Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Businesses Government

Uber Face Fines Over Drunk Driving Complaints -- And Lost $2.8 Billion Last Year (usnews.com) 134

While Uber's bookings doubled last year, the company still showed a net lost of $2.8 billion. And now, "California regulators are recommending that Uber pay a $1.13 million fine for not investigating rider complaints that drivers were working intoxicated." An anonymous reader writes: California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs," notes Reuters -- and yet Tuesday's order reports that investigators "found no evidence that (Uber) followed up in any way with zero-tolerance complaints several hours or even one full day after passengers filed such complaints." Investigators from the state's Public Utilities Commission are asking the full commission to examine their findings,

"To confirm the policy, regulators analyzed selected complaints against drivers who received three or more complaints," Reuters reports. Though Uber has sometimes suspended drivers within one hour of customer complaints -- 22 times -- they've apparently received 2,047 drug- or alcohol-related complaints between August 2014 and August of 2015. "The company said drivers were banned from working in 574 of those complaints, according to the order. But regulators then reviewed 154 complaints, and determined that the company failed to promptly suspend drivers in 149 complaints. The company also failed to investigate 133 complaints, and did not suspend a driver or investigate 113 complaints, the order shows... In at least 25 instances, Uber failed to suspend or investigate a driver after three or more complaints, the order states."

An Uber spokeswoman said the company had no comment, but "Adding to Uber's challenges, a Reuters investigation found a ten-fold increase in attacks on drivers in Sao Paulo last year, including several murders, after the start of cash payments on its platform at the end of July." And in addition, a judge in Brazil ruled last week that Uber's drivers are employees, which could make Uber liable for a variety of benefits, following a similar ruling in another Brazilian state court.

But there's also some good news for Uber. A court in Rome suspended a ban on Uber in Italy until the company finishes its legal appeal, and a two-month suspension in Taiwan also came to an end after Uber agreed to partner with license rental car companies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber Face Fines Over Drunk Driving Complaints -- And Lost $2.8 Billion Last Year

Comments Filter:
  • 2.8 Billion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday April 16, 2017 @09:03PM (#54246689)
    isn't a lot of money given what's at stake. If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world. Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top" but that's now how these things usually play out...
    • Re:2.8 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16, 2017 @09:38PM (#54246795)

      If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do

      What they're trying to do is what all corporations run by psychopaths is trying to do: Be the perfect cancer.

      And they should be treated as such.

    • Re:2.8 Billion (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16, 2017 @09:51PM (#54246827)

      Any sane society would shut Uber down for what it is; a ponzi scheme that abuses and asset-strips labor.

      The regulators and drivers will shut them down well before anyone gets fully reliable self-driving automobiles on the market.

      This is Enron all over again.

      • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday April 16, 2017 @11:18PM (#54247075)
        self driving cars are. Millennials won't be able to afford cars. Their wages are dropping and there's no sign of that trend stopping. Once that hits critical mass (e.g. enough of them of voting age who can't buy cars but aren't completely crushed by poverty) they'll be demand for public transportation. That's where Uber is positioning itself. The investors are letting them bleed money because, well, 2.8 billion only sounds like a lot of money to you and me. It's not chump change to the investors, but it's not going to really put them out. We've let wealth inequity get pretty crazy and we don't punish folks at that level for mistakes; so it's not really a risk to them. Maybe it woulda been in the 60s and 70s but not today.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          Millennials were born between ~1980 to the mid '90s. Plenty, or even most, Millennials have cars.

          I'm a Millennial and don't know a single one that doesn't have a car.

        • by ruir ( 2709173 )
          Wake and smell the coffee. Millennials wont be able to afford many things, and the previous generation is fucked wether they have children or not.
          If they have children, well guess who will be "helping" them to enable their bosses to keep going paying them peanuts;
          if they do not have children, they will be heavily taxed, and their gold and savings directly confiscated, or savings severely diminished due to negative taxation.
          Having a car is also being heavily taxed, both in gas, in repairs, in absurd sale
          • by ruir ( 2709173 )
            And it is a question also of doing the math...between all the ongoing maintenance expenses, devaluation, and taxes, when you are retired, right now, it is probably cheaper to hire Uber or hire a car when you really need to do a long travel, than owning a car.
            The problem is that you also rob a lot of independency to old folks who cannot already walk very well, and depend on a car every day to do their small errands.
          • Given enough hardship, people will vote for change. Clearly, they won't necessarily vote intelligently, but either the powers that be will go along or there will be chaos.

            • by ruir ( 2709173 )
              You clearly are not paying attention.
              We already have negative taxes in the banks.-
              Everyone and their dog are outsourcing many jobs to Philippines/India/Former Eastern Block countries, being broadband a reality nowadays.
              In Europe and USA you still have a momentum/inertia in the economy with the old generation dipping into their economies and retirement packages, that somehow still hold some value after all these years of inflation to support the younger generations. That generation is dwindling btw, and w
              • You're talking about bad things happening. I'm talking about the reaction to bad things.

                This is something the elites at least should be worrying about. If things get too bad, there will be Changes, and the elites won't like that. It looks to me like the majority don't want to live in third-world countries, and they definitely don't want to be first up against the wall when the Revolution comes. To a small extent, we're all in this together.

                • by ruir ( 2709173 )
                  You are seeing people getting used to it, and no reaction at all. You honestly think the sheeple will do something?
                  • Why do you think all those people voted for Trump? It wasn't because he was a reasonable, moral, honest, or intellectual individual. Sanders came close to winning the Democratic nomination despite not being a Democrat.

      • by tsa ( 15680 )

        That's why they're banned in Germany and the Netherlands. We have enough problems with normal taxi companies as it is.

    • Re:2.8 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16, 2017 @11:17PM (#54247071)

      Oh please. If taxis could ever have been "the defacto transportation system for the entire world", it would've happened decades ago. Having a phone app is an improvement, but not THAT much of an improvement.

      And plenty of companies "try" to conquer the world. That doesn't give them the right or ability to handwave away a $3 billion dollar loss based upon their CEO's future dreamworld where they earn $25 trillion a second.

      • The point about Uber is that their investors are prepared to lose a lot of money in the short term, because they believe that in the medium term Uber will have a near-monopoly on self driving cars for hire. Somehow, Uber will be able to buy/produce/run these cheaply enough to let them make a profit whilst having such low fares that it won't be worth buying your own car.

        You'd be just as well off investing in a cold fusion company.

    • Re:2.8 Billion (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lucm ( 889690 ) on Sunday April 16, 2017 @11:31PM (#54247133)

      isn't a lot of money given what's at stake. If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world.

      Uber is losing money on every single ride. That's where the $2.8B went last year: paying drivers. If that money-losing model become a "defacto" transportation system for the entire modern world, it will mean that the bulk of the GDP will be spent on paying drivers to move people around. This is so fucking absurd I really don't get how educated people can even consider that as a serious possibility. The numbers just don't add up.

      There's only 2 way Uber can turn a profit:
      1) increase their prices to a point where cabs are a lot cheaper
      2) use self-driving cars that are cheap to build and operate, and find someone to subsidize production on a massive scale

      If they were anywhere near a breakthrough with their self-driving cars, things would be different. But they're not. They've used the worst possible strategy for their business: acquire shitloads of customers long before they can be monetized. They started on that path at a time when it was all the rage in Silicon Valley (case in point: Twitter). But that's not going to work. Tesla, Amazon and Google are all in a much better position to take over this market if it ever becomes cost-effective because they will have the technology to make it happen. Uber only has an app that a handful of RoR retarded programmers could recreate in a week.

      • A good chunk is (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
        and a good chunk is research and patents. What you're seeing here is basic research being done. The investors used to be able to get the gov't to do it for them for free but they traded that for tax cuts. Given we've gone from 90% top tax brackets to effectively 0 (thanks to Dutch Sandwiches and such) I'd say it was a good deal.
        • Re:A good chunk is (Score:4, Interesting)

          by lucm ( 889690 ) on Monday April 17, 2017 @01:01AM (#54247361)

          Stop guessing stuff. A "good chunk" is NOT on research and patents. Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers. Uber is trying to kill the competition by subsidizing their drivers with investors money.

          Even if it was to work, it's still not worth it.

          Do the math. Average cab fare: $14. In NYC there's about 240 millions taxi trips per year. So roughly. that's a revenue of $3.4B. About half of it goes to car expenses (acquisition, fuel, repairs, etc). The other half goes to drivers.

          On a national scale, the revenue is around $11B. This means that if Uber was to take over 100% of the taxi market and replace those 250,000 cars with self-driving cars (that don't exist yet) that are not more expensive than existing non-self-driving cars, they would stand to make an annual profit equivalent to what Facebook makes in profit every quarter. And they start with a huge debt of almost $10B.

          There's no money in that business. Costs are too high.

          • Re:A good chunk is (Score:4, Informative)

            by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Monday April 17, 2017 @04:09AM (#54247601)

            Stop guessing stuff. A "good chunk" is NOT on research and patents. Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers. Uber is trying to kill the competition by subsidizing their drivers with investors money.

            People are obviously happy with Uber rides being cheap. And then they think that Uber has some excellent ideas and implements them well, and that's why they are cheap. WRONG. It's very easy to offer cheap rides if you just subsidize every ride with investors' money.

            In China drivers were paid more than the customer paid at some point, so clever drivers let the whole family book rides, didn't drive anyone, paid back the ride fees, and kept the difference in their pocket. Free money, straight from the pocket of an investor into the pocket of a driver in China.

            • [citation needed]. Where are you getting your data? The linked article doesn't give data like that and Uber is still private so there aren't SEC 10-k filings for them. From an accounting standpoint, Uber doesn't pay drivers, they give them the portion of the fare that the driver earned (at least in the US). Drivers are not Uber employees, they are independent contractors that have a relationship with Uber for booking and payments in the driver's taxi business. Uber doesn't recognize the portion of fare

              • by lucm ( 889690 )

                It was on wired a while ago:

                According to analysis by Horan, Uber passengers are only paying 41 per cent of the actual cost of a trip, with Uber using subsidies to undercut rivals and potentially achieve a monopoly.

                http://www.wired.co.uk/article... [wired.co.uk]

                You can also check on bloomberg, they discussed financials with Uber.

          • The taxi industry revenue in the US alone is $19 billion. Uber is global(ish). $10 billion isn't a huge debt. They had revenue of $6.5 billion and an increase of 100% of bookings last year. The theory is that you lose a lot of money now, but due to the large growth you will eventually get positive. It worked for Amazon. It might work for Uber too.
            • so... "i sell at a loss but i make it up in volume"? yeah, that's not gonna work...
            • by lucm ( 889690 )

              It worked for Amazon. It might work for Uber too.

              Uber has an app, a lot of users, huge debts and no profit in sight. They're not like Amazon, they're more like twitter.

              You can buy toilet paper, books and flat screen TV on Amazon. That's a huge barrier to entry for the competition. On the other hand, writing an app that includes gps and credit card payments is something pretty much anyone can achieve. If there was money in that business, there would be competition.

            • The taxi industry revenue in the US alone is $19 billion. Uber is global(ish). $10 billion isn't a huge debt. They had revenue of $6.5 billion and an increase of 100% of bookings last year. The theory is that you lose a lot of money now, but due to the large growth you will eventually get positive. It worked for Amazon. It might work for Uber too.

              If Uber had all that $19 billion in revenue in the US but still made a loss, the company would logically have a negative value.

              Presumably, Uber's plan is to put its competitors out of business so that it can then ramp up its charges dramatically and make a profit.

              If this was Microsoft doing something similar, everyone here would be up in arms demanding the Government fined them out of existence.

          • Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers.

            Now that's funny... they had to pay their drivers and "apparently took a loss doing so." I wonder if they'll ever figure out where to source those funds from...

            • by lucm ( 889690 )

              Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers.

              Now that's funny... they had to pay their drivers and "apparently took a loss doing so." I wonder if they'll ever figure out where to source those funds from...

              Customers pay 41% of the actual price on each ride. Someone has to pay the difference. That's where the $2.6B loss comes from.

      • In Michigan they calcuated it would be cheaper to hire Uber to carry bus passengers door to door rather than create an enormous multi-county bus service.

        • by Strider- ( 39683 )

          Yes, because they're getting Uber's investors to subsidize their "transit" system. This is nothing more than the greater fool theory writ large, eventually it will come crashing down like all the other boneheaded dotcoms that have gone bust over the past 20 years.

        • In Michigan they calcuated it would be cheaper to hire Uber to carry bus passengers door to door rather than create an enormous multi-county bus service.

          If I had enough foolhardy investors backing me, I could give Michigan (or anywhere else) a completely free bus/taxi service.

      • by swell ( 195815 )

        "There's only 2 way Uber can turn a profit:"

        Oh, ye of little imagination ...

        3) Uber has a captive audience in every car. Ask yourself what Google and Facebook and TV networks do with their captive audience.
        4) Uber has vast knowledge about where people go, and inferences about what people do as well as their financial and social status. Ask yourself what Google and Facebook do with similar information.
        5) Uber's various conflicts with worldwide governments become an asset as they learn how to manipulate and c

    • ...If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world. Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top...

      Part of what makes Uber unique is the fact that they employ humans, which is a considerable benefit for any sane society to see value in.

      If Uber "pulls off" autonomous vehicles (essentially the only road to a sustainable business model), they fucking will be public transportation with a greedy company skimming 20% off the top.

      The larger concern is they may force all other competition off the proverbial road in the process, ensuring that your "defacto" option is the only monopoly in town. You thought cab f

      • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        Wait until that shit happens and insurance companies make it financially impossible to afford to own a car or let a "dangerous" human drive one."

        People keep saying this but there is the reality of rural America (most of America geographically speaking). If you live in the city or burbs this seams reasonable. Where I live we have mostly farmers driving their 15 year old pickups around. These often have farm use plates (important point here). Normal registrations, plates, and full rate insurance would already be to much for this market. So the state and insurers have already carved out exceptions. More carve outs will be made.

        I expect what we wi

        • I tell the difference between a dirt road and an ATV trail, because I just can.

          The way to tell the difference between a dirt road and a paved road in NM is that the dirt road has fewer potholes. I expect ATV trails are better still.

      • Part of what makes Uber unique is the fact that they employ humans, which is a considerable benefit for any sane society to see value in.

        Nope. A sane society would like a business that employed few people better. Of course, the sane society would also have a better way of dealing with the unemployed and/or a better way to help create more jobs for the displaced humans to do.

    • isn't a lot of money given what's at stake. If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world.

      It is a lot, because Uber have very little chance of doing that. In terms of self driving cars, they are one of a large number of players. There's nothing much to indicate that they have any particular advantage over anyone else in that regard either.

      In terms of taxis, well, they're just taxis. App based ride hailing complete with dri

      • Fuck GTR. Fuck Southern and fuck the Tories.

        Jeremy Corbyn should adapt this as his slogan, even the most diehard conservative would have to agree with two thirds of it.

    • Now, any sane society would just have public transportation instead of "Public Transportation with a private company skimming 20% off the top"

      Only if the government-run model were less expensive.

      Many government programs are only 30% efficient. 80% would be seen as a miracle in most of the public sphere.

  • by Mitreya ( 579078 )

    a net lost of $2.8 billion

    How can a company continue to operate and attract investors / high valuation with $2.8 billion losses?

    California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,"

    That's a deeply meaningful policy definition. What about someone who had too much coffee?
    Also, are some companies in California allowed to have a 1-tolerance policy?

    • by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Sunday April 16, 2017 @09:56PM (#54246855) Homepage

      It's not complicated. Zero tolerance just means any infraction. You're trying to be clever by conflating tolerance with blood alcohol level or somesuch. One tolerance would be that one conviction is allowed. It's not complicated.

      Also, coffee isn't a drug for the purposes of the law in so far as driving is concerned. Honestly, I don't know what you think you're illuminating here. We probably agree Uber is money pit. But none of the other stuff you said makes any sense.

      • But that isn't at all what the state is talking about. They are not talking about DUI convictions, or even arrests. They are talking about complaints.

        Meaning, some customer reported that they thought their driver was drunk or on drugs.

        What does zero tolerance mean in this context?

        A taxi company doesn't have an app for rating every ride. So you have to really, really want to complain. And how well is that tracked?

        So now does it make more sense to question what "zero tolerance" means? Surely they don't m

        • A taxi company doesn't have an app for rating every ride.

          Sure they do.

          • Sure they do.

            Some do now, most don't, and if you call the taxi company and complain that they were late, or didn't come, or that you were raped, they will ignore you. (Two of my personal friends can attest to that last one.)

        • "A taxi company doesn't have an app for rating every ride"

          It's called a phone.
    • California "requires ride-hailing companies to have a zero-tolerance policy for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs,"

      That's a deeply meaningful policy definition. What about someone who had too much coffee?

      If someone has consumed enough coffee that their ability to drive is impaired, then yes, they would probably be arrested for DUI. For the vast majority of people, one or two cups of coffee won't impair them at all. Whether or not "enough" is above the LD50 level, I don't know.

    • How can a company continue to operate and attract investors / high valuation with $2.8 billion losses?

      Are you kidding? At this rate, Uber Corporation will become president in 2020.

      • uber is basically the manifestation of the current investment bubble.
        the fundamentals are bullshit
        the company is just evil in it's dealings with their drivers

        taxi cartels aren't exactly the optimal solution, but neither is uber.

        By 2020 they'll be out of business.

  • by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Sunday April 16, 2017 @09:19PM (#54246733)
    Uber lost billions, but I bet the owners aren't eating cat food.
  • I mean, to me, UBER is just some form of app running company...with a few servers to handle ride requests; and some hook up to Credit Card companies.

    I guess I do not get it but where does such a huge the loss come from really?

    • Advertising.
    • by Jzanu ( 668651 )
      Yeah advertising, but also through subsidized fare prices; even ignoring driver's real costs and allowing for surge pricing, the operating costs + interest on all the loans, etc. exceeds the value of what is charged to customers. The Uber management has failed at tactics, and also at strategy - it is in the process of eating itself to death. It will not be the scion of sci-fi/fantasy driverless cars, and for that matter neither will Tesla as they ignore user experience and the entire human-machine interface
    • by Cytotoxic ( 245301 ) on Sunday April 16, 2017 @09:39PM (#54246797)

      I was wondering the same thing.

      Theoretically they are operating in the black at the lowest level - the cost of a ride is less than the company pays their drivers.

      App development and hosting is in the millions, not billions.

      So that leaves advertising and legal fees, right? $2.8 Billion Dollars.... in legal fees and advertising. Wow. Just.... Wow.

      So if each high-profile case runs around $10 million in legal fees.... that's, what? .... a couple hundred cases? Hmm... Ok. Worldwide.... I suppose that is plausible.

      But with that they'd still have to be operating at only break-even on the rest of their operations. How is that possible? They don't have any employees to speak of. They only get a cut of orders for other people. They claim to have netted $6.5 billion on bookings of $20 billion. And still they lost almost $3 billion.

      That is simply a stunning number. How can their costs possibly be $10 billion per year - above what drivers make? That's just a colossal amount of money for a middle-man. .........So I google.... and find that there are some leaked financial documents running around. Apparently they are paying drivers in places like China 50% more than they are charging the customer, as a "driver incentive". So they lost a billion a year in the china market, because driver incentives were 154% of revenues.

      Well... that would explain it then. Next question.... why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?

      • by tsqr ( 808554 )

        why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?

        So they'll have drivers?

      • by reanjr ( 588767 )

        Their business model appears to be effectively based upon self-driving vehicles. Human drivers are just a stop-gap for bootstrapping the business, so the investors subsidize your ride to get market share now, and later they will reap the profits when they can fire all their drivers.

        • If that's indeed the business model (create market share, move to self driving vehicles), what will stop from any of their competitors to replicate this model with cheaper self-driven transportation?

          Yahoo had "huuuge" market share. It may still have.

          Any rental company teaming with a software shop has a good shot. Even a ZipCar type of outfit.

          I guess Uber got lucky. The guy running the outfit seems to be your garden variety sociopath and has run out of ideas. What they need is someone like Zuckerber
      • by ZipK ( 1051658 )

        why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?

        Try: why are they charging customers less than they're paying drivers. Answer: So they'll have passengers and not have competition.

      • Next question.... why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?

        Interesting question, considering the average Uber driver is making about $13/hr. How much less you think they're going to be able to pay?

      • App development and hosting is in the millions, not billions.

        There is also the development of self-driving cars, based on technology that Google claims has been stolen from them, and for which Uber paid many hundred million dollars.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Uber subsidizes the cost of a ride to keep it's prices low in order to undercut the taxi industry (they lose money on each ride). Taxis have more fixed costs so they can't lower costs down to Uber's level. Just like every other company which does this (Walmart is a good example), if Uber manages to stay popular long enough it'll drive a lot of those taxi companies out of business, then it can raise prices with immunity and use its position to crush anything that challenges it. Taxis used to do that but p

    • by lucm ( 889690 )

      Drivers. Basically Uber is spending $1.55 for every $1 people pay for their ride.

      https://techcrunch.com/2016/12... [techcrunch.com]

  • Who Cares!!? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Who the F*** is paying for all these stories about Uber and who cares so much about this one company?? It's insane. They get more press than any other company. Why should we care?? They're a big nothing, really.

    • Uber is, that's why they're losing so much money.

      • by lucm ( 889690 )

        That wouldn't even surprise me. Making all kinds of noise about their money problems to position themselves for an acquisition by a company that has the means to make this business work.

        But really I don't think it's going to happen. Google isn't buying companies like they used to, and the profit margin on transportation is razor thin, so it would be unlikely that a lot of companies would be interested to take on the massive debt.

    • They get so much press because:

      1) They're an outlier in terms of unicorn funding, and also unicorn like losses.

      2) Everyone wants to watch a slow motion train wreck.

  • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Sunday April 16, 2017 @11:48PM (#54247195)

    Uber drivers in several states have been reported cutting off mattress labels that plainly say, DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG.

  • Maybe I'm getting my uber and lyfts confused, but i was under the impression that if you have less than 4 stars, you can't drive for the company. Uber driver intoxicated? Give him zero stars. A driver should only be able to weather about 3 zero stars before they can't drive anymore.

    Are riders not giving their drunk drivers zero stars? Or is the state of California just complaining that this system to remove drivers isn't fast ENOUGH?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Clearly, the California regulators didn't get the memo that Uber Bros don't follow the law because they believe they know better. And the public is dumb enough to give them business and let them destroy the taxi industry.
  • Uber: We lost 2.8 billion

    Hillary Clinton: Hold my beer

    • This post appears to be based on a story that was reported wildly inaccurately. The state department did not "lose" the money. It was spent on actual goods and services. The records department in State could not produce the original contracts corresponding to the payments when the internal audit was conducted- it was a failure of internal controls. There was still a record of who they had paid and how much. Yes, this spoke to bad accounting and record retention practices, but it's not the same thing as what
  • I have very mixed feelings about Uber (and ride sharing in general), and I think it's hard not to when you really think about it.

    One one hand, cost aside, the user experience for Uber is simply much better than cab companies. If I need a ride somewhere, all I have to do is pull up an app. It will tell me exactly how soon someone can get to me, when I will likely arrive at my destination, and how much it will cost. By contrast, if I call a cab, I have no idea where they will dispatch it from or when it wi

  • by Meski ( 774546 )
    Zero tolerance policies are unworkable, IMO.

EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER

Working...