Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Uber safety concerns becoming more serious and more frequent

picture by foxnews.com

Uber safety concerns becoming more serious and more frequent

Traditional taxi cab companies have opposed the shady, corner cutting practices of ride-sharing operations like Uber since the San Francisco based software company began operating cut-rate transportation services to the northern California city. Now that companies like Uber and Lyft and Sidecar, the three giants in the billion dollar ride sharing business, are openly defying both the law and the establish ride for hire industry, legislators and lawmakers are beginning to see the importance of making these new kids in town pay the piper like their traditional transportation industry counterparts have been doing for many years.
District attorneys from both Los Angeles and San Francisco to the app-based transportation companies with stern warnings about their misleading statements to their customers and the public in general concerning what many see as serious safety issues. The letters to the three largest ride-share companies also contained accusations that the ride-sharing organizations are guilty of refusing to follow state laws and of incorporating illegal practices and the corresponding fines and penalties as a normal cost of doing business. In many cities Uber actually pays the fines imposed on their drivers by local police and courts.
San Francisco Dist. Atty. George Gascón has stated that Uber, Lyft and Sidecar need to correct multiple civil violations of state and local laws. He promised that if the app-based companies continue to disregard the law prosecutors will begin filing restraining orders as well as begin to assess the companies heavy fines.
The prosecutors' letters are the just  latest salvo by local governments in the ongoing war over how these Johnny-come-latelies to the transportation business attempt to undermine the existing structure of the industry by circumventing safety and permitting procedures that are designed to protect both the customers and drivers of these scofflaw companies. The companies allow customers to summon rides using smartphones and mobile devices based apps, and drivers transport passengers in their personal vehicles rather than licensed and inspected vehicles like traditional taxi companies are required to use. The services are often deceptively marketed as a safer, and The prosecutors' letters are the just  latest salvo by local governments in the ongoing war over how these Johnny-come-latelies to the transportation business attempt to undermine the existing structure of the industry by circumventing safety and permitting procedures that are designed to protect both the customers and drivers of these scofflaw companies. The companies allow customers to summon rides using smartphones and mobile devices based apps, and drivers transport passengers in their personal vehicles rather than licensed and inspected vehicles like traditional taxi companies are required to use. The services are often deceptively marketed as a safer, and cheaper alternative to taxis. These companies have been rapidly gaining popularity in San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as all around the world.
The latest investigations began in response to "a multitude of very serious complaints from both customers and legitimate taxi and limousine companies." Gascón said. The charges leveled by lawmakers include allegations  that the firms have failed to comply with multiple laws and local regulations that govern airport pickups and fare pricing. A recurring concern expressed both in California and nationwide is the fact that the ride-share have falsely told consumers that they perform background checks that  ensure their passengers that the drivers have no criminal record or previous driving violations.
Uber and Sidecar representatives said their firms' background checks comply with state law although they did not provide specific details regarding either the statutes they refer to or the exact background check process they claim to be employing. Echoing the vague defense the companies have been using in other cities, the reps for these companies claim that the charges are a result of misunderstandings. Their standard line is always something along the lines of this recent quote from Sunil Paul, the chief executive and founder of Sidecar:"We have a common interest," Paul said before a meeting with prosecutors "They have a high priority on safety, and our No. 1 concern is safety for riders, drivers and the public." Most experts agree that there is little truth to this claim and that the ride-share companies have historically shown little or no concern for the safety of either their passengers or their drivers. I think it is painfully obvious that their “No. 1 concern” is the billions of dollars of revenue at stake. Another commonly used, but inherently flawed defense used by the scofflaw companies is that they are merely ‘software providers’ and thus they are not really in the transportation business at all. Their flawed logic wears mighty thin under even the most casual scrutiny. It is no surprise that again, virtually all of the legal experts that have spoken out on the issue consider this line of reasoning unfounded and without any legal merit whatsoever.
What has become increasingly clear is that these companies are getting what they deserve and their time of making billions of dollars at the expense of legitimate transportation providers and local governments is quickly drawing to a close. If  California, the most supportive and lenient entity in terms of trying to work with these companies, has finally had enough of the lying and circular legal arguments Uber and their ilk employ, the rest of the country, and the world, can’t be far behind. I guess that is what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you, isn’t it?

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Jacksonville to lead Florida in dealing with Uber's corporate terrorism?

picture by http://angieaway.com/

Jacksonville City Council Wants Uber and Lyft to Pony Up 

In a move that many citizens and city council members feel is long overdue, the Jacksonville city council is planning to introduce legislation that will require ride-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft to go through the same permit application process as do other local transportation providers such as taxi’s and limousine services. Currently the ride-share outfits are sidestepping the permit process, claiming they are software services and as such they are not subject to the same rules and regulations as conventional  taxi cab companies. The taxi companies, and many in local government, claim that the result of this quasi-legal practice is an unfair trade advantage for the ride–share organizations because they do not have to pay the significant fees required to obtain and maintain the permits. Another issues often associated with Uber and other similar companies is that they are not currently required to perform the same level of background screening that the traditional transportation providers are subject to when applying for the permit. Proponents of the new legislation  claim that this results in both an unfair business advantage for the ride-share companies but also poses a significant public safety risk because the drivers for the ride-share companies often have been found to be employing felons; burglars, rapists, child molesters and even murderers have been alleged to be in the employ of Uber. 
Jacksonville City Councilman Stephen Joost recently announced that he plans to introduce new legislation that would give the city the power to impound unregulated vehicles using the Uber or Lyft software apps. The proposed new regulations would also allow the city to seize the vehicles of repeat offenders. Joost said the more stringent  sanctions  are what is necessary to motivate the drivers of ride-share cars to follow city laws.
These companies, with “ride share” models that allow people to arrange and pay for transportation with their smart phones, have come under increasing scrutiny  in recent months for employing drivers who have not been screened for criminal backgrounds and also not permitted or regulated by the city of Jacksonville..
City Council members and citizens alike say the unregulated vehicles pose a safety risk. They’ve also accused Uber of going back on an assurance made last year to not bring its unregulated driving service to Jacksonville. There are currently well over 100 Uber drivers operating in the Jacksonville area, some sources claim as many as 500.
Lyft and Uber spokespeople insist that they provide a popular and innovative service to a willing market among the residents of Jacksonville. They say their services may differ somewhat from  traditional taxi operations but they insist that their new model can be implemented in a manner that takes all necessary safety precautions and screens and insures their drivers.
In a recent email, Taylor Bennett, an official Uber spokesperson was quoted as saying “If the council’s true concern were safety, then it would embrace Uber for being the safest ride on the road. Instead, this proposal is nothing but an attempt to stifle free market competition on behalf of special interests, which have over time increasingly failed to innovate and meet consumer demand.”
Uber  first appeared on the scene in Jacksonville in 2013, and began allowing travelers to arrange high-end rides with local transportation companies through a cell phone app and arrange for  payment with a credit card kept on file in a database maintained by Uber.
In an effort to be fair to both sides of the ride-sharing issues, the city of Jacksonville  changed its vehicle-for-hire regulations to accommodate the high end lxury ride-sharing service, which the company calls UberBlack. In return for this concession, Uber promised the city it wouldn’t introduce its lower-cost uberX service to Jacksonville. As it has done in cities across the nation, and around the world , Uber has reneged on it’s promise and thumbed it’s nose at local government.
As with UberBlack, passengers can order uberX rides through their phones and do not need to pay with cash. But the drivers typically own their vehicles and they tend to be part-time drivers who pick up passengers to earn extra money..
Local police conducted an undercover operation during an august Jaguars and issued civil citations to both uberX and Lyft drivers. A judge is expected issue a ruling on those cases next week. The city also issues citations to the companies each time a driver receives a violation. Each violation can result in a fine of  up to $500.
Both Uber and Lyft pay their drivers’ fines, companies consider the fines as a cost of doing business and this  concerns  councilmen Joost and Lumb because the policy of these companies is accepting illegal behavior as part of their operating model.
Joost said his legislation would provide increased  motivation for prospective Uber and Lyft drivers to get permits if they knew their vehicles could be impounded and the could be charged with criminal violation of misdemeanor, if they didn’t. start to comply with local laws
It is becoming increasingly clear that local governments around the country are beginning to see through Ubers “tell them what they want to hear”  policy of making promises they never intend to keep, and to routinely breaking civil ordinances and pay the resulting penalties as a normal part of doing businesses.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Can You Make Money with Uber ?

picture by i.ytimg.com

Uber is not all it is Cracked up to be

If you are a professional driver who is considering a job driving with Uber, there are some things you need to know. Do not be fooled by their deceptive and sometimes downright dishonest, claims about the benefits of joining Uber.  Ads in most major cities are claiming incomes of $1000 per week, while in reality Uber drivers are earning less than half that amount even working 50-60 hrs. per week. The Uber concept is good for the consumer, great for Uber, and horrible for the driver.
In an article that appeared recently in Business Insider , the author interviewed several Uber drivers and they uniformly stated that they have never come close to earning what Uber ads claim, and that earnings have been steadily decreasing for some time now because  Uber has flooded the market in most major cities resulting in less than 50% occupancy for most  Uber drivers.  Not a single driver reported making anywhere near $1000 a week after subtracting gas cost and fees paid by the driver, and of course after Uber takes their 20% right off the top. Add to this the wear and tear on your vehicle and it turns out the driving for Uber pays significantly less than driving for a conventional cab company.

Uber also employs a bait and switch tactic when trying to attract new drivers;  In LA, for instance Ubert started out with a $2.50/mile rate that attracted many new drivers, since at $2.50/ mile the drivers could earn a living without working  a ridiculous number of hours. Once the needed drivers were hired, Uber dropped the rate to a measly $1.10 per mile, not enough to make a living no matter how many hours the driver works. The chart below shows how Uber empoloyed the same tactic in NJ:

NEW JERSEY:
Original Price          Summer 2014 Price              Fall 2014 Price
$2.25/mile                 $1.90/mile                    $1.64/mile
$0.30/minute               $0.20/minute                  $0.20/minute
$3.00 base                 $3.00 base                    $2.00
$7.00 minimum              $7.00 minimum                 $6.00 minimum

As this chart shows, Uber started out advertising reasonable rates that would provide a full time driver with a reasonable living, and within the space of a few months dropped the rates so that the same driver working the same hours would make 28% less; Thus a driver making $50,000/yr gross to begin with would make only $36,000/yr after the rates were lowered.

Another move by Uber to attract more business was to cut rates in major markets to well below -market levels, attracting new traffic (which Uber profits from) while forcing  drivers  to drive longer hours at the reduced fares to make the same amount of money.  Once again, Uber wins, the consumer wins, and the drivers lose.

It is also worth noting that Uber discourages tipping, and didn’t even include the tipping option in the app until very recently. That is because tipping doesn’t benefit Uber, and by not encouraging tipping the service appears more economical to the consumer.

Probably the best indicator of how Uber views their drivers is the fact that they try to convince their drivers that all of their sleight of hand concerning rates, fares, and commissions is actually in the driver’s best interests. Not only do they brazenly exploit the very drivers who have made them rich, but they treat them as if they are ignorant fools who will believe the wild claims that Uber has been making a standard component of their business model. Compare this shady way of doing things with the legal, moral, and business philosophy of the traditional cab company or limo service, and I think you will agree that there really is no comparison at all.

This is also true when it comes to vehicle maintenance and replacement costs since with the legal cab company the driver does not incur any repair or replacement bills like the Uber driver will encounter as his car ages rapidly from the grueling regimen a commercial car endures. The expense of having to purchase a replacement vehicle is enough to put most single car Uber drivers out of business, or at best deeply in the red for a considerable time.

After taking all of these  factors into consideration, it becomes clear that driving for Uber has absolutely no advantages over driving for a traditional, legal, cab company. The cab company’s rate ( currently around $2.40/mile in most urban markets) is not going to fluctuate wildly. This provides the driver with a stable income allowing them to make future financial plans with a reasonable amount of confidence that their incomes will remain stable moving forward. The cab company is unlikely to flood the market with excessive cars/drivers as has been the case with UBer in several locations. The bottom line is that Uber does not live up to it’s claims and there is more money and more security driving for a legitimate, legal cab company.

Request your local Uber drivers in Tampa, Miami, Orlando, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota, Jacksonville, Ocala, Naples, Gainesville, Tallahassee, Fort Lauderdale, Cape Coral  and ask how much money they really make......

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Taxi Driver on Uber and Lyft / Opinion

"The commission’s executives are continuing to negotiate with the ride-sharing businesses over ways to help them operate legitimately, and many of the key issues, including more thorough background checks, commercial insurance, vehicle inspections and whether the commission can impose pre-determined rates on rides, have been worked out."

Neither Uber nor Lyft want to communicate with PTC, why?
because 3-6 months from now, when they are going to be forced to accept conditions imposed on them by court, they also will be forced to raise the rates to compensate drivers for extra expenses like commercial insurance, city license, hack license, car inspections, etc.
............but,.......... by then , their market share in local personal transportation field will be substantially higher, build on $1.20 a mile rides they advertise now.
Needless to say, when they are going to rise rates, they also  will be blaming "bad" PTC for that, making uber look like "Robin Hood" company FORCED TO COMPLY WITH EVIL GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.
............a cinderella, fighting "corrupted taxi cartels"........?   

picture by TBO.com



By 
The simmering feud between the agency that regulates cab and limousine services in Hillsborough County and a handful of upstart ride-sharing companies escalated Thursday when a Lyft driver refused to take a plea on a misdemeanor of driving a taxi without a license and demanded a jury trial.
Farhad Kazemi, 42, rejected a misdemeanor intervention program that could have resulted in a dismissal of the charges and said he wanted his case heard by a jury. Hillsborough County Judge Lawrence Lefler set a trial date of Oct. 20.
Another Lyft driver, Darrell Rogers, was scheduled to appear in court Thursday on similar charges but failed to appear. Lefler issued a warrant for his arrest.
The two are the first of nearly two dozen cases made by local transportation inspectors over the past two weeks that now are wending their way through county court. The court cases began after the Public Transportation Commission, which has been locked in a dispute with Uber and Lyft over what level of regulation the ride-sharing services should be subject to, set up an operation to cite the drivers.
“I guess it was a sting,” Public Transportation Commission Executive Director Kyle Cockream said of the operation that netted Kazemi and other ride-sharing drivers. “That’s the closest thing to describe it.”............"

Friday, September 12, 2014

Canada vs Uber Con Artists



picture by http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com

Uber In Canada


Uber has become one of the fastest-growing tech companies of the past year. It seems you are hearing about it everywhere, and it has even launched in Canada. This year, the company has raised $1.5 billion in venture capital, and it touts itself as a cheaper alternative to taking a taxi, while also laying claims that it is possible to make $50,000 to $100,000 a year as an Uber driver.
The road for Uber has not been an easy one, especially in Canada. In September of 2012, it was reported that Uber was in a dispute with local regulators, and two months later it was announced that the company was raising its rates to $75 per hour to comply with regulations. By December, Uber had chosen not to get a licence from the city. That same month, Uber was charged with 25 municipal licencing offenses in Toronto, including having an unlicensed taxi brokerage and unlicensed limo service.
Uber has touted itself as an alternative to taxis, but many have found that just getting an Uber ride is very difficult. In a piece in the Financial Post, published in September of 2014, a reporter attempted to compare different transit options, including Uber. Depsite checking several times between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., he found no cars were available and the reporter had to take transit to work. As a result, the reporter could not verify the claim that it is 40 per cent cheaper than a Toronto taxi.
What about the claims of making $50,000 to $100,000? These claims seem to be greatly exaggerated upon. For one, there are often too many people offering the service now to actually bring in that much money. One driver stated that they work the busiest hours of the day for Uber, driving people around, and clear around $1,000 a month. That comes to $12,000 a year, far below the average and only in the busiest place at the busiest time.
The road for Uber has not been a smooth one, with many controversies surrounding the company, including in Canada. In December 2013, a person who was working as an Uber driver struck and killed a six-year-old girl with his car. The driver was not carrying a passenger but because the driver was checking the Uber mobile application at the time, the family launched a lawsuit against Uber.
The National Federal of the Blind has also filed a lawsuit against uber claiming that the company violates the American with Disabilties Act. There was one reported instance of a service dog being stored in the trunk and the refusal of the driver to acknowledge the concern of the blind passenger. Another case showed a driver getting into a verbal exchange with a blind man, and accelerating quickly, nearly injuring the guide dog. Cab drivers in Paris have also protested the competition created by the startup. Drivers blocked roads of many European cities in protest of what they see is a threat to their livelihood. They state that Uber, due to it being app-based, is not subject to the same fees and regulations they face.
Uber has also been cited as sabotaging other competitors. Uber employees in New York City were reported to have ordered rides from Gett, a competitor, only to cancel them later. This wasted the time of the drivers to get actual customers, and it lowered the incentives of the drivers to keep with the company, causing them instead to go to Uber. Lyft has also been subject to sabotage. A CNN Money story in August of 2014 found that 177 Uber has also been cited as sabotaging other competitors. Uber employees in New York City were reported to have ordered rides from Gett, a competitor, only to cancel them later. This wasted the time of the drivers to get actual customers, and it lowered the incentives of the drivers to keep with the company, causing them instead to go to Uber.   Lyft has also been subject to sabotage. A CNN Money story in August of 2014 found that 177 Uber employees ordered and cancelled 5,560 rides with Lyft over the past year. One Uber recruiter canceled 300 rides in the space of two weeks. Uber did not issue an apology for this.
With Uber in Canada, many see the company threatening the livelihood of taxi companies, when rides can be found at all. Many complain that all that is needed to be an Uber employee is a background check, but little else, which can put people at risk when getting in a car with someone who is not working under a regulated taxi cab service.
Uber has had many problems in the past, and their claims of paying upwards of $50,000 or more to people who drive for them seem to be greatly exaggerated. Many feel that the company has grown too fast, and has no real regulations to keep things in check. Coupled with its business practices, or the practices of its employees, when dealing with competitors, and it is clear to see that Uber has several black eyes for its business so far.
If you are thinking of being an Uber employee, don’t waste your time it seems. If you are thinking of using Uber, it might be best to just choose a regular taxi cab company.

Toronto, Ontario,
 Montreal, Quebec,
Calgary, Alberta,
Ottawa, Ontario,
Edmonton, Alberta,
Mississauga, Ontario,
Winnipeg, Manitoba,
Vancouver, British Columbia,
 Brampton, Ontario,
Hamilton, Ontario,
Halifax, Nova Scotia