Ridesharing is an improvement on some of the problems of privately owned cars. Its more equitable and accessible. It saves the necessity of giant parking lots.
Free ride sharing (eg hitchhiking) is better than cheap ride sharing (eg blabla car) which is better then expensive ride sharing (eg a taxi) which - but all are better than there only beingprivately owned cars that are exclusively privately used.
Yes, in principle. However, uber have a well known history of skirting labour laws, skirting taxi laws and doing so to undermine competition and then jack up prices. Risesharing is better than owning a car, but monopolies in how that works are not good for anyone except uber.
My high school econ teacher pointed out that New York used to have a fixed number of taxi licenses.This made competition illegal and kept the price up.
Ubers success is largely from breaking this customer unfriendliness. I use uber because the app is more convenient and effective than finding a taxi and trying to tell them where to go. Uber is less expensive, I can track the route if I disagree with it, and I have the opportunity to give feedback. At least as importantly, uber is far more common than taxis were. From a customer perspective, it’s a pretty good deal.
However they bent a lot of laws to get there, and exploit their drivers. Limited taxi medallions were originally in place to establish standards for customer service mandate service to underserved areas, on the one hand and to support reasonable wages on the other, although likely got captured by the industry. Every “gig economy” business is bending employee/contractor law and most are likely dependent on violating minimum wages, benefits and worker protection laws, what little we have of that.
Downtown I can get an uber in minutes, while there were never enough taxis. Here in the suburbs it takes a long time to get an uber, but medallions always required there be taxis on duty (I actually don’t know if taxis are still in business here). I imagine coverage is even worse in less populated or les desirable parts of the country, and that’s one of the things we lost with taxis
I don’t know about NYC specifically, but that’s pretty common. Not only were there a set amount, there are set fees and minimum standards and requirements for people with disabilities and police checks for drivers etc.
Uber circumvented a lot of those rules. The taxi industry was due for an update and vested interests were preventing that. However, we’ve exchanged one monopoly for another. And now, instead of lots of small business owners, we have one large business andots of wage slaves and surge pricing.
Ridesharing is an improvement on some of the problems of privately owned cars. Its more equitable and accessible. It saves the necessity of giant parking lots.
Public transit is even better!
Ridesharing, yes. Not uber taxi with exploitation
Free ride sharing (eg hitchhiking) is better than cheap ride sharing (eg blabla car) which is better then expensive ride sharing (eg a taxi) which - but all are better than there only beingprivately owned cars that are exclusively privately used.
Or, you know, public transport ;)
But yeah, it’s true. I use carsharing if I feally need a car and public transport/biking most of the time.
If you can plan a bit ahead, ridesharing/transportation is one of the most popular services in US timebanks.
Disclosure: I am a founding board member of a timebank that uses hOurworld software.
Yes, in principle. However, uber have a well known history of skirting labour laws, skirting taxi laws and doing so to undermine competition and then jack up prices. Risesharing is better than owning a car, but monopolies in how that works are not good for anyone except uber.
My high school econ teacher pointed out that New York used to have a fixed number of taxi licenses.This made competition illegal and kept the price up.
Everywhere. That’s not a nyc problem.
Ubers success is largely from breaking this customer unfriendliness. I use uber because the app is more convenient and effective than finding a taxi and trying to tell them where to go. Uber is less expensive, I can track the route if I disagree with it, and I have the opportunity to give feedback. At least as importantly, uber is far more common than taxis were. From a customer perspective, it’s a pretty good deal.
However they bent a lot of laws to get there, and exploit their drivers. Limited taxi medallions were originally in place to establish standards for customer service mandate service to underserved areas, on the one hand and to support reasonable wages on the other, although likely got captured by the industry. Every “gig economy” business is bending employee/contractor law and most are likely dependent on violating minimum wages, benefits and worker protection laws, what little we have of that.
Downtown I can get an uber in minutes, while there were never enough taxis. Here in the suburbs it takes a long time to get an uber, but medallions always required there be taxis on duty (I actually don’t know if taxis are still in business here). I imagine coverage is even worse in less populated or les desirable parts of the country, and that’s one of the things we lost with taxis
I don’t know about NYC specifically, but that’s pretty common. Not only were there a set amount, there are set fees and minimum standards and requirements for people with disabilities and police checks for drivers etc.
Uber circumvented a lot of those rules. The taxi industry was due for an update and vested interests were preventing that. However, we’ve exchanged one monopoly for another. And now, instead of lots of small business owners, we have one large business andots of wage slaves and surge pricing.
Fediverse rideshare? Maybe. Not sure how the liabilities would fall.
Removed by mod
Define ridesharing. I think of e.g. sharing a ride to work or school and not people working, often full-time, with sharing rides