Hacker News Reader

Or, you know, don't use Uber.

I get that you had a bad experience, but the response to every bad experience should not be regulation. "Surge pricing" is no more a scam than any other market-based pricing mechanism.

To be clear, I'm mixed on Uber overall, and I do think they need some regulation, but not with regard to pricing, coverage, or response time. Those are good fits for self-regulating markets. I'm more concerned with things like knowing that when I get in to an Uber, I'm covered by the proper insurance if I end up in an accident on the way to my destination.

> "Surge pricing" is no more a scam than any other market-based pricing mechanism.

Surge pricing on an unknown fare (metered) is actually quite ridiculous.

For contrast, when I order a Lyft line in Manhattan, it gives me an exact price quote (not an estimate, but the exact quote) before I order the ride, taking all surges into account. This means I have perfect knowledge of what the price is going to be before I decide whether to take the ride[0].

Uber has consistently refused to implement price quotes, to the point where they have literally jeopardized their existence in at least one city because of it: all of the legal problems they have in London would be avoided if they provided price quotes in advance.

Uber has been really clever to frame the controversy as a debate about whether the cabbies should have to take an exam. But the fact that medallion cabs in London have to take the street exam is all moot, because if Uber provided price quotes in advance, they would be classified as a different kind of car service which doesn't have to take the street exam in the first place.

Instead, Uber would rather launch a coordinated PR and legal campaign against the entire medallion cab system in London, just to avoid implementing an incredibly user-friendly feature.

[0] This feature may not be in all locations yet (in fact, I don't know if it even works if the destination is in another borough), but it's clear to me that this is at least where Lyft is headed, whereas it's clear that Uber is committed to not providing price quotes.

> but it's clear to me that this is at least where Lyft is headed

The opposite is actually clear to me. Lyft in SF previously had the functionality you describe Uber in Manhattan having. You put your destination in, it gives you an exact price, you decide whether to call it. When Lyft Line (the carpooling variant) was introduced, that feature was actually removed, and now with a standard Lyft ride there is no way to know your fare in advance (though there is now with Lyft Line).

In a similar vain, Uber gives a max fare on Uber Pool (so you know at most what it will cost, guaranteed). Uber also does do fare estimates on UberX and other rides. I've heard from a few drivers that they may have avoided giving exact fares in advance on UberX and others because people tend to want to use them a little bit more flexibly than get from point a to b (Stop and pick up a friend on the way, for instance).

Point of all of this being, it's not clear to me that either company is committed to providing or not providing price quotes. I think we're still in the early stages of experimentation, with features being added and removed and changed between locations all the time, and I don't think we can yet characterize what either company is committed to doing or not.

> Point of all of this being, it's not clear to me that either company is committed to providing or not providing price quotes.

Point taken. I'm willing to believe that Lyft may not be committed to providing price quotes. But there's at least ambiguity there, whereas it's very clear that Uber does not want to provide exact quotes. If they did, they would have in London and avoided the expensive, multi-year legal and PR battle that they're engaged in there.

How much do you think this protracted battle has cost them over the years, both explicitly (PR firms and lawyers) and implicitly (opportunity cost of lost revenues from additional rides)? Whatever it is, it's a high number, and Uber has decided that not providing price quotes is worth even more[0].

> Uber also does do fare estimates on UberX and other rides.

An estimate is simply lead-generation for them, not a quote. They are not committing to charge me the price they estimate. As the consumer, I still do not know what the ride will actually cost until I am already on the hook to pay for it.

[0] It's not even a tough actuarial problem to solve at Uber's scale, which is why it's such a glaring omission, in addition to the example from London.

> I do think they need some regulation, but not with regard to pricing,

Would you rather have a service which charges more to (say) black passengers than white? Or which charges more to go to a poorer part of town a rich part?

The regulation I'm talking about is not being able to discriminate based on the type of passenger or destination.

That wasn't clear from your original post. You're also being disingenuous in your argument. No, of course I do not support discrimination on the basis of race or economic class.

Race is not equivalent to "type of passenger or destination" though. The latter is a much more vague definition. Like it or not, things like distance, roadway accessibility, and desired route impact the cost of a fare, and regulating that away isn't something I openly accept as the best solution.

The thing is, there is a huge correlation between race and destination in nearly all major cities. Drivers tend not to want to travel to outer/poorer areas because (1) they are less safe, (2) there are more minorities, (3) they are less likely to be able to pick up a fare for a return trip. So, cabbies used to discriminate based on destination. And, because these destinations correlate with race so well, they'd discriminate based on race as well. So, NYC and other cities have outlawed a taxi driver's ability to discriminate based on destination. Companies like Uber, however, discriminate based on destination and, thus, race.

> The thing is, there is a huge correlation between race and destination in nearly all major cities.

Exactly. You're at a bar in SF near closing time (2AM) and need a ride to Hunters Point or Bayview? Suddenly, "surge pricing" is in effect! However, if you need a ride to Pac Heights or the Marina? No problem! This may not seem like discrimination based on economic class/race, but it sure is.

There are fare components for mileage and time, which should deal with distance, roadway accessibility, and desired route. Needing surge pricing to get them to pick someone up in Oakland should not be necessary.

Surge pricing is not competitive-market based pricing. Uber is a price setter.

If someone isn't willing to sell to you for the price you are wanting to buy at, you have to offer more, or go without... that's how surge pricing works.

Just as the opposite works, if nobody is going to buy at your price, you have to come down, or you will lose business... ideally you will meet in the middle via market pricing. The rates are centered around competition with other sources for similar services. There is competition and market driven pricing, I don't see the problem.

> Uber needs some serious regulation

Too often our knee-jerk reaction is to want the government to get involved.

But based on your experience, you are probably

a) not going to trust Uber again, at least for this sort of ride

b) choose a competitor / traditional cab to get you to OAK

c) tell all of your friends / HN about your crappy experience, leading to reduced reputation for Uber

The end result is that Uber will no longer get your business and perhaps others' business will go elsewhere too. Uber is being punished for its bad behavior by the market. Getting the government involved would likely put Uber out of business (hence the article) or make rates way higher and essentially no different than a traditional cab.

> Uber is being punished for its bad behavior by the market.

I love it how libertarians believe everything will be fixed by a mythical "market". I'm sorry, but if we had left it to the "market", we'd still have separate "white" and "colored" toilets. We'd have no gay marriage. We'd have no voting rights act.

The regulation I'm talking about is not being able to discriminate based on the type of passenger or destination.

Uber doesn't do the discriminating. Anyone who drives for uber technically is an Independent Contractor. I.E. They run their own business... separate but in partnership with Uber.

They can refuse based on Destination, but not anything that is forbidden by Law. Such as Race, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Handicap, etc... There was a notice to Uber drivers sent from Uber, stating that any driver that gets complaints about not accepting customers that have a service animal, they will end their partnership with that driver.

I agree, the Market can't fix anything, even in a Libertarian world, there is Government. But they should only be there to define the rules of the Game, not control the moves everyone decides to make.

I do agree, just the market would have not made everything all peachy, you do need to set some rules. But its just the limit and overreach of those rules is up for some debate.

KBI background checks, when Uber already does their own. (In a state that is VERY VERY VERY well armed) A State that doesn't support Gay Marriage, that up till 2006 had laws stating black people couldn't live in certain cities. (seriously...)

Just remember... its Governments that ban Gay Marriage, not markets, Governments decide who can and cannot vote, not markets.

It's also governments that require adherence to civil rights laws, not markets. Governments were required to step in to disallow landlords and service providers from discriminating based on race, sexuality, disability, etc when a free market otherwise allowed them to do so. There are two sides to the coin.

Completely agree. You do need a government to set the rules of the game.

>I'm sorry, but if we had left it to the "market", we'd still have separate "white" and "colored" toilets. We'd have no gay marriage. We'd have no voting rights act.

That's the most absurd thing I've read today. Literally all of these things are the result of oppressive laws passed by the government in the first place. What does marriage have to do with the markets?

Uber driver cannot see the destination precisely to avoid a situation like this.

Even when you enter it, it takes a while to transmit that information only after you get into the vehicle, which leads to these awkward stares "where are we going today?" - "oh, I thought I had it entered in the app" - "oh, hold on then, it takes a minute to update".

Arguably, destination disclosure is a boon to consumers in some situation - you might get a discount on a late night ride from SFO if you're heading towards San Jose, where the driver lives (and was going to drive to anyways) as opposed to Walnut Creek, etc.

I'm sorry but your destination is not the same as your race, sex or disability. If a business doesn't want to drive you somewhere, that's not discrimination, it's business.

I completely agree with your social justice agenda here. But as a historical matter, most forms of invidious discrimination have had to be be enforced by government regulations (for sure, that is the case for why gay marriage used to be illegal) rather than by the market. The market (as a historical matter) does tend to break down patterns of prejudice, because most producers would like to sell to as many customers as they can, and most buyers will shop for the producer who will treat them with respect. The former Jim Crow segregation laws in the south had to be vigorously enforced by the formal justice system and by terrorists like the Ku Klux Klan precisely because many businessmen there would have been happy to serve all their potential customers on an even-handed basis if the law had allowed them to do so.

If you live in NYC, cabs always refuse people to go to Brooklyn/Queens/Unwanted destination, eve though it is illegal to do so. The usual excuse: I am going out of my shift, and can't go that way. (this can be legit, but often it is not).

Next time don't enter your destination address, so the driver doesn't know where you go, and once you are in the car it is much harder for them to refuse you.

Lyft (as far as I know) won't show the driver your destination until the ride is started. It's intended to save time in allowing the driver to bring up directions and not as a decision point for them to decide if they want to take the ride or not.

I have been living in NYC for ten years. I use cabs constantly. This has happened to be exactly one time. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I think the idea that this is common for NYC cabbies to do is really outdated.

More anecdata: this happens to me continually. I have successfully reported at least half a dozen drivers in as many months for refusing to go to bushwick.

fellow bushwick resident here, I can confirm no yellow cabs want to go to brooklyn. many cabs also will lock their doors to prevent you from getting in, until after you've told them your destination.

Maybe the "market" is telling you not to live in bushwick ?

Had this happen a lot in Chicago too with normal cabs.

if the market was really busy and I wanted to go 3 miles away from the crowds, sorry the cabbie had to end his shift and couldn't take me. If it was a nice and quiet night, I would get the same ride no problem.

that's strange -- as far as i know, the uber driver will only know your destination after they pick you up (so they cannot do this kind of thing). uber's feature page also say that https://www.uber.com/features -- "After pickup, we show the driver where you’re going..."

I also spoke with the drivers I used here in são paulo and they said the same thing: they only get the destination after the pickup and they only get my first name -- uber now is using a 3rd party service that proxys my phone so the driver won't have my personal number.

How does Uber determine when you are picked up? That's the bit that could be gamed.

from my experience, it uses the driver's phone gps + the place you asked to be picked + your phone's gps. and yeah, it could totally be gamed, but i think people should email uber whenever this happens since those drivers are scumbags.

i emailed them before regarding problems with drivers and the customer support team is always good (twice i had problems with drivers doing longer routes when smaller ones were better and once i had a problem with a driver that accepted my request but never showed up).

(btw, i'm not an uber employee, i just like the service and use at least twice a month)

It only shows when the trip/meter starts.

I spoke to the driver, as he was loading the suitcase. He clearly knew the destination, even before the ride had started.

Sorry, that's not possible. Drivers are not shown the destination until they begin the ride - the point where it begins billing you, and begins showing your pickup location in the map they email you immediately concluding your ride.

This is not an automatic process that can go wrong. And indeed, for anyone who has used Uber any number of times, this is immediately obvious.

Perhaps your driver surmised from your suitcase where you were going?

I'm more concerned with why uber/lyft/etc are so popular.

They wouldn't be as big as it was if the existing system wasn't literally awful, as someone in SF -- if I wanted a '''real''' taxi, it has a chance to not bother coming several hours later more than anything. And then intentionally taking roundabout routes just to fuck me out of even more fare.

And at Santa Ana Metrolink, I had 'taxi' drivers effectively try stealing my bags, throwing them into their vehicles, and trying to drag me along while I was waiting for uber/lyft. Maybe in cities where there is significantly more regulation, enough licences, and no corruption Uber would not be nearly as popular.

Personally the main reason I hate cabs, especially in SF, is that most of them feel dirty, old, and not well maintenanced. When you sit inside everything is kind of rattly and broken, things are sometimes duct taped together, the whole car gives you a grimey feeling.

I've never once had that with Uber. All cars are fairly new and super shiny. When I sit in an Uber I always feel the car is well maintained and clean etc. There's no grimeyness.

And when I call an Uber, I know when it's coming. After the ride is done, I get a receipt that shows the exact route and so on. It's really neat.

Cabs on the other hand are a black hole. I call a cab and it's theoretically on the way, but I have no way of knowing and there's no indication on how far it is and when it's coming. After I pay for it, the money goes into a black hole and other than a small piece of paper that I lose after two minutes, there is no indication of it happening or how much I paid.

I also get harassed about using cards with the cabs, I rarely carry cash (for good reason considering the neighbourhoods I go through), and it's always a "ITS BROKEN CASH ONLY GO TO ATM AND MAKE SURE GIVE ME TIP"

The trick for that: When you are about to enter the cab, ask "Do you take [type] cards?" And then skip that cab if they say they don't. It's magical how the potential of losing a ride suddenly fixes broken card machines.

Uber is popular because they circumvented regulations that limited supply of labor and price controls and can therefore offer cheaper rides.

> a licensed cab cannot refuse to take you to your destination!

They "cannot" but they have done it to me many times in several cities. I also once had a cabbie try to strongarm me into giving a ridiculously huge tip (~100%) "because I won't be able to get a fare all the way back." Not to defend Uber here, but it's not like the cab regulation totally fixes this.

Doesn't the last sentence in your message contradict the first one? Uber provides crappy service; use different product. Done.

I don't think they get to see the destination till they pick you up.

I am of two minds on surge pricing. I certainly don't like it, but I don't think it is a scam so much as normal economics.

Uber drivers are required to accept at least 80% of their requests.

This is an edge case, and you can think of it as a side effect coming from living in SF, where everybody has to deal with bay bridge problems. I understand your frustration but I would split the blame 50-50 between the city for not providing transportation, and Uber to not red flagging this problem and offer a special solution for this.

SF provides great transportation (via BART) to its own airport and decent transportation (also via BART) to OAK.

BART os not even remotely close to be good, but it is lightyears away from being great. The only thing that is consistent about BART service is the interruption. It is kind of funny how people from US see BART as a great service while people from Europe or other places with excellent public transportation see it as rather expensive and bad. Just one minor example why I refuse to use BART: if I was using it i had to combine with a bus service. The bus service is leaving exactly 1 minute sooner than the BART comes in to the station making sure you have to wait additional 20 minutes. This makes my commute exactly 1 hour (each way) while using BART, while if I am driving it is exactly 20 minutes. The pricing difference is insignificant, does not justify the lost time. If BART was that great, we would see significantly less traffic on 280/101 in the commuting hours.

If I didn't have a large suitcase, I would have definitely taken the BART. But getting to a BART station is a PITA if you have some luggage.

There's always the multimodal option (cab -> BART)

The irony of this thread is the delays of BART right now. :)

I've had the same thing happen to me a couple times, always seemingly on the way to the airport even. It's really frustrating. In those situations, I generally switch to Lyft and get picked up without cancellation. Unfortunately this isn't an option in places Lyft has pulled out of due to regulations like Houston that Lyft has pulled out of due to similar regulations by and thus only Uber remains.

This is one of the unfortunate side effects of a car service pulling out of a city like Lyft did in Houston. Now only Uber remains which, despite its flaws, is light years ahead of the standard yellow cab service.

I gave up on Uber for airport rides. For LAX it's not unreasonable to request a 4:00 am ride for a 6:30 flight, which quite often comes up with "No cars available" anywhere except their most expensive tier.

Wingz is a cheaper replacement for UberX and Blacklane is a cheaper replacement for Uber Black, both have to be arranged though.

I've taken Uber to OAK and other airports from SF dozens of times.

You had a spot of bad luck with cancellations—they're in fact extremely rare, and I've taken hundreds of trips. On top of that, drivers cannot see your destination when a request is made. Go ahead and ask them.

One time I went to McDonalds and the pickles were all mixed up with the mustard. This industry really needs a regulatory overhaul.

Luckily food supply is heavily regulated and regulators take cross contamination seriously. Contact your regulators.

If you're going to snark you should at least pick a good example.

I meant on my burger. It really left a bad taste in my mouth.

Your mouth is defective. Pickles and mustard are great.

Honest question: If you want a regulated form of Uber, why not just take a taxi?

Isn't that effectively what you're looking for?