Slick Vik Posted September 20, 2014 Author Share Posted September 20, 2014 Metrostar info here - http://www.ridemetro.org/Services/CarVanPool/Van.aspxThat's a monthly lease Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 Would it be practical, and I suppose would it be legal, for a ridesharing start up like these to develop bus service? Or at least a more vanpool-like service. Already exists. http://www.thehoustonwave.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Uber's in trouble in Cali for a lot of things, including promising one price and making it another, and also not screening drivers, which have led to some assaults. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/744975 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Well, Lyft is calling it quits in Houston...http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/blog/2014/11/lyft-to-halt-operations-in-houston-due-to-city.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 6, 2014 Author Share Posted November 6, 2014 Yea I just used my last $25 credit on Saturday from iah. Sucks now uber will jack up rates. City council gave in to the taxi lobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 The background checks for drivers sounds like a good idea to me, but I don't quite understand the need for medical exams. I have used Uber to get to the airport and had a positive experience. The private cars are definitely cleaner and nicer than most of the cabs in this city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 The background checks for drivers sounds like a good idea to me, but I don't quite understand the need for medical exams. I think it's a liability issue. They won't want someone who is more likely to get ill behind the wheel and cause an accident. At the dealership where I used to work, they recently let go of one of the drivers who picked up and delivered clients' cars because he was on so many medications for his diabetes and other ailments. I guess they thought he would be a risk behind the wheel. I think his age (mid 70s) in addition to the health troubles had something to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted November 8, 2014 Share Posted November 8, 2014 I think it's a matter of ass-covering for all parties involved. If there's an incident involving Lyft/Uber cars and a lawsuit develops that won't be immediately thrown out by any sane judge, then whatever city that let Lyft/Uber cars run will be involved. Why take the risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Lyft is leaving because they don't want to submit their drivers to fingerprint background checks. I won't miss them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Lyft is leaving because they don't want to submit their drivers to fingerprint background checks. I won't miss them.You will once uber raises prices.I think it's a matter of ass-covering for all parties involved. If there's an incident involving Lyft/Uber cars and a lawsuit develops that won't be immediately thrown out by any sane judge, then whatever city that let Lyft/Uber cars run will be involved. Why take the risk?Different cities are handling the situation differently you can't throw them in the same boat.I think it's a liability issue. They won't want someone who is more likely to get ill behind the wheel and cause an accident. At the dealership where I used to work, they recently let go of one of the drivers who picked up and delivered clients' cars because he was on so many medications for his diabetes and other ailments. I guess they thought he would be a risk behind the wheel. I think his age (mid 70s) in addition to the health troubles had something to do with it.It's all about barriers to entry. This was an underhanded victory for the taxi lobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 You will once uber raises prices. Let's see...higher prices vs. who knows who's driving you around? Hmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I don't understand..isn't that how all taxis work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share Posted November 12, 2014 Let's see...higher prices vs. who knows who's driving you around? Hmmm....There was a ranking system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 There was a ranking system And I'm sure that works great until a sex offender picks you up on a cold, lonely night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 12, 2014 Author Share Posted November 12, 2014 And I'm sure that works great until a sex offender picks you up on a cold, lonely night.Stop the fear mongering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 You will once uber raises prices. No I won't. Uber is already below the market taxi rate because they wanted to be competitive against Yellow Cab. City Council has legalized this new form of business, and if Uber prices too high another company is free to come in and compete with them. Uber doesn't have the market cornered on this. This isn't a monopoly type environment where one company completely owns the idea. Besides, if Lyft isn't willing to take reasonable measures to ensure that their drivers don't have background problems, then I don't want them operating as a transportation service in this city. Not at any price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 No I won't. Uber is already below the market taxi rate because they wanted to be competitive against Yellow Cab. City Council has legalized this new form of business, and if Uber prices too high another company is free to come in and compete with them. Uber doesn't have the market cornered on this. This isn't a monopoly type environment where one company completely owns the idea. Besides, if Lyft isn't willing to take reasonable measures to ensure that their drivers don't have background problems, then I don't want them operating as a transportation service in this city. Not at any price. A very good point. Maybe some entrepreneurial souls will start up homegrown versions here and elsewhere if Uber is successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 No I won't. Uber is already below the market taxi rate because they wanted to be competitive against Yellow Cab. City Council has legalized this new form of business, and if Uber prices too high another company is free to come in and compete with them. Uber doesn't have the market cornered on this. This isn't a monopoly type environment where one company completely owns the idea.Besides, if Lyft isn't willing to take reasonable measures to ensure that their drivers don't have background problems, then I don't want them operating as a transportation service in this city. Not at any price.Uber has the market cornered without a rival they can raise the price and still be cheaper than cabs. Lyft is a small company and the absurd rules city council passed are basically barriers for entry and hoops to jump through for part time drivers. It was a victory for the taxi Lobby as of now there are 63 licensed drivers. This was simply bribery why would the city pass these rules when taxpayers have to pay $500,000 to institute them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Uber has the market cornered without a rival they can raise the price and still be cheaper than cabs. Lyft is a small company and the absurd rules city council passed are basically barriers for entry and hoops to jump through for part time drivers. It was a victory for the taxi Lobby as of now there are 63 licensed drivers. This was simply bribery why would the city pass these rules when taxpayers have to pay $500,000 to institute them? Do Uber and Lyft not have to abide by the same rules? Is it not a level playing field between the two services? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 Do Uber and Lyft not have to abide by the same rules? Is it not a level playing field between the two services?They are a different industry, peer to peer ride sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 They are a different industry, peer to peer ride sharing. I need a ride, I call for a ride, I get a ride, I pay for a ride...sounds pretty similar to a taxi service. That wasn't my point, though. Lyft and Uber are doing the same thing and have the same set of rules applied to them. Lyft doesn't like the rules and is leaving the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 I need a ride, I call for a ride, I get a ride, I pay for a ride...sounds pretty similar to a taxi service.That wasn't my point, though. Lyft and Uber are doing the same thing and have the same set of rules applied to them. Lyft doesn't like the rules and is leaving the market.Except taxi isn't a peer to peer market it's an industry that requires its drivers to pay outrageous license fees and for the car itself just to join. Whereas uber you can use your own and it's online only, no "call". The cartel doesn't want anyone coming into their zone.Lyft is 80% smaller than uber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Except taxi isn't a peer to peer market it's an industry that requires its drivers to pay outrageous license fees and for the car itself just to join. Whereas uber you can use your own and it's online only, no "call". The cartel doesn't want anyone coming into their zone.Lyft is 80% smaller than uber It's a different business model for the same industry. Taxi companies will adjust or lose. My guess is that they will adjust. So you have at least two competitors in the same market, three if Lyft happens to also be there and maybe more if it turns out to be profitable. Should be a net benefit for consumers in both cost and service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 14, 2014 Author Share Posted November 14, 2014 My point is uber has a lot of room to raise price without lyft being there. It's about half price of taxis right now so in that space they could raise 50% and still be cheaper than taxis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 Uber has the market cornered without a rival they can raise the price and still be cheaper than cabs. Lyft is a small company and the absurd rules city council passed are basically barriers for entry and hoops to jump through for part time drivers. It was a victory for the taxi Lobby as of now there are 63 licensed drivers. This was simply bribery why would the city pass these rules when taxpayers have to pay $500,000 to institute them? They absolutely do not have the market cornered. There's nothing proprietary about any of this. Any company can rip them off, and there's plenty of examples popping up. Uber and Lyft's services were not even legal until the regulation changes, so to say that the legalization of their services was a victory for taxis is ridiculous. Driving someone somewhere in a car gives you an immense amount of power over them. Public transportation services should be operated by trustworthy people. A fingerprint background check is not an unreasonable ask of someone who wants to provide transportation in our city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 My point is uber has a lot of room to raise price without lyft being there. It's about half price of taxis right now so in that space they could raise 50% and still be cheaper than taxis Not really. I still find plenty of people out there who do not know what Uber is. Look around the entire country and I think you'll find cheap Uber prices, at least not during Primetime surge hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plumber2 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 I'm still going to call a taxi if I need to go somewhere. Point to point. What the heck is peer to peer supposed to mean anyway? Call it what you want, it's a taxi service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 21, 2014 Author Share Posted November 21, 2014 They absolutely do not have the market cornered. There's nothing proprietary about any of this. Any company can rip them off, and there's plenty of examples popping up. Uber and Lyft's services were not even legal until the regulation changes, so to say that the legalization of their services was a victory for taxis is ridiculous.Driving someone somewhere in a car gives you an immense amount of power over them. Public transportation services should be operated by trustworthy people. A fingerprint background check is not an unreasonable ask of someone who wants to provide transportation in our city.You don't understand. It's not just fingerprints it's five different things the city wanted that was the equivalent of jumping through hoops of Fire. Check Austin's rules and compare and you will see what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted November 21, 2014 Author Share Posted November 21, 2014 Let me give another example über cars are subject to 150,000 mileage caps whereas taxis have no such limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted November 21, 2014 Share Posted November 21, 2014 Let me give another example über cars are subject to 150,000 mileage caps whereas taxis have no such limit. So the city prohibits the use of clunker cars in Uber's service? Is that a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.