uberxUber’s latest marketing ploy: Leave Lyft, come work for us, and we’ll give you $500.

The San Francisco-based transportation company is offering $500 to drivers from competing services like Lyft and Sidecar just for making one trip on UberX.

“With ever-increasing demand, greater trips per hour, and new cities launching every day, drivers on Uber make more money than with any other ridesharing platform or taxi company. Period,” Uber wrote in a blog post. “We’re so confident in that fact, we’re giving new partners from other ridesharing platforms $500 just to try us out.”

lyft-pinkUber is also giving $500 to its drivers who refer another driver from a competing platform to Uber. The company previously enticed drivers of Lyft, Uber’s main competitor, back in December when it offered them free $50 gas gift cards and sign-up bonuses.

Both Uber and Lyft have grown massively in the past few years. Lyft recently launched in 24 more cities, making it the biggest rides-on-demand platform in the U.S. — UberX is in 47 cities, Lyft now in 60 — while Uber just opened up service in its 100th city worldwide.

But the companies, which allow everyday drivers to shuttle people around town with their personal cars, have faced several legal roadblocks along the way. In Seattle, Uber and Lyft poured in more than $400,000 to a coalition that garnered enough petitions to suspend a newly-passed ordinance regulating their companies. Mayor Ed Murray is now trying to reach a new agreement between the startups and taxi drivers, but if nothing is on the table by the end May, Murray said he’ll issue a cease-and-desist letter to Lyft, UberX and Sidecar.

Previously: Protestors attack Uber vehicles in Seattle, vow to take down a ‘disgusting tech company’

Comments

  • elbowman

    @Taylor_Soper:disqus…”But the companies, which allow everyday drivers to shuttle people around town with their personal cars,”…Yeah, they allow everyday drivers to do that, but the truth is these are in vast majority former cab drivers.

    Copying and pasting from Uber/Lyft/Sidecar corporate media propaganda must be tiring.

    • Kevin

      “Yeah, they allow everyday drivers to do that, but the truth is these are in vast majority former cab drivers.”

      … and? I feel like there was supposed to be a point here…

      • elbowman

        They’re cab companies, using cab drivers, trying to avoid following the rules cab companies are required to follow in order to undercut their competitors. If you’ve read any of Taylor’s many pro-Uber/Lyft/Sidecar articles you would understand the point.

        • Guest

          Again, what’s your point? I like low prices and I hate rules. This benefits us all.

          • kirsten863

            my Aunty Sienna recently got a stunning red
            Nissan Maxima by working part time online… find out here now C­a­s­h­D­u­t­i­e­s­.­ℂ­o­m

          • elbowman

            Wrong. Having no rules benefits only those who are bullies and can beat down or buy out their competitors. You just have anarchy.

            The reason the rules were established was to protect everyone, businesses, customers, and the general public. They’ve been developed over time to the benefit of all.

            You’re either too young, or too lacking in intelligence to understand. OR, you’re a Uber/Lyft/Sidecar shill who’s afraid to identify yourself, by signing in as a Guest.

          • Guest

            Wrong! The rules benefit a deliberately undersupplied, excessively demanded taxi cartel. By ignoring or rewriting the rules, TNCs are literally dismantling this cartel and establishing free enterprise.

            Please read the history of taxi rules. You will find it in your local library if your city is still able to afford libraries.

          • SamuelRoby

            Ride–“sharing” is the BIGGEST cartel in public transportation that ever, and let me repeat – ever, existed.
            Anyone calling hundreds of thousands lawful small transportation businesses a “cartel” is ether a paid ride-“sharing” shill or plain – delusional.

          • dingsop

            No, you’re wrong. I work for Lyft, and I’ve met very few other drivers who are/were taxi drivers by trade. The vast majority of people who work for this company are just average folks trying to make some extra cash – and doing so!

            The rules were established to protect a government/taxi cartel. The government takes its cut of taxi company profits, the taxi passes the costs down to its drivers, and the drivers get a bad attitude and speed around the city like madmen because they’re making junk pay.

            If you’re a taxi driver and you sign on for a 10 or 12 hour shift, you’re in debt to the taxi company/government about $175 before you even get in the car. When I get into my car to work for Lyft, I know that I might shell out $70 to the company after working that 10 or 12 hour shift, but I’ll be taking home $300-350.

            Moreover, taxis aren’t any safer than ridesharing services. All our drivers have background checks, just like taxis. We have a $1,000,000 insurance policy to cover property damage and customer medical bills. We have a zero tolerance drug policy. And we’re approved and regulated by the CPUC. What more do you want?

          • elbowman

            I want you to carry commercial insurance so if I get in a wreck with you driving I’m covered, and so are you. I want you to be legitimately licensed to carry passengers in your vehicle, like the cab service that you are. I want you to have proper criminal background checks, because I don’t like getting in a car with a violent/sexual predator. You may have a zero tolerance drug policy, but do you have mandatory random drug tests, like cab companies?You’re obviously not telling the truth because every news article written about your company’s drivers states that most of you are ‘former’ cab drivers. This is taken from articles written in Seattle, and in other cities around the country. Ask Taylor, who shills this stuff for Geekwire.

          • dingsop2

            “I want you to carry commercial insurance so if I get in a wreck with you
            driving I’m covered, and so are you.”

            So do I. We’re working with insurance companies, who currently provide us with no options. Commercial insurance is inappropriate for our business model and unaffordable for our drivers, yet individual insurance won’t cover our drivers or their cars in the event of an accident.

            However, we do carry a $1 million insurance policy that protects people other than the driver for medical costs and property damage.

            “I want you to be legitimately
            licensed to carry passengers in your vehicle, like the cab service that
            you are.” An unnecessary and overly onerous government regulation meant to continue their corrupt cartel’s hegemony. You should be fighting to remove these regulations entirely, not impose them on more businesses. We’ve demonstrated with years of safer operation than taxis that they are not needed at all, and are simply a method of government cartel taxation. Your taxi “license” is simply another piece of the government mafia’s “protection” racket.

            ” I want you to have proper criminal background checks, because I don’t like getting in a car with a violent/sexual predator.”

            For Lyft at least, this is already happening. All of our drivers undergo a full criminal and DMV background check. Violent individuals or those with sex crimes on their records are immediately removed from consideration, as are those with multiple points on their driving record. Our record of safety speaks for itself – again, lending credence to the above notion that taxis and rideshares alike shouldn’t need to be licensed by a government cartel.

            “You may have a zero tolerance drug policy, but do you have mandatory random drug tests, like cab companies?”

            No, we don’t, and neither should taxi companies. Random drug testing is invasive, un-Constitutional, and has shown no benefits towards safety whatsoever, instead just being yet another part of that government cartel, whose approved drug testing companies profit from continued onerous regulation, while customers gain no additional benefit.

            “You’re obviously not telling the truth because every news article
            written about your company’s drivers states that most of you are
            ‘former’ cab drivers. This is taken from articles written in Seattle,
            and in other cities around the country. Ask Taylor, who shills this
            stuff for Geekwire.”

            I don’t know what to tell you about that, but it’s certainly not the case in SF. Taxis here despise us, because we’re destroying them after decades of them treating customers like trash and thinking they could get away with it forever. Now that there’s an alternative, their clientele have heavily switched over for the blatantly, night-and-day better service we provide. Very few taxi drivers would consider working for us, purely as a matter of pride/solidarity, although a few have made the switch. Perhaps things are different in Seattle.

          • elbowman

            So, in other words, since you and your company don’t feel the existing laws are ‘right’ then you don’t have to obey them, like everyone else does. You think you should be free to compete as you see fit, despite the laws and regulations currently in place.

            I guess that means you’re an anarchist as is your company. Laws don’t apply to you since you don’t believe in them.

            I think you’re all a bunch of very wealthy crooks, who are flouting the law and should be shutdown immediately. Just because you have an app, and a lot of money doesn’t make you right, or legal.

            It’s nice to hear you proudly proclaim your beliefs, no matter how illegal they are.

          • dingsop2

            Anarcho-communist and proud. You mad that your tired old capitalist model is falling apart at the seams?

          • elbowman

            Me mad? Nah. I just like to know where I can file the opinions of certain people. I have a round file where I’ll keep yours’. Let me know when the anarchist/communist party takes over and the world runs on that system.

          • SamuelRoby

            Pay for your business permits, follow same rules and same regulations, pay your yearly and quarterly taxes, pay your disability and other surcharges, comply to regulatory enforcement like thousands of small taxicabs do, have your inspections done, etc. – then operate. You have billions tin your offshore bank accounts (Uber valued @ 18 billion) – you sure can afford this. Operate fairly – then compete.

          • SamuelRoby

            The point is the competition must be lawful, level-fielded, and ethical. Ride-“sharing” (even the term is misleading), offers none of that. If that is legit then street corner drug dealers are providing a legit “quality” services to its customers.

  • MichaelTompson

    The problem with ride-sharing private for-profit corporations and their business model is their non-compliance with laws and local regulations governing public transportation. More often than not ride-sharing taxis are in violation of both. One can only go so far dodging permit costs, insurance costs, regulatory expenses, transportation laws, statutory laws, etc. At some point authorities will wake up to the smell and smack it down or at least make it comply with same set of rules and requirements imposed on all other transportation service operators. In fact, many US cities already disallowed ride-sharing taxicab services precisely for the reason of non-compliance. Miami, Vegas come to mind. Recently, China prohibited few, if not all, ride-sharing operators from operating in its major cities. In Berlin, Germany court ruled ride-sharing operations to be ILLEGAL and not following fair competition. The reason was the same – non-compliance with laws and regulations and thus acquired unfair advantage over existing businesses; one can only go so far breaking laws and dodging regulations that govern others in the same exact industry segment. Here are some links attached:
    1. http://pando.com/2014/02/25/ridesharing-companies-meet-to-discuss-public-liability-insurance-wont-share-details-with-the-public/
    2. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/01/24/uber-admits-to-dirty-tricks-in-nyc.html
    3. http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Ride-Service-May-Pose-Risk-to-Passengers-256639641.html
    4. http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=32579
    5. http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/05/our_taxi_company_plays_by_rule.html
    Here are results of a poll taken in Florida where majority of responders said that UBER SHOULD BE REGULATED BY TAXI STANDARDS (as if it’s not glaringly obvious already):
    “A new poll released in Florida in March 2014 shows that Florida
    residents overwhelmingly want Uber to be regulated at the local level
    just like traditional taxi companies.
    The poll, commissioned by Orlando based Mears Transportation Group, showed that among Floridians:
    78% believe Uber should be subject to the same local city regulations as taxis.
    69% said Uber’s fares should be regulated and therefore avoid Uber’s whimsical “surge pricing.”
    89% want to see Uber’s drivers go through the same background checks as taxi drivers.”
    To sum it up, ride-sharing IS a taxi operation and must be regulated by same standards that local small taxi businesses are regulated today. Only when competition is fair, can we reasonably
    compare existing services side by side.

    • elbowman

      @MichaelTompson:disqus..You are perfectly correct, however, @Taylor_Soper:disqus will continue his single-handed effort to shill for the rideshares.

      • MichaelTompson

        When ride-sharing so called “start-ups” that have billions to spend, are spending many millions on sophisticated social media PR and on dedicated internet support groups, you know something is not right. Where did we ever see a start-up valued in BILLIONS? Where did we have such well organized and coordinated corporate bullying and intimidation tactics?
        Never. It’s all a scheme. Nothing else. A well-designed and planned scheme sponsored by few billionaires and masqueraded behind a couple of smartphone apps. The goal is control of local transportation all over the country, and beyond. No wonder China booted them out. So did Berlin, Germany. People are awakening to the sad manipulated reality that ride-sharing has become.

        • dingsop

          Give it up, Mike. Ridesharing companies have shown your precious “laws and regulations” to be overly onerous and little more than a scam to elicit greater government profits from taxi companies – who pass those costs down to their drivers, who in turn drive unsafely trying to make more money, and act like jerks to an entire city for decades on end, thus driving their customer base away as soon as real competition appeared.

          Taxis aren’t any safer than ridesharing, despite all those laws and regulations. Frankly, despite the high profile story of an Uber driving killing someone, taxis kill people all the time – including themselves and each other. A few months back I saw two taxis T-bone each other on Franklin St. because one of them tried to run the yellow light and the other was easing into the intersection before his light had turned green. We’ve all seen crazy taxi drivers all over the road, honking at everyone in their way, swerving around traffic and driving unsafely in order to try to maximize their profits. And ridesharing companies, at least in California, ARE being regulated by the CPUC. We’re fully legal and regulated now, just like you taxis.

          Are you truly surprised that no one wants to use taxis anymore? They’re smelly (I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve ridden in a cab that smelled putrid, either from the driver, his cigarettes, or puke on the floor of the backseat that he didn’t bother to clean up), rude (I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve ridden in a cab where the driver said little to me beyond a grunt, yelled in Arabic into his Bluetooth for the entire ride, or was just a jerk overall), inefficient (why stand on the side of the road like a mook holding out your arm for 20 minutes when you can call a ride through an app and track its progress to you? Especially when the driver is typically there within 5-10 minutes), limited in number (SF artificially limited the number of medallions to ensure high demand, but it made it impossible for people to get rides as a result), don’t take credit cards or yell at you when you try to use one, refuse to take you to certain areas, and don’t show up when you call to schedule one in advance.

          Face it, Mike – your business model is outdated, outmoded, and inefficient. Your fellow taxi drivers have done an excellent job of destroying their monopoly on this industry by behaving like animals in all the ways I described above and more. You’ve created this situation yourself by greedily thinking that the gravy train would never come to a stop, and assuming you could get away with treating your customers poorly because you were the only game in town. But you aren’t the only game in town anymore, and now your day in the sun is over.

          Now step aside and let us ridesharing drivers rule the roost for a bit. Heck, we’ll even let you come work for us if you want. How does $30+/h sound? Bet it’s more than you make in that cab.

          • MichaelTompson

            I’m have nothing to give up on since I’m not fighting anyone or anything. I’m raising legitimate concerns supported by facts that are publicly available. Ride-sharing is represented by only a few (2-3) large private corporations some of which have recently moved offshore.
            I have no problem with fair competition. But ride-sharing taxicabs are not competing fairly. The table is titled. And the game is rigged.
            They are not paying even a tenth of what small regulated local transportation businesses are forced to pay daily. That’s unfair.
            Follow same rules. Pay same expenses.
            Then we can compete.
            There are thousands of GPS apps out there. There is absolutely no need to narrow down on only the 2-3 that seem to spend most on oh so evident self-advertisements.
            Fair competition is the key. And I see absolutely no desire or intention on part of the multi-billion dollars ride-sharing law-breakers to allow for it.

          • dingsop2

            Instead of fighting us, you should fight for your right to be less onerously regulated by a corrupt government cartel. You missed my entire point in that regard.

            You’re right that it’s not a fair competition, but it’s because you’ve allowed the government to take half your pay for nothing in return. We’ve demonstrated that all of the onerous government regulations are not necessary at all.

    • Guest

      If you like Florida, Vegas, or Europe so much, you’re free to live there. I live in Seattle, a city where we are not inspired to do exactly what our ancestors did.

      • Mike

        Should drivers even have a license, why should we pay car tabs, why should we even pay for gas, it should all be free. Down with the man, stupid companies always trying to make a profit, stupid government always taking taxes that go towards fixing community systems like roads, traffic lights, infrastructure, police, fire, medics.
        There are rules and regulations, taxes and fees for a reason. Are they mismanaged by politicians, yes. However, when investors in companies start influencing the politicians pockets to avoid these rules and regulations, taxes and fees, I get pretty mad and I don’t want the companies they invest in to be here. I don’t pay taxes to make investors rich and hipsters get a free ride.

        • Guest

          Mike, why do the rules exist? Why is the supply of cars for hire so limited?

        • balls187

          logic fail

    • Dallas79

      Those polls completely reverse when you specify that all-of-the-above regulations would mean fare rates at, or higher than, those of existing taxi services.

      The almighty dollar reigns. No one is stopping people from choosing to call existing taxi services for their needs. That these startups are succeeding is proof that most people prefer lower prices to the perceived additional safety of the regulated cabs.

  • Guest

    Excellent. I’m glad to see our TNCs competing for talent. Thank you for keeping the pressure on our complacent car-for-hire industry!

  • Guest

    Look what competition does.. Better service, increased wages, all without government intervention or “planning.” How ironic that this was announced the day the city decides to raise the minimum wage to an insane level.

    • ClaimsAdjuster

      You forget the corner cutting on insurance and licensing.

      • dingsop2

        No licensing is needed. We’re functioning just fine without giving the city a cut of our profits, aren’t we? Hell of a lot better than taxis, at least – ask anyone in San Francisco who’s ever ridden in one.

        As for insurance, that’s your fault, not ours. We’ve been trying to work with insurance companies (and, thankfully, are finally coming close to a solution) to provide proper insurance for our drivers, but your companies don’t offer any options at this time, as commercial insurance isn’t appropriate, but neither is individual coverage.

        • ClaimsAdjuster

          dingbat:
          “We’re fully legal and regulated now, just like you taxis”

          “No licensing is needed. We’re functioning just fine without giving the city a cut of our profits, aren’t we?”

          Make up your mind.

          You are not functioning just fine. A recent NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit broadcast a report that shows Uber’s policies can leave drivers and passengers in the lurch if there are accidents. And despite administering background checks, Uber still employs drivers with criminal records that include burglary, domestic assault and drug trafficking.

          http://media.nbcbayarea.com/images/1200*675/0424-Uber_accident.jpg

          Uber’s reaction to the lawsuit filed by Jason Herrera, an UberX passenger injured in the accident mentioned in the report is that Uber is a tech company that is not responsible for its cars or drivers. “…Uber warrants that it is a technology company and denies that it is a transportation company or common carrier” states the company’s response to Jason A Herrera v Uber Technologies

          • dingsop2

            Re: regulation – we’re regulated by the CPUC, who has deemed our operations legal. Take it up with them if you disagree.

            Regardless, we don’t need to be regulated, and neither do taxis. The fact that we operated more safely than taxis showcases that, again.

            Again, we’re not Uber. I’m talking about Lyft. You don’t want criminal drivers? Don’t want to be left in a lurch insurance-wise? Don’t use Uber. Definitely don’t use cabs. Use Lyft. Our insurance, as I have mentioned three times now, covers passengers and property damage up to $1mm.

            Your only valid point from that entire post was that our drivers aren’t covered, which, yet again, is the fault of insurance companies like the one I’m assuming from your username that you work for, for not responding quickly enough to a changing marketplace.

            Thankfully, as I mentioned, we’re working with a certain insurance company to create a policy that will satisfy all parties.

  • Gus

    Michael Thompson et al- it’s over, you lost. Stop crying and whining like little bitches and figure out how to compete.

    • dingsop

      Give it up, Mike. Ridesharing companies have shown your precious
      “laws and regulations” to be overly onerous and little more than a scam
      to elicit greater government profits from taxi companies, who pass
      those costs down to their drivers, who in turn drive unsafely trying to
      make more money, and act like jerks to an entire city for decades on
      end, thus driving their customer base away as soon as real competition
      appeared.

      Taxis aren’t any safer than ridesharing, despite all
      those laws and regulations. Frankly, despite the high profile story of
      an Uber driving killing someone, taxis kill people all the time –
      including themselves and each other. A few months back I saw two taxis
      T-bone each other on Franklin St. because one of them tried to run the
      yellow light and the other was easing into the intersection before his
      light had turned green. We’ve all seen crazy taxi drivers all over the
      road, honking at everyone in their way, swerving around traffic and
      driving unsafely in order to try to maximize their profits. And
      ridesharing companies, at least in California, ARE being regulated by
      the CPUC. We’re fully legal and regulated now, just like you taxis.

      Are
      you truly surprised that no one wants to use taxis anymore? They’re
      smelly (I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve ridden in a cab that
      smelled putrid, either from the driver, his cigarettes, or puke on the
      floor of the backseat that he didn’t bother to clean up), rude (I can’t
      tell you the number of times I’ve ridden in a cab where the driver said
      little to me beyond a grunt, yelled in Arabic into his Bluetooth for the
      entire ride, or was just a jerk overall), inefficient (why stand on the
      side of the road like a mook holding out your arm for 20 minutes when
      you can call a ride through an app and track its progress to you?
      Especially when the driver is typically there within 5-10 minutes),
      limited in number (SF artificially limited the number of medallions to
      ensure high demand, but it made it impossible for people to get rides as
      a result), don’t take credit cards or yell at you when you try to use
      one, refuse to take you to certain areas, and don’t show up when you
      call to schedule one in advance.

      Face it, Mike – your business
      model is outdated, outmoded, and inefficient. Your fellow taxi drivers
      have done an excellent job of destroying their monopoly on this industry
      by behaving like animals in all the ways I described above and more.
      You’ve created this situation yourself by greedily thinking that the
      gravy train would never come to a stop, and assuming you could get away
      with treating your customers poorly because you were the only game in
      town. But you aren’t the only game in town anymore, and now your day in
      the sun is over.

      Now step aside and let us ridesharing drivers
      rule the roost for a bit. Heck, we’ll even let you come work for us if
      you want. How does $30+/h sound? Bet it’s more than you make in that
      cab.

      • ClaimsAdjuster

        “Taxis aren’t any safer than ridesharing…”

        Unlike Lyft and UberX, taxis carry actual insurance. You Lyft and UberX drivers are running around with invalid non-commercail insurance. What you are doing is insurance fraud. How long do you think that is going to continue?

        “We’re fully legal and regulated now, just like you taxis”

        Not in Washington state. In a few weeks, the Seattle mayor will issue a cease and desist order against Uber, Lyft and Sidecar. The license inspectors will issue $1,000 tickets to the drivers for these companies for operating without a For-Hire license.

        Also not in Arizona where the Governor just vetoed a bill that would have dumped the cost UberX’s accident on the private car owner.

        “Without the law, rideshare companies are operating in Arizona illegally, according to the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures, which regulates taxi companies in the state.

        That’s because though their drivers provide transportation-for-hire services, the companies don’t carry the same mandatory insurance as taxis are required to carry, and the drivers do not have commercial drivers’ licenses.

        Providing transportation services for hire without those qualifications can lead to civil penalties of between $200 and $500 for each violation, according to Shawn Marquez, director of compliance programs for the Department of Weights and Measures.

        “They’re transporting people, [but] they don’t have commercial insurance, they don’t have commercial plates. At this point, they’re not legal. They are considered right now just pirate [taxis],” Marquez said.

        • dingsop2

          “Unlike Lyft and UberX, taxis carry actual insurance. You Lyft and UberX
          drivers are running around with invalid non-commercail insurance. What
          you are doing is insurance fraud. How long do you think that is going to continue?”

          False, we have a $1 million insurance policy that covers property damage and passengers. It doesn’t cover our drivers or their cars, but that’s our problem, not yours as a passenger.

          “Not in Washington state”

          Fair enough, I’m talking about SF. Unfortunately, Washington continues to be backwards in most regards (and a terrible state with terrible people, too). Sorry to break it to you.

          Arizona is even worse than Washington, for what it’s worth.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            Typical irrelevant response. Again, You Lyft and UberX drivers are running around with invalid non-commercial insurance. What you are doing is insurance fraud.

            Since you ignored the insurance fraud link, I will quote from it:

            Drivers for app-based ride services increasingly commit insurance fraud, a San Francisco assistant district attorney told state regulators on Friday.

            Some drivers for services such as Lyft, UberX and Sidecar lie if they get into an accident and claim they were driving for personal reasons,Conrad Del Rosario told a state Department of Insurance hearing.

            That type of fraud has increased in recent months, he said, as drivers seek someone to pay for repairs when their cars are damaged. The reason: Personal auto insurance doesn’t cover commercial activities, while the ride companies’ $1 million liability policies cover passengers and third parties, but do not cover the drivers and their cars.

            “Personal carriers have absolutely no way to detect this fraud,” Del Rosario said. “They’re completely powerless to know when a person is doing (transportation network company) activity … or conspires with a passenger to say that’s his friend he picked up at a bar.”

            Another type of fraud, which Del Rosario said is extensive, is rate evasion – drivers who buy personal policies, while intending to use their vehicles full time to carry paying passengers.

            In California, two seperate bills are advancing through the legislature. Both will require that Lyft and UberX carry commercial insurance. Your days of cutting corners and freeloading on non-business auto insurance are coming to a close.

          • dingsop2

            I guess we’ll see, won’t we?

            Here’s what I envision happening: on the off chance your pathetic taxi-lobby-written bills pass the legislature (they won’t), the citizens of San Francisco will be so up in arms over the fact that every single Lyft and Uber driver just quit (because commercial insurance is far too expensive to be affordable for anyone doing this kind of work) that a local special exemption will be created and things will continue as they have been, until the pathetic taxis you love so much are forever destroyed. Good riddance.

            For what it’s worth, a little bird tells me that we’re already working with a certain insurance company to create a non-commercial, but non-individual insurance policy that will be cheaper and will satisfy both parties.

            You pathetic taxi shills can keep trying to legislatively bribe your way out of this, but nothing changes the facts: you treated your customers like trash for decades and now you’re reaping the whirlwind.

  • Myles H

    Uber drivers don’t even compare to Lyft’s. I enjoy using Uber and Lyft. When I need a luxury sedan or SUV, I always choose Uber. But if I simply just need a ride, I prefer Lyft over UberX every time. The drivers are much nicer and more friendly.

    And if you haven’t tried Lyft yet, I have a promo code for $25. Enter “FREE20″ in the payment section. Basically a free ride!

  • ClaimsAdjuster

    Uber is still dumping uninsured vehicles on the street and refusing to pay for accidents caused by their drivers.

    A recent NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit broadcast a report that shows Uber’s policies can leave drivers and passengers in the lurch if there are accidents. And despite administering background checks, Uber still employs drivers with criminal records that include burglary, domestic assault and drug trafficking.

    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Is-Uber-Keeping-Riders-Safe-256438921.html

    Uber’s reaction to the lawsuit filed by Jason Herrera, an UberX passenger injured in the accident mentioned in the report is that Uber is a tech company that is not responsible for its cars or drivers. “…Uber warrants that it is a technology company and denies that it is a transportation company or common carrier” states the company’s response to Jason A Herrera v Uber Technologies.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/209100904/Uber-Herrera-Response

  • SamuelRoby

    A similar “sharing” model employed by Aereo, was recently ruled out by Supreme Court’s decision to be illegal and law-breaking. To operate as a cable company, Aereo would have to get and pay fees for a compulsory copyright license, which gives permission to transmit broadcast channels. Similarly to uber and lyft – pay for your license to operate as a lawful business. Or – halt your operations. Technology is not an excuse to breaks laws and regulations, and the case of tech start-up Aereo is a glaring example of that.

Job Listings on GeekWork