commenting here.
Uber just worked.
People forget just how terrible taxi companies were when they were the monopoly.
Maybe if you lived in a bigger city the taxis were good but I assure you that in Lexington, KY they were terrible. You had to call into a dispatcher, the connection/quality was terrible, they were blunt/rude, and you got a general idea of when someone might show up. I tried once to schedule for 8:45am pick up (I called around 7:30) and someone showed up at 7:45am mad that I wasn't ready. On top of all of that _no one_ took credit card and the drivers were rude and often hard to communicate with.
With Lyft/Uber I could see where my driver was, my destination was already entered, and it was all charged to my card. I cannot stress enough how much better this was and I was happy to see the taxi companies go down in flames.
Uber and Lyft have _many_ problems but they are still leagues ahead of taxis. I recently traveled to Italy and absolutely hated the lack of Uber-like services and the need to use taxis. It felt like going back in time, I was shocked at the state of things there.
Lastly, nothing boils my blood quite like watching the meter all the way to the destination, then the driver pressing some buttons and the total jumping 20-50%. WTH is that? Whatever it is, I hate it.
I lived in a suburb of San Diego around 2012, and I switched to Uber after I missed two flights for work because taxi's just wouldn't show up on time. I don't love the rideshare services but taxis were simply so bad that anything was better.