# Not for Sale. Uber and Lyft Lobby to Prevent You from Owning a Self Driving Car



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

*GIZMODO*

The arrival of autonomous vehicles is an inevitability, so it makes sense that before mass adoption hits, companies like Lyft and Uber would want to band together to determine what our self-driving future will look like. Sounds pretty harmless, right?

Well, not so fast, because a new pledge by 15 big-name transportation companies seems designed to screw over city-dwellers who want to ride in their own self-driving cars. Item #10 of the Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities, co-signed yesterday by Uber, Lyft, Zipcar, and Didi Chuxing (China's largest ride-sharing service), reads as follows:

*WE SUPPORT THAT AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES (AVS) IN DENSE URBAN AREAS SHOULD BE OPERATED ONLY IN SHARED FLEETS. *

Due to the transformational potential of autonomous vehicle technology, it is critical that all AVs are part of shared fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals, and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas.

Translation: These companies want to make it illegal for individuals to use privately owned self-driving cars in big cities, effectively giving the signatories control of our autonomous streets.

*That doesn't exactly sound like the freedom-filled future sci-fi writers have been promising, now does it? And what makes it feel even slimier is that many of these companies were founded on the principle of disrupting outdated regimes and giving people more choices at lower costs. But the minute they get a chance to monopolize the market, suddenly the same companies are singing "Kumbaya" and collaborating to make sure their businesses can't be disrupted down the road. *

And after reading principle #10, suddenly other items like #7 ("We support fair users fees across all modes"), don't sound so nice. These companies wouldn't have to support fair user fees if they weren't planning on eliminating competition and forcing people to rely on these corporations to move around within cities.

Interestingly, not all of the signatories are car-oriented companies, as other members include bike-sharing and scooter-sharing services such as Limebike and Motivate. For them, it seems like the value of the Shared Mobility pledge would be that if a small group of companies control the roads, customers might turn to more affordable means of transportation like bikes or scooters, where these companies will be eagerly waiting to offer up their services.

In principle, the idea of prohibiting private individuals from operating self-driving cars could make a little sense in places like Singapore, which has some of the most congested roads anywhere on the world. That is, until you remember the tiny island nation already has a system in place for preventing too many cars from clogging up the streets, in which potential owners need to obtain a Certificate of Entitlement before even buying a car that can cost upwards of $30,000.

Then there are companies like Ford, which is testing a program that allows groups of three to six people to share the lease on a single car, which would help prevent congestion, but without needing give up the right to do your own urban autonomous driving.

Even though this partnership is pretty meaningless right now without any legislation backing it (or the tech to make self-driving cars work at a full city scale), the group led by Zipcar Co-Founder Robin Chase clearly has bigger goals. According to its site, the consortium urges "cities, businesses and NGOs to support and apply the principles and engage with the group on how to improve them further," so we'd probably be wise to shoot down this idea anytime it comes up in the future.

https://gizmodo.com/uber-and-lyft-have-a-hot-new-idea-for-screwing-over-cit-1822661060


----------



## chemicalart (Feb 3, 2018)

A business group(s) try to prevent others from encroaching on their business position through threat of law.

Nothing new and with no teeth.

Considering the car manufacturers themselves are the ones with the real leverage in this the middlemen have nothing. The car manufactures will be happy to lease to the middlemen at an insane rate up until the end consumer will be more profitable. Then the middlemen will be dropped like flies.

No matter what the likes of uber claims, they are not the top of the pyramid and will be stomped by those who do.


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

chemicalart said:


> A business group(s) try to prevent others from encroaching on their business position through threat of law.
> 
> Nothing new and with no teeth.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

That would literally be the most ironic thing to ever happen.


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

Brooklyn said:


> That would literally be the most ironic thing to ever happen.


What surprised me most about this article is that Uber and Lyft are finally showing their true, greedy colors... to the public.

To think that an entire generation of individuals - who overwhelmingly self-identify with their vehicles as an extension of their wealth - will simply say, "OK," is ludicrous.

A lot of people don't like Uber or Lyft; have been physically, emotionally or financially abused by Uber or Lyft; or haven't heard of Uber or Lyft. To simply say, "You can't own your own vehicle anymore, and you must ride with these companies" should warrant some form of backlash, and I can't wait to be a part of it.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Trump Economics said:


> What surprised me most about this article is that Uber and Lyft are finally showing their true, greedy colors... to the public.
> 
> To think that an entire generation of individuals - who overwhelmingly self-identify with their vehicles as an extension of their wealth - will simply say, "OK," is ludicrous.
> 
> A lot of people don't like Uber or Lyft; have been physically, emotionally or financially abused by Uber or Lyft; or haven't heard of Uber or Lyft. To simply say, "You can't own your own vehicle anymore, and you must ride with these companies" should warrant some form of backlash, and I can't wait to be a part of it.


exactly. they really think everyone who owns a bmw, porsche, MB, and any super car are just going to give them up to be transported around in dull shared filthy cabs?

so ****ing stupid.


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

heynow321 said:


> exactly. they really think everyone who owns a bmw, porsche, MB, and any super car are just going to give them up to be transported around in dull shared filthy cabs?
> 
> so &%[email protected]!*ing stupid.


The best part will be when the autonomous vehicle shows up with urine, vomit, fecies, graffiti, or other bodily fluids. Could I pay extra for that not to occur? No, you can't. Well, then I want my own self driving car. Sorry, you can't.

In 2018, your cell phone still freezes, gets viruses, and can be hacked at anytime. To think that autonomous vehicles will be any different is CRAZY. There will be many deaths. But don't worry - an arbitration agreement will limit the damages and leave your family with nothing.

All hail the gig-economy. The car you ride in will be an "independent contractor," and neither it or Uber/Lyft will take any credit for ever knowing you.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Trump Economics said:


> What surprised me most about this article is that Uber and Lyft are finally showing their true, greedy colors... to the public.
> 
> To think that an entire generation of individuals - who overwhelmingly self-identify with their vehicles as an extension of their wealth - will simply say, "OK," is ludicrous.
> 
> A lot of people don't like Uber or Lyft; have been physically, emotionally or financially abused by Uber or Lyft; or haven't heard of Uber or Lyft. To simply say, "You can't own your own vehicle anymore, and you must ride with these companies" should warrant some form of backlash, and I can't wait to be a part of it.





heynow321 said:


> exactly. they really think everyone who owns a bmw, porsche, MB, and any super car are just going to give them up to be transported around in dull shared filthy cabs?
> 
> so &%[email protected]!*ing stupid.


How funny would it be that a company that pushed the whole idea of "everyone should be able to operate and turn their car into a cab" and have that "freedom" and "**** the government regulations" and all that bullshit tries to force the government to make it illegal for their own drivers to compete against their private fleet of self driving cars?

but but Uber promised me freedom and they were against government rules and regulation... they were against the taxi cartels.


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

The lies are becoming TOO much. As I received an alert from UP, I was on Craigslist looking for a job.










In other words, get a subprime lease, we'll give you just enough calls to cover that lease (IN A HISTORICALLY SLOW SEASON), and then we'll leave you with nothing. But at least you'll have a car to get around in when you're not driving 16 hours a day between us and Uber.

[Do you know how many times a week I fall asleep at the wheel with a passenger in my car? This can easily happen when you drive seven days a week, which I'm doing because the wages have gotten so bad. But you can't pull me off the road, because then you would have to pull thousands of other Uber and Lyft drivers off the road, too. This, then, means more recruitment and no profits.]

Umm, take the deal! Hide those tired eyes behind sunglasses. Too many drivers have simply given up and won't take our calls, so this deal (lease) will force you to take 'em, since you have this huge car payment to pay for.

And then there's the million other things that are being done to exterminate us one by one.

But the passengers - they're finally going after the passenger's and saying, "We're in control now. Take it or leave it."

I'm left speechless. I don't understand why they think the public is going to give up their cars and commit exclusively to a mass transit system (ridesharing) - one that will inevitably costs lives.



Brooklyn said:


> How funny would it be that a company that pushed the whole idea of "everyone should be able to operate and turn their car into a cab" and have that "freedom" and "&%[email protected]!* the government regulations" and all that bullshit tries to force the government to make it illegal for their own drivers to compete against their private fleet of self driving cars?
> 
> but but Uber promised me freedom and they were against government rules and regulation... they were against the taxi cartels.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Trump Economics said:


> What surprised me most about this article is that Uber and Lyft are finally showing their true, greedy colors... to the public.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Brooklyn said:


> ... they were against the taxi cartels.


I d o not know about where you live, but in the Capital of Your Nation, "taxi cartel" is an urban myth; literally and figuratively.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I d o not know about where you live, but in the Capital of Your Nation, "taxi cartel" is an urban myth; literally and figuratively.


New York. It was sarcasm lol.


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

Brooklyn said:


> New York. It was sarcasm lol.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

When toyota has a SDV ready to roll off the assembly line (or starts producing it) and they tell the public that it's "uber's fault" that they can't enable self driving features...

LOL...

That will be the day the public turns on uber for good.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

Mears Troll Number 4 said:


> When toyota has a SDV ready to roll off the assembly line (or starts producing it) and they tell the public that it's "uber's fault" that they can't enable self driving features...
> 
> LOL...
> 
> That will be the day the public turns on uber for good.


I think Uber knows that a shit show is going to be coming one day and that's why so many investors and etc... tried selling a bulk of their shares for a discount.

Lmao amazing point by you though... imagine not being allowed to buy a SDV because Uber said so... I just find it so funny Uber "fought" so hard to "help" drivers earn a living by not getting taxi licenses regardless or how expensive or cheap it was... but now trying to prevent people from spending their own money on their own cars completely lol.


----------



## PoolMeOnce (Sep 9, 2016)

"Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals, and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas."

I mean, they may as well use the same argument for conventional cars also.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

PoolMeOnce said:


> "Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals, and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas."
> 
> I mean, they may as well use the same argument for conventional cars also.


Uber has proven that... well they have a negative impact on a LOT of these... Actually imho a negative impact on all of hem

affordable access- surge pricing so only the elite use it during heavy demand
Maximize public safety- LOL (all I'm going to say)
Ensure that maintenance... (what maitenance on uber cars?)
Actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles- the reverse happened in many areas
Parking- uber drivers hogging parking spaces sitting idle waiting for pings
Congestion- uber did the reverse.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

Lol, these people have their head so far up their ass...

So it looks like they finally realized they are paving their own way to their own tombs, hurry up with those self driving cars boys, I can't wait to own one and put it to work for private clients.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> Lol, these people have their head so far up their ass...
> 
> So it looks like they finally realized they are paving their own way to their own tombs, hurry up with those self driving cars boys, I can't wait to own one and put it to work for private clients.


I kinda envision every hotel to own a half a dozen or so...

Complementary airport travel and scheduled rides elsewhere...


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Someday it will come to this, individuals will not be allowed to own cars.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

I have zero interest in owning a self driving car. We have enough trouble with computer hackers. Why would anyone want the risk of a car that can be hacked??!!


----------



## grabby (Nov 5, 2017)

There is a Difference between "Autonomous" vehicles as stated and "Self Driving" as not mentioned. People can argue that, and that is exactly the point.

I do not give a Flying F about owning an "Autonomous" vehicle. There are things that would make a personal tech vehicle not fit the definition that I am sure will happen.


----------



## at-007smartLP (Oct 27, 2017)

illegal & collusion among other things why am i not suprised

sorry MY tax dollars paid for public roads use your own anyhoo if this somehow did happen bricks would be thrown at every one & im handing out paint ball guns to kids & homeless and just putting cones everywhere lmao

evil is as evil does

these companies are either so incompetent theyve never been on a public road or made it past 5th grade math or diabolic calculated evil you decide which you think is more plausible


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

OK, let's imagine that there are no personally owned self-driving cars.

Only if automakers restrict non-automated vehicle sales will this work. And they won't, as long as there is enough personal opposition.

The flanking maneuver for automakers is this:
1) Only produce self-automated vehicles
2) Begin buying up fleets of used non-automated vehicles. Destroy them to remove from the market.

It means it is just too hard to drive yourself. While gutting a whole industry of auto mechanics, auto shops, auto sales -- dealers will SCREAM -- and the entire auto industry.
I'll be dead or simply unable to drive by the time this whole possibility occurs.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> OK, let's imagine that there are no personally owned self-driving cars.
> 
> Only if automakers restrict non-automated vehicle sales will this work. And they won't, as long as there is enough personal opposition.
> 
> ...


rioting in the streets..


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

Unable to turn a profit, even when given a free ride into the market, they now seek to become profitable by gaining absolute control of that market by banding together.
Looks like a 'ride-share cartel' is the desired reality - until one or more members of the cartel decides to double-cross the others to become "more equal than the others".
Note to self: Re-read Orwell's '1984'; I seem to recall a similar story line in it.


----------



## Retired Senior (Sep 12, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> exactly. they really think everyone who owns a bmw, porsche, MB, and any super car are just going to give them up to be transported around in dull shared filthy cabs?
> 
> so &%[email protected]!*ing stupid.


It is not just that... I am 65 yrs old and was raised in a town where the dairy farms were the largest employers. As soon as I turned 16 I got my driver's license and connived my way to owning a simple car... a 1968 Ford Mustang. The car and I did not take any shit from anyone. I began hanging out in Westport and New Haven. With those keys in my hand I became a man. Even tho I ended up totaling the car the night of my senior prom I still remember how she made me feel....

I will NEVER surrender my keys and my driver's license to some fascist bureaucrats....


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Already LEGISLATING FASCIST CORPORATE CONTROL AGAINST COMPETITION.



grabby said:


> There is a Difference between "Autonomous" vehicles as stated and "Self Driving" as not mentioned. People can argue that, and that is exactly the point.
> 
> I do not give a Flying F about owning an "Autonomous" vehicle. There are things that would make a personal tech vehicle not fit the definition that I am sure will happen.


Why SHOULDNT individuals own ?

Just another way to Legislate competition away.

Uber & Lyft arent LEGAL YET !



Retired Senior said:


> It is not just that... I am 65 yrs old and was raised in a town where the dairy farms were the largest employers. As soon as I turned 16 I got my driver's license and connived my way to owning a simple car... a 1968 Ford Mustang. The car and I did not take any shit from anyone. I began hanging out in Westport and New Haven. With those keys in my hand I became a man. Even tho I ended up totaling the car the night of my senior prom I still remember how she made me feel....
> 
> I will NEVER surrender my keys and my driver's license to some fascist bureaucrats....


Thats EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS !

FASCISTS IN ACTION !

The YOUNG DONT REMEMBER REAL FREEDOM !

WHEN GOVT. SERVED NOT RULED !



Lowestformofwit said:


> Unable to turn a profit, even when given a free ride into the market, they now seek to become profitable by gaining absolute control of that market by banding together.
> Looks like a 'ride-share cartel' is the desired reality - until one or more members of the cartel decides to double-cross the others to become "more equal than the others".
> Note to self: Re-read Orwell's '1984'; I seem to recall a similar story line in it.


1984 IS ABOUT FASCISTS.



Dammit Mazzacane said:


> OK, let's imagine that there are no personally owned self-driving cars.
> 
> Only if automakers restrict non-automated vehicle sales will this work. And they won't, as long as there is enough personal opposition.
> 
> ...


People are sheep.

They keep their heads down in the food trough and dont look around.


----------

