# Is Uber an essential service?



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

It depends on the passenger and the trip, but obviously the answer is "yes" for some trips.

- Someone who works in a hospital and has a broken down car.
- Someone who works at a grocery store or food production facility and has a sick relative who normally drives them to work.
- Someone who works at a prison and can't afford a car.

There is no reason to shut down rideshare for _all_ rides. To end rideshare would have a net negative result for people who have no other good options for transit (even if it's a temporary reason for needing that ride at that time).

Good public transit isn't a solution for certain trips and can actually create worse conditions for spreading the illness (in a higher risk area, which correlates pretty strongly with places with good transit options). If I worked in a hospital and lived on a bus route, I'd take any form of private transit over the bus, especially my own car but even someone else's.


----------



## Illini (Mar 14, 2019)

Beaded on the Federal Government's definition, yes, it is.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

It's funny how for years Uber and drivers wanted to be legit. Now that they are drivers are trying to stop from being an essential service now that the $hit has hit the fan.


----------



## Bonmot (Dec 14, 2018)

There is a typo in the guidelines.
They said rideshare workers are "Essential Workers".
They meant to say, "Expendable Workers".
In terms of job security and our own health, we are expendable, not essential.

We are one of the parts in a car not covered by the warranty.


----------



## Karen Stein (Nov 5, 2016)

Mass transit will never be able to provide the access, flexibility, or efficiency of an individual car.

Private cars can go anywhere, anytime and carry more goods than mass transit.

What's the mass transit answer to this Beer Bug crisis? Run busses on reduced schedules and allow fewer passengers. That is, prevent folks from travelling. Private cars = freedom.

Moreover, Uber drivers have the flexibility to switch from transporting people to making deliveries. Uber Eats drivers ought to be making record earnings right now.

"Mass Transit" is an outmoded attempt to manage people was if they were cattle.


----------



## Steve appleby (May 30, 2015)

In my state yes.


----------



## hottiebottie (Apr 5, 2020)

it is not essential!!!are ppl stupid or stupid??


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

RideshareDog said:


> Is Uber an essential service?


The whole transportation industry is considered essential.
Actual Uber drivers are a dime-a-dozen though....


----------



## Poverty Ant (Mar 4, 2020)

RideshareDog said:


> In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?


How many American cities is that? The manager working for my former employer confided in me that she doesn't hire people who need public transportation to get to work.


----------



## 2win (Jun 29, 2019)

It wasn’t ten years ago. Are taxis an essential service? Has that been defined in prior crisis?


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

2win said:


> It wasn't ten years ago. Are taxis an essential service? Has that been defined in prior crisis?


Taxis have been deemed in everywhere I have seen an essential service.


----------



## grayrider (Oct 9, 2017)

Is that question from a riders perspective or a drivers perspective? There’s a big difference


----------



## everydayimubering (Aug 5, 2017)

Karen Stein said:


> "Mass Transit" is an outmoded attempt to manage people was if they were cattle.


. 
Actually, not. Mass Transit is the way to reduce mass pollution in large urban areas by preventing or discouraging the use of more cars on the roads. And people who wish to avoid buses during the current pandemic can always get a cab - which were always there before Uber arrived on the scene. So Uber is just another option but it cannot be considered as "essential".It's like electric or hybrid vehicles just offer another option to people who drive cars - nothing more.


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

I've carried any number of health care workers and other essential employees during the past two weeks. If that doesn't make me essential then I don't know what would.


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

waldowainthrop said:


> It depends on the passenger and the trip, but obviously the answer is "yes" for some trips.
> 
> - Someone who works in a hospital and has a broken down car.
> - Someone who works at a grocery store or food production facility and has a sick relative who normally drives them to work.
> ...


You would very likely infect your driver who is less then 6 feet from you or the driver who is still driving even though they are told not to will infect you


Karen Stein said:


> Mass transit will never be able to provide the access, flexibility, or efficiency of an individual car.
> 
> Private cars can go anywhere, anytime and carry more goods than mass transit.
> 
> ...


Sure cabs and mass transit are out dated But they are there making Uber unnecessary. If the Uber app shut down let's say for a system glitch there is an alternatives which makes this a luxury not a necessity.



Coachman said:


> I've carried any number of health care workers and other essential employees during the past two weeks. If that doesn't make me essential then I don't know what would.


It doesn't that person could have easily ordered a cab. They ordered you cuz its cheaper and more convenient. Those two things don't make you essential to cities. It makes you a luxury


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

Bonmot said:


> They said rideshare workers are "Essential Workers".
> They meant to say, "Expendable Workers".


Essentially expendable.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

RideshareDog said:


> You would very likely infect your driver who is less then 6 feet from you or the driver who is still driving even though they are told not to will infect you


So no one should go anywhere then?

I'm glad the hospitals, food shops, and food producers (among others) are all still running. There is no question that some of those people won't get to their jobs without rideshare. Some have alternatives, but obviously some do not. Those people didn't have alternatives before this crisis and they don't now.

The way you phrase it, you are talking in absolutes, you know what I mean? If any significant population finds rideshare essential, it is essential. The world has not stopped. Some people on the front lines, whether transportation workers or hospital staff, _will_ get sick.

Why are taxi cabs different? The only significant difference is how the service is ordered and regulated. Sometimes the price for rideshare is even cheaper. Either way, the service has the same societal function. A to B private transportation.


----------



## kingcorey321 (May 20, 2018)

Uber's Guber said:


> The whole transportation industry is considered essential.
> Actual Uber drivers are a dime-a-dozen though....


Now were taking these vip passengers to buy there drugs and liquor .
We need to continue driving them for chump change


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

Uber is specifically listed in the
Designations of Essential Businesses - National Governors Association
https://www.nga.org

xvi.) Transportation: Airlines, taxis, transportation network providers (such as Uber and Lyft), vehicle rental services, paratransit, and other private, public and commercial transportation and logistics providers necessary for all categories of "Essential Operations" as defined in this order.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

Poverty Ant said:


> How many American cities is that? The manager working for my former employer confided in me that she doesn't hire people who need public transportation to get to work.


What city is THIS?!


----------



## Coachman (Sep 22, 2015)

RideshareDog said:


> It doesn't that person could have easily ordered a cab. They ordered you cuz its cheaper and more convenient. Those two things don't make you essential to cities. It makes you a luxury


You'll have to explain why a yellow cab is essential but my Uber car is not.


----------



## Karen Stein (Nov 5, 2016)

Without Uber folks could always call a cab? Yea, right. Might as well claim a bunny will lay colored eggs under your bushes on Easter.

Uber was created specifically to address the failings of the taxi model. Talk to your customers - they'll tell you of the times they called and called, and no cab ever came.

Of course, with limited medallions restricting the market, why would the cab companies care? 

Save the earth? Keep that green new deal silliness for the next Democrat convention. Run the numbers -- including the subsidies and tax breaks - and I suspect you'll find the taxpayer would save millions by replacing mass transit with Uber accounts. I know my car tears up the roads and makes less pollution than any bus, too!

Fact is, Uber can replace mass transit. Mass transit can't replace us.

As for the taxis, they've had over a decade to learn from Uber and adapt. They refuse to. They deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs. Just like the buggy whip makers.

The customers, the market, has spoken- and Uber wins.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

Some stories from essential workers:

https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/essential-workers/
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcast...des/essential-workers-stories-death-sex-money


----------



## 2win (Jun 29, 2019)

I suppose the question may be more if the passengers travel is essential not if the service of Uber is essential. Hard to police where people are going. Or is it. What if Uber only did pickups or destinations to groceries, pharmacies and essential workplaces? No it wouldn't work. There is incidence of having to go to someones house to care for them. There is really no feasible way to police what is essential or not. Unfortunately many people will use Uber for things that are not essential, endangering them and the driver.

I think masks should be required for drivers and passengers. Masks aren't that effective at protecting the one wearing them unless it's a proper respirator, but they can helpreduce transmission.



Karen Stein said:


> I know my car tears up the roads and makes less pollution than any bus, too!


Busses can transport a lot more people. Would like to see any studies that busses pollute more than cars per person. Preferably not funded by Uber, Karen.


----------



## Ubertool (Jan 24, 2020)

Actionjax said:


> Taxis have been deemed in everywhere I have seen an essential service.


Not here in Vegas , they are all on unemployment , unions . They are chillin and getting paid


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

everydayimubering said:


> .
> Actually, not. Mass Transit is the way to reduce mass pollution in large urban areas by preventing or discouraging the use of more cars on the roads. And people who wish to avoid buses during the current pandemic can always get a cab - which were always there before Uber arrived on the scene. So Uber is just another option but it cannot be considered as "essential".It's like electric or hybrid vehicles just offer another option to people who drive cars - nothing more.


I beg to differ, the bus system primary function is to transport people who doesn't have a car.

The buses and trains have been around alot longer than global warming or the various magnitude of pollution laws.

All the save the environment was tacked on to public transportation in the 90's or so.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

I was thinking the best thing for them to do from a moral standpoint would be to discontinue service until the country has open back up. However to help during the pandemic, they could rent out vehicles that are retrofitted with plexiglass between the front and back seats - airtight as possible. That way deliveries could go in the trunk, pax go in the backseat with 3 maximum passengers per ride, and of course they would supply masks and disinfectant supplies. That way they could continue to take passengers who are currently spreading disease to drivers in a responsible way.

But in truth they should be forced out of business for knowingly spreading this disease to all pockets of America and as a result infecting a massive portion of the population. Corporate was either too naive to realize they would be one of the biggest reasons for the viruI spread or worse, they knew what would happen and let it go forward.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

RideshareDog said:


> It doesn't that person could have easily ordered a cab. They ordered you cuz its cheaper and more convenient. Those two things don't make you essential to cities. It makes you a luxury


Of course, anyone who orders a cab could have easily ordered a limousine. I guessing that you don't think that this shows that _cabs_ are not "essential".


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

I dunno, plenty of people have nothing to do. I mean millions of people, meaning none should have a hard time getting rides to work from their friends and family or neighbors.

This it's not essential, what is essential is for people to stop infecting drivers. They say nurses need masks because if not they will spread it to people, guess who else is spreading it around if they get infected? You think Dara gives af about anyone's health?


----------



## Gentle Ant (Mar 8, 2020)

I remember walking half a mile to the bus stop every day as a teenager for my job. Winter and bad weather was the worst. You had to get to the bus stop at least 15 minutes early or you might miss it and have to wait a half hour for the next bus. Always crazies on the bus too. Now that Uber and Lyft are here, I don't see the public ever wanting to go back to time without them.


----------



## TXUbering (May 9, 2018)

We managed to live life without rideshare before rideshare was a thing, thus I personally don't think it's an essential service. Healthcare professionals found a way to get around before U/L came on the scene. That's like asking if a cell phone is an essential service. I'm sure a bunch of you don't know life before cell phones, which is kinda sad, actually. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to yell at some kids for being on my lawn, from >6 feet away....


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

TXUbering said:


> We managed to live life without rideshare before rideshare was a thing, thus I personally don't think it's an essential service.


We also managed to live life without hospitals before hospitals were a thing, but I'm guessing that you don't think that shows that hospitals are not an essential service.


----------



## TXUbering (May 9, 2018)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> We also managed to live life without hospitals before hospitals were a thing, but I'm guessing that you don't think that shows that hospitals are not an essential service. :wink:


They weren't called hospitals, but there was healthcare, it was just something different. I know millennials think EVERYTHING is essential, but it's not. :wink:


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

In my county, "taxi and related services" are considered essential services.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

TXUbering said:


> They weren't called hospitals, but there was healthcare, it was just something different. I know millennials think EVERYTHING is essential, but it's not. :wink:


Ok, but we lived life without healthcare before healthcare was a thing, but that doesn't show that healthcare is not an essential service.


----------



## everydayimubering (Aug 5, 2017)

People have reading comprehension issues.
The original question was:
"In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?"

Clearly, with drastically reduced levels of ridership these days - Uber simply becomes an additional option - which makes it absolutely "superfluous". Why is it so difficult to understand?? Does it have anything to do with the fact that we are dealing with people who are led by someone who is an embarrassment to the entire nation? [That was just intended as jest in earnest]


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

everydayimubering said:


> People have reading comprehension issues.
> The original question was:
> "In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?"
> 
> Clearly, with drastically reduced levels of ridership these days - Uber simply becomes an additional option - which makes it absolutely "superfluous". Why is it so difficult to understand?? Does it have anything to do with the fact that we are dealing with people who are led by someone who is an embarrassment to the entire nation? [That was just intended as jest in earnest]


The problem with a question like that is what exactly _is_ "good public transit"? I would have to guess that NYC has a public transit system that's about as good as anywhere in the US, but people regularly take lots and lots and lots of taxis around NYC. So are taxis "essential"? Are they made completely superfluous by the existence of the public transit system? A lot of people are paying for cab rides because the public transit system isn't good enough for _their_ needs. That much is obvious. So how good is "good enough"?

It's a rhetorical question, because there's no single objective standard for what's "good enough" because what's "good enough" depends on what you need, and people need different things.


----------



## everydayimubering (Aug 5, 2017)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> I beg to differ, the bus system primary function is to transport people who doesn't have a car.
> 
> The buses and trains have been around alot longer than global warming or the various magnitude of pollution laws.
> 
> All the save the environment was tacked on to public transportation in the 90's or so.


1. Most people who take the bus already have a car; it is just too inconvenient (and expensive) to find parking plus the cost of fill-ups.
2. Buses and trains cause much less pollution per capita - even if they're not electric (as in Europe)
Still, one regular-sized bus is the equivalent of 50 cars in terms of pollution.
It's about time to get some education.

Of course, people will always have a need to take a cab when it is necessary due to time constraints or for the convenience of not having to drag suitcases to get to the airport (for example). That's exactly why taxis are there for. Sometimes it also becomes cost-efficient where a cab may be cheaper than buying 4 bus tickets.


----------



## Lowestformofwit (Sep 2, 2016)

Karen Stein said:


> Without Uber folks could always call a cab? Yea, right. Might as well claim a bunny will lay colored eggs under your bushes on Easter.
> 
> Uber was created specifically to address the failings of the taxi model. Talk to your customers - they'll tell you of the times they called and called, and no cab ever came.
> 
> ...


Nice Uber shill.
But then you've had lots of practice at it.
Replace mass transit in "normal times"? - LOLOLOLOL!


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

I would say that the answer is yes.

Transportation is essential. But which form of transpo? If you include one form (that a large amount of people use), then you must include each method (which is used by a large amount of people). By that reasoning, limos are out and just about everything else is in.



TXUbering said:


> We managed to live life without rideshare before rideshare was a thing, thus I personally don't think it's an essential service. Healthcare professionals found a way to get around before U/L came on the scene. That's like asking if a cell phone is an essential service. I'm sure a bunch of you don't know life before cell phones, which is kinda sad, actually.


I remember those days fondly. Try delivering pizza using a Thomas guide!

Years ago you might have said that land lines were essential but not cell phones. I would argue that both fall in the same category, because if you removed BOTH of them you're without communication. Without one, the other becomes essential, thus, they both are.

Just like Uber.. if you remove everything motorized that carries paying passengers: Uber, taxis, busses, AND light rail, then there is no transportation for the majority.

One form of transportation could be removed (Uber, for example) and people could still get by because of the available alternatives. But if you removed them ALL, then all of a sudden Uber becomes essential. Saying that there was life before Uber has the reverse argument as well: light rail isn't necessary, because there's Uber. Busses aren't necessary because there's Uber. Therefore, they are ALL necessary as major forms of public transit.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

everydayimubering said:


> 1. Most people who take the bus already have a car; it is just too inconvenient (and expensive) to find parking plus the cost of fill-ups.
> 2. Buses and trains cause much less pollution per capita - even if they're not electric (as in Europe)
> Still, one regular-sized bus is the equivalent of 50 cars in terms of pollution.
> It's about time to get some education.
> ...


Most people that take the bus definitely dont have a car &#129315; by a long shot at least here in Georgia and the vast majority of the country.

Your thought process maybe true for the nicer inner city parts of our largest urban areas but that's it.

Most of America is spread out countryside with poor bus infrastructure or no bus at all.


----------



## FormerTaxiDriver♧ (Apr 5, 2018)

RideshareDog said:


> In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?


*It's not worth getting killed over.

Yes,

1. Pandemics 
2. Riots
3. Snow, Ice, Tornadoes 
4. Bar scene?*


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

everydayimubering said:


> People have reading comprehension issues.
> The original question was:
> "In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?"
> 
> Clearly, with drastically reduced levels of ridership these days - Uber simply becomes an additional option - which makes it absolutely "superfluous". Why is it so difficult to understand?? Does it have anything to do with the fact that we are dealing with people who are led by someone who is an embarrassment to the entire nation? [That was just intended as jest in earnest]


In a city with many transit options, isn't _everything_ "superfluous" by this logic?

Why is private transit more expendable than anything else? What about personal private transit (driving your own car) - isn't that also superfluous in a city with trains and buses?

"Essential" doesn't mean "there is absolutely no alternative". It means that it is considered to be worth sustaining even in some emergency situations because the social cost of running it is lower than the social cost of shutting it down.




TXUbering said:


> We managed to live life without rideshare before rideshare was a thing, thus I personally don't think it's an essential service. Healthcare professionals found a way to get around before U/L came on the scene. That's like asking if a cell phone is an essential service. I'm sure a bunch of you don't know life before cell phones, which is kinda sad, actually.


I think this is a line of reasoning that doesn't accomplish what you want it to.

Try this:

"We managed to live life without electricity before power generation and lightbulbs were a thing, thus I don't think electricity is an essential service."

Defining "essential" features of modern life isn't about comparing lifestyles and economics to the recent or even the distant past. What society considers "essential" today is different from what it considered essential 5, 10, 100, or even 1000 years ago.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

waldowainthrop said:


> In a city with many transit options, isn't _everything_ "superfluous" by this logic?
> 
> Why is private transit more expendable than anything else? What about personal private transit (driving your own car) - isn't that also superfluous in a city with trains and buses?
> 
> ...


Exactly. The argument is obviously hopelessly unsound, which can be easily seen by the fact that _it proves way too much_.

"Since we lived without X before X became a thing, X is not essential"

Obviously, apart from breathing and eating, there's almost nothing that we didn't live without at one time or another before "it became a thing."

Ergo, apart from breathing and eating, nothing is really essential.

"Since we lived without indoor plumbing before indoor plumbing became a thing, indoor plumbing is not essential"
"Since we lived without the wheel before the wheel became a thing, the wheel is not essential"
"Since we lived without fire before fire became a thing, fire is not essential"
"Since we lived without curling before curling became a thing, curling is not essential"

Ok, well the last one is a bad example, because curling is not only not essential, it's a scourge on the face of "sport", but the other examples illustrate the point.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

Uber is not an essential service. Publicly funded transportation is.

If we had no publicly funded transportation (buses, subway, handicapped access vans, etc) then Uber and taxi's could be considered essential, but in that municipality only.

Uber lobbyists want us to be considered essential. solely in order to exempt them from certain payments to drivers, and to enable the possibility of government subsidies.


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

ANT 7 said:


> Uber is not an essential service. Publicly funded transportation is.
> 
> If we had no publicly funded transportation (buses, subway, handicapped access vans, etc) then Uber and taxi's could be considered essential, but in that municipality only.
> 
> Uber lobbyists want us to be considered essential. solely in order to exempt them from certain payments to drivers, and enable the possibility of government subsidies.


Exactly

The dictionary defines essential as something that is absolutely necessary and uber is not not when you have alternatives. Having a 40k new car come pick you up at your door for less than a taxi is a luxury and convince not a necessity.

I had a gig downtown a month ago at 6am. I did take an Uber but only cuz I didn't want to make up an hour earlier to take local transit or pay more for a cab. That's a convince not a necessity.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

RideshareDog said:


> The *dictionary defines* essential as something that is absolutely necessary and uber is not not when you have alternatives. Having a 40k new car come pick you up at your door for less than a taxi is a luxury and convince not a necessity.


Dictionaries are guides for usage. You can't just look in a dictionary and say "dictionary says" and make an argument out of that.

How about this definition:



> *essential:* being a substance that is not synthesized by the body in a quantity sufficient for normal health and growth and that must be obtained from the diet


Rideshare isn't _that_, so it must not be "essential", right? I know it's a funny example, but that's what happens when you read a dictionary literally rather than reading it contextually.

The "essential" we are talking about is private on-demand transportation "essential as a matter of public policy and general utility", not "absolutely necessary according to the dictionary". And by that definition, almost all the governments that have an interest in it define it as essential. Look at pretty much any current state or city policy and you will find that rideshare is "essential" by that definition. Maybe it wouldn't be considered essential under a different circumstance, but it seems to be so in this particular situation, for now.


----------



## TXUbering (May 9, 2018)

waldowainthrop said:


> In a city with many transit options, isn't _everything_ "superfluous" by this logic?
> 
> Why is private transit more expendable than anything else? What about personal private transit (driving your own car) - isn't that also superfluous in a city with trains and buses?
> 
> ...


I should probably add that the amount of space that the ant and pax are confined to, and the nature of this threat, the platform is even less essential. I'd say that grocery store employees are more essential as the risk isn't as great to spread the virus, if the distances between people can be kept at good distance.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

Looks like there are a lot smarter arguments against the @RideshareDog in this thread.
Essential is public policy. Take it up with Fordnation if you disagree.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Actionjax said:


> It's funny how for years Uber and drivers wanted to be legit. Now that they are drivers are trying to stop from being an essential service now that the $hit has hit the fan.


Someone dangled free money in front of drivers and told them they only get free money if they are not essential. Thus everyone wants to be non-essential.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

waldowainthrop said:


> In a city with many transit options, isn't _everything_ "superfluous" by this logic?
> 
> Why is private transit more expendable than anything else? What about personal private transit (driving your own car) - isn't that also superfluous in a city with trains and buses?
> 
> ...


The lightbulb doesn't get in your car and give you coronavirus.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

Trafficat said:


> Someone dangled free money in front of drivers and told them they only get free money if they are not essential. Thus everyone wants to be non-essential.


I agree.

My point is that "essential" isn't about private wants. It's about public needs.

We should only be asking if a certain trip is essential, not if the service that provides them is essential. We can't use an argument that a certain individual doesn't need to take a trip as an argument against the mode of transit. Even if most Uber or taxi drivers should practically be off the road doesn't mean that Uber or taxis should cease to exist until further notice.

Me driving to a bar right now is not essential and is basically impossible to do right now. Me driving a car in general is essential and not prohibited. That's why the gas station is still open even though most of the trips I could possibly take with my car right now would involve non-essential travel. The same goes for rideshare.

Society has an interest in prohibiting as few modes of transit as possible during a public health crisis, unless those forms of transit cause more risks to health than they prevent. If the crisis were even worse, we'd have even more public and private transit shut down or restricted, but that is not the situation we are facing.



got a p said:


> The lightbulb doesn't get in your car and give you coronavirus.


I'm not advocating that everyone drive as normal. And to be clear, _I am not driving rideshare right now and personally would have quit temporarily if I were currently driving._ I _am_ saying that there are good societal arguments for rideshare continuing to exist under the current conditions.

If it were my utopia, no one would be driving a car commercially or going to work in public without voluntarily getting tested, and tests would be more widespread to enable this policy, but we don't live in my utopia.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

Trafficat said:


> Someone dangled free money in front of drivers and told them they only get free money if they are not essential. Thus everyone wants to be non-essential.


We're as essential as restaurant workers. You can always take public transportation or go to the grocery store even if restaurant food is nicer and more convenient.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

RideshareDog said:


> In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?


No GROUPS !

" PUBLIC TRANSIT" SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN BY LAW RIGHT NOW !

UBER IS ESSENTIAL



RideshareDog said:


> In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

tohunt4me said:


> No GROUPS !
> 
> " PUBLIC TRANSIT" SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN BY LAW RIGHT NOW !
> 
> UBER IS ESSENTIAL


A little bias aren't you? That's not an argument by the way that's just you not wanting to lose your income


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

got a p said:


> We're as essential as restaurant workers. You can always take public transportation or go to the grocery store even if restaurant food is nicer and more convenient.


Public transit seems to be a larger vector for coronavirus than rideshare right now. It's no coincidence that NYC is being hit hardest right now. Social isolation is not something that happens on public transit, ever.

I am a public transit advocate, and I hate to even admit this. If I still lived in Washington DC where I relied on transit all the time, you couldn't pay me to get on a bus or train right now. I'd be driving privately, cycling, or walking everywhere, at any reasonable cost. That's not luxury - that's personal safety.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

everydayimubering said:


> .
> Actually, not. Mass Transit is the way to reduce mass pollution in large urban areas by preventing or discouraging the use of more cars on the roads. And people who wish to avoid buses during the current pandemic can always get a cab - which were always there before Uber arrived on the scene. So Uber is just another option but it cannot be considered as "essential".It's like electric or hybrid vehicles just offer another option to people who drive cars - nothing more.


IT IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE TO OPERATE MASS TRANSIT DURING THIS VIRUS OUTBREAK !

NO LARGE GROUPS !


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

waldowainthrop said:


> I agree.
> 
> My point is that "essential" isn't about private wants. It's about public needs.
> 
> ...


I tried to make this point earlier. Not all ubers need to be out there, just a small fraction of rentals fitted with a divider to protect the driver. They can retrofit those into some rentals and have enough drivers out for the ESSENTIAL needs. Really that being just for those needing medical attention, not for everything under the sun. Until the cars are ready taxis already have dividers.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

got a p said:


> I tried to make this point earlier. Not all ubers need to be out there, just a small fraction of rentals fitted with a divider to protect the driver. They can retrofit those into some rentals and have enough drivers out for the ESSENTIAL needs. Really that being just for those needing medical attention, not for everything under the sun. Until the cars are ready taxis already have dividers.


I generally agree with this. This sounds like turning rideshare and all other private transit into even more of a public utility and we are way behind the curve on that social problem right now.


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

RideshareDog said:


> In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?


Yes, absolutely positively YES!


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

they've known about this for a few months and shut down the country, parts of it, for almost a month. Grocery stores have started putting up dividers, how come uber and Lyft haven't done this? I'll tell you why, they could face a lawsuit if you get sick with a divider there so they puzz out and would rather have people die. people need 6 feet - there isn't just not 6 feet in a car, you are inhaling other people's germs in that tiny space.

Stopping uber/lyft from sending out cars to spread diseases and kill people bc no protection is what is really essential at the moment.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

RideshareDog said:


> In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?


My vote is yes. Uber's far safer than public transit.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

got a p said:


> they've known about this for a few months and shut down the country, parts of it, for almost a month. Grocery stores have started putting up dividers, how come uber and Lyft haven't done this? I'll tell you why, they could face a lawsuit if you get sick with a divider there so they puzz out and would rather have people die. people need 6 feet - there isn't just not 6 feet in a car, you are inhaling other people's germs in that tiny space.


The problem with essential jobs is that people _will_ get sick doing them, whether from their co-workers or from the general public.

Very few people want to address this fact, because essential work during a pandemic is guaranteed to increase the personal risk of the people who do those jobs, and this isn't something that is comfortable to accept. Examples are: hospital workers, civil servants who still work daily, grocery workers, gas station workers, garbage processors and collectors (the bedrock of our social order right now), military, transportation workers. All of these people can and will get sick at a higher rate. There is no getting around it. No amount of PPE or distancing will keep them from getting sick in greater numbers. Essential work in a pandemic is necessarily self-sacrificing.

Should more be done to mitigate that risk? Of course.


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

hottiebottie said:


> it is not essential!!!are ppl stupid or stupid??


In your opinion only. Most local governments say it is essential.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

waldowainthrop said:


> Dictionaries are guides for usage. You can't just look in a dictionary and say "dictionary says" and make an argument out of that.
> 
> How about this definition:
> 
> ...


In this context -- and you can't separate the question from the context -- "essential" means something that the government has deemed essential, nothing more or less.

Here's an actual example: our local county Sheriff's office asked the public to report any instances of people or businesses which were violating the local order that "nonessential" businesses must be closed. There's a shooting range very close to my home, and I can typically hear shooting going on. When I heard it again, I checked the county website to see what they listed as "essential" and "nonessential". Not seeing shooting ranges on the list of essential businesses, I looked at the range's website: it states they're closed, but the shooting is going on as normal. So I sent an email to the Sheriff's office -- "You wanted tips, so here's one; I don't know if it's essential or not, but I don't see it on the list, so you decide."

I get a response back from the Sheriff's office: it reads in part

_I did conduct some research to find out more information about your concerns. I found information on the web which states that the Department of Homeland Security states that:

"Workers supporting the operation of firearm or ammunition product manufacturers, retailers,importers, distributors, and shooting ranges are considered essential.

There are restrictions that the gun stores conduct business by appointment and that only a minimum amount of customers are allowed in the building during the business at the time of the transactions during this emergency.

Though I don't believe everything on the web, this information appears legitimate._

So the answer is that, according to the Department of Homeland Security, _"Workers supporting the operation of firearm or ammunition product manufacturers, retailers,importers, distributors, and shooting ranges are considered essential." _

Whatever is deemed essential by whatever order is applicable is "essential", no more and no less. It's a legal definition_,_ stipulated for present purposes, and means nothing other than what the definition says it means, and the people who are supposed to be enforcing the policy have to refer to that, not to a common sense, or dictionary, definition.


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

There should be one more poll, something like "if you voted no, are you a disgruntled driver with a vendetta against the uber and/or lyft?"


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> In this context -- and you can't separate the question from the context -- "essential" means something that the government has deemed essential, nothing more or less.


Oh just cuz our governments have said it is then it totally is essential lmao. I don't know about your markets but in mine Uber has our city by the balls and also politians do make policy based on what gets the least backlash. And yes people would be upset if Uber stopped cuz there goes their cheap convienent ride not cuz they can't do without it. They will get up earlier take local transit or a cab

The question is can our cities thst have good public transit function without uber. The answer is yes. It did b4 it will again.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

Public transit (buses, light rail, and handi vans) where I live is down in ridership between 60-90% depending on the time of day, according to the news here. We did just fine before Uber came out as well.


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

Uber is as essential as lawn care is right now.


waldowainthrop said:


> Public transit seems to be a larger vector for coronavirus than rideshare right now. It's no coincidence that NYC is being hit hardest right now. Social isolation is not something that happens on public transit, ever.
> 
> I am a public transit advocate, and I hate to even admit this. If I still lived in Washington DC where I relied on transit all the time, you couldn't pay me to get on a bus or train right now. I'd be driving privately, cycling, or walking everywhere, at any reasonable cost. That's not luxury - that's personal safety.


You couldn't pay me to go into an Uber. I've seen the lack of effort posed by these drivers to keep their cars disinfected. And how careless drivers are about our safety. A lot of drivers all they care about is money. Hence why there are so many of them picking children without car seats you think these same guys will care about your health nah


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

RideshareDog said:


> Uber is as essential as lawn care is right now.
> 
> You couldn't pay me to go into an Uber. I've seen the lack of effort posed by these drivers to keep their cars disinfected. And how careless drivers are about our safety. A lot of drivers all they care about is money. Hence why there are so many of them picking children without car seats you think these same guys will care about your health nah


I think you've confused private interest with public interest.

I don't want to take a rideshare car anywhere right now, and I haven't and wouldn't. But I have choices. Privately I have no interest in rideshare, as a provider or user of the service.

_As a matter of public policy_, I wouldn't want the government to destroy forms of transit without it being absolutely necessary to do so. If you will entertain a hypothetical: there is a healthcare worker and their car breaks down and a bus doesn't get them to work in under two hours, they should be able to order a taxi or rideshare.

The arguments for keeping rideshare running (at present) are simply better. This thread is full of them.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

Or call your employer, the hospital, to come and get you because you are essential, correct ?

Now that would be thinking it thru on the part of our public policy, but doubtful, no ?


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

ANT 7 said:


> Or call your employer, the hospital, to come and get you because you are essential, correct ?
> 
> Now that would be thinking it thru on the part of our public policy, but doubtful, no ?


Let me know when the people who grow our vegetables are shuttled to work if their car breaks down or they have no alternative way to get to work. Or the hospital for that matter.

If you are really advocating for socialized private workplace transit for workers, I guess there are arguments for that, but we don't live in a world with many of those kinds of employers.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

They don't need that. Most good plantation owners have their workers sleeping onsite, and they deduct accommodations from their wages.

You'd think that the minimal amount of occurances this would be needed might make it work OK. You have a hotline and someone comes to get you.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

waldowainthrop said:


> Essential work in a pandemic is necessarily self-sacrificing.
> 
> Should more be done to mitigate that risk? Of course.


Here's the problem. Uber/lyft have been treating their workers like crap. Now they want you to potentially die for these low rates? Good luck with that! Remember that when you drive 10 minutes to drive someone with contagious covid19 to the weed store... Uber takes 60% of the fare, and you end up with life threatening pneumonia. Not to mention several of your passengers later that day catch it too bc the spray didn't kill all the germs.

And again I don't think they are essential, matter of fact I see them and the problem. Thanks to them, this virus will affect possibly over a million maybe millions of more people than it would have if they had done the responsible thing and shut down. This also affects how long the countries' shutdown lasts, making this much longer and more damaging to the economy as a whole.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

got a p said:


> Here's the problem. Uber/lyft have been treating their workers like crap. Now they want you to potentially die for these low rates? Good luck with that!
> 
> And again I don't think they are essential, matter of fact I see them and the problem. Thanks to them, this virus will affect possibly over a million maybe millions of more people than it would have if they had done the responsible thing and shut down. This also affects how long the countries' shutdown lasts, making this much longer and more damaging to the economy as a whole.


I don't think Uber/Lyft want people to die. They are (as before) indifferent to the people working for them. Indifference is the dominating ethic, as always. If they were encouraging drivers to go out and drive with special incentives or giving them massive surge payments, then maybe I'd agree. They're just keeping the lights on (somewhat) and the app running.

Is there a human cost to this? Probably, but it might even be outweighed by the benefit of having a working private transit system. _Some_ people still have places to go, consequences be damned. We can suggest that these people use alternatives, and, in some communities for some individuals, the alternatives exist. Transportation businesses are generally exempt from the sorts of regulations because some people do not have good alternatives available and they need to work.

When you say "not essential" you mean you want the federal or state governments to order them to shut down their operations? If Uber or Lyft shut down tomorrow, it would be voluntary. But when people say they want it classified as "not essential" they mean the business should be shut down by force or penalty.

The best thing that could come out of this situation is that the economic recession forces Uber and Lyft out of business and reshapes the private transit business. As it is constituted today, it can't be run ethically or in a socially responsible way. But I don't think this outcome should happen because the government arbitrarily reclassifies them as "non-essential" against any logical argument for it.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

I agree with that. 

They are indifferent about drivers and passengers dying.

They care about themselves and getting richer.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

RideshareDog said:


> In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?


they are essential, a bus can't do it all , and in an era of the virus, buses are worse. I'd take a pax, tell him or her not to touch anything, (and no food or drink allowed, except for sealed bottled water) cover all my seats with seat covers, roll the windows down, and not allow more than one passenger. No gloves an no mask, no service. then quickly wipe everything down before the next ride. It is possible to ducktape a plastic transparent sheet separating the driver from the back seats, I've seen it done. That is recommended

However, I quit UberX, and am doing UberEats. But, if I were doing X, that's how I would do it.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

if people can't:

1 - take public transportation.

2 - get one of the 100 million people sitting at home with nothing to do to drive them.

3 - hail a cab with a protective divider.

4 - walk.

5 - ride a bike.

Then they can:

6 - rent a car.

If that's not possible they can:

7 - become unemployed like so many others.

What they absolutely can't do:

8 - kill virus-share drivers or passengers.

As you can see ride-share is absolutely not essential. It is a luxury. At the moment it is a public hazard.



waldowainthrop said:


> When you say "not essential" you mean you want the federal or state governments to order them to shut down their operations?


Municipal governments, maybe under state law, are handing out tickets for not being 6 feet apart. This is illegal, cars don't have 6 feet of space, and the chance of catching virus is much much higher due to sharing air.


----------



## hottiebottie (Apr 5, 2020)

Uber's Guber said:


> The whole transportation industry is considered essential.
> Actual Uber drivers are a dime-a-dozen though....


ok big daddy


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

I’ll take my chances on an empty train car vs a four door enclosed with a driver who drivers around pple on a daily basis and could be exposed him or herself...

Delivery > passengers.


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

got a p said:


> Uber/lyft have been treating their workers like crap


You lost me at that rediculous false statement. You don't work for uber you work for yourself.


----------



## IRME4EVER (Feb 17, 2020)

waldowainthrop said:


> So no one should go anywhere then?
> 
> I'm glad the hospitals, food shops, and food producers (among others) are all still running. There is no question that some of those people won't get to their jobs without rideshare. Some have alternatives, but obviously some do not. Those people didn't have alternatives before this crisis and they don't now.
> 
> ...


 UBER X AND UBER EATS, I DO BOTH! 
DROVE CAB FOR 12 YEARS BEFORE JOINING UBER.
HERE IN PHOENIX, AZ. THERE IS PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, FOR FREE!! PEOPLE WOULD RATHER USE UBER THAN TAKE A FREE RIDE. GET A 20 MINUTE P/U FOR A 5 MINUTE TRIP. UBER SCREWS THEIR DRIVERS OVER BIG TIME!!
SOCIAL DISTANCING IN MY CAR, NOT HAPPENING!! BUT EVERY PLACE YOU GO YOU SEE EVERYTHING TAPPED OFF FOR 6 FOOT OR SNEEZE GUARDS. WHERE ARE WE PROTECTED?
UBER HAS LOWERED WHAT WE MAKE PER MILE, 54 CENTS A MILE. IRONICALLY WE ARE DOING ALL THE WORK. MAKING OUR CAR PAYMENTS, OUR RIDESHARE INSURANCE, OUR MAINTENANCE, OUR GAS, RUNNING OUR NEW CARS TO THE GROUND QUICK!! BOUGHT MY BRAND NEW CAR LAST JUNE ONLY HAD 17 MILES ON IT, NOW IT HAS 40,000 MILES. JUST DRIVING FOR UBER. 
HERE'S A GOOD ONE, ACCORDING TO UBER I DID 1347 TRIPS LAST MONTH, DECLINED 96. I WAS AT 93% ACCEPTANCE RATING SUNDAY, WENT DOWN TO 88% MONDAY. THEY ARE SO SCREWED UP!! NO WAY IN HELL DID I DO ALL THOSE TRIPS. THEIR SYSTEM IS SO SCREWED UP'
ESSENTIAL DRIVERS GRANTED, UBER EATS OFFER FREE DELIVERY TO ALL RESTAURANTS, DRIVERS ARE SCREWED GOING THROUGH DRIVE THRU. LUCKY IF I MAKE 3.00 PER ORDER, USUALLY NO TIP.


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

got a p said:


> ....
> 
> 8 - kill virus-share drivers or passengers.
> 
> ...


Absolutely essential. I have provided number of rides today. 0 viral transmissions. (I drive delorean with a flux capacitor and I checked 14 days ahead, everyone still doing good). If I didn't number of people would be hungry, few would not get the health care they deserve, and couple people with mobility issues would not have made it back to their homes. The secret? wipe the car down after each ride with strong disinfectant.


----------



## Phila-mena (Feb 18, 2020)

Karen Stein said:


> Mass transit will never be able to provide the access, flexibility, or efficiency of an individual car.
> 
> Private cars can go anywhere, anytime and carry more goods than mass transit.
> 
> ...


And it's especially true for the United States where little to zero effort is being made to make cars "less relevant" by improving public transportation. NYC is the only city with SFO where public transportation deems owning a car unnecessary and those cities STILL need cabs/rideshare services...


----------



## Ballard_Driver (Jan 10, 2016)

Phila-mena said:


> And it's especially true for the United States where little to zero effort is being made to make cars "less relevant" by improving public transportation. NYC is the only city with SFO where public transportation deems owning a car unnecessary and those cities STILL need cabs/rideshare services...


Dude, the whole anti car thing is stupid. Cars are one of the most beneficial and amazing inventions in human history. All forms of mass transit suck balls, which is why people only ever use them as a last resort. Direct A to B transport cannot be beat in terms of quality of service. Period.

The truth is that the world SHOULD be designed largely around cars, BECAUSE THEY'RE THAT IMPORTANT.

There's been this relentless drive from the top down pushing for densification around the whole world. This has involved everything from zoning changes within cities, to restricting cities from expanding outward, to trying to encourage jobs to only appear in downtown cores. THAT shit is largely responsible for the rapid rise in the cost of housing AND traffic problems. Jobs have been pushed back into the downtowns of cities... But maybe the top dozen or so cities in the USA have soaked up most of this job creation. It's turned everything into a mess and created problems that need not exist.

IMO We need to have more growth in the Clevelands and Pittsburghs of the country, and less in NYC, LA, SF, etc. Building up legacy major cities, or even mid sized-ish cities (Spokane, Boise, Reno, Tucson, take your pick!) into being proper major cities, gets you more awesome for less hassle than cramming even more people into places that are already too crowded and expensive to begin with.

You avoid the cost of living problems that have literally ruined the lives of my entire generation (older millennial here!), enabling a higher quality of life. You also eliminate traffic problems. Major companies used to build a lot of offices in suburbs of major cities... Then they all started moving those jobs back into downtowns... They need to start hiring in legacy major cities (not just a handful of coastal cities), the suburbs again, and in midsized cities. This one change alone would cure so many social ills we have in the USA it isn't even funny.

And people could actually take advantage of the most amazing transportation technology in the entire history of the world... The personal automobile.


----------



## Phila-mena (Feb 18, 2020)

Ballard_Driver said:


> Dude, the whole anti car thing is stupid. Cars are one of the most beneficial and amazing inventions in human history. All forms of mass transit suck balls, which is why people only ever use them as a last resort. Direct A to B transport cannot be beat in terms of quality of service. Period.
> 
> The truth is that the world SHOULD be designed largely around cars, BECAUSE THEY'RE THAT IMPORTANT.
> 
> ...


I don't have time to read your whole blog but when did I say Im anti-car? Have you seem my car? Probably worth more than your home!

Another thing cars are causing pollution and adding to the end of the world as we know it.

Unless you work for Tesla Get your priorities in order.

One more thing are you a Geologist? I can tell you're not. Have you heard of Urban Sprawl? Coz you're endorsing something that Scientists are saying should be avoided at All Costs to save the planet!!!

Good luck!


----------



## Ballard_Driver (Jan 10, 2016)

Phila-mena said:


> I don't have time to read your whole blog but when did I say Im anti-car? Have you seem my car? Probably worth more than your home!
> 
> Another thing cars are causing pollution and adding to the end of the world as we know it.
> 
> ...


You're not anti car... You just buy into the same BS propaganda that those people use to try to destroy car ownership. Close enough for me.

I don't think global warming is not happening at all... But the fact is politicians (AKA control freaks) are using it to push a lot of their pet projects, even when it ain't gonna make shit all of difference. I personally think, based on actual data collected by the IPCC, that global warming is going to be about half as bad as most media outlets make it out to be... But even if it is every bit as bad, most of the solutions are BS.

For all the flaws, I do believe that technology is already taking care of the problem, without massive control freak laws to force people to do shit they don't want to do. Case and point, TESLA. Electric cars will be the vast majority in the future, they're inherently superior in several important ways, it's just a matter of getting costs down, and improving battery tech and battery recycling... All of which is happening. So there's no need to try to destroy personal car ownership when it's already going to become a non issue on its own over the next 10 or so years.

As far as urban sprawl, that's another bunch of bullshit control freak nonsense. What does being a Geologist have to do with urban sprawl? Urban sprawl doesn't make mountains collapse or anything else that geologists might be interested in.

Anyway, these control freaks like the idea of people packed like sardines in massive cities, living in shoe box sized apartments, not owning cars, and generally being good little serfs. The reality is there could be LESS commuting if businesses spread offices around to suburbs that are anchored to a major urban core, and said people only had to commute from their suburb to... Their suburb where their office is!

If you know the phrase hub and spoke with respect to city planning, we need more hubs and spokes surrounding a central hub and spoke... Right now urban planners are trying to FORCE everybody into insanely expensive, dense core areas... Just because. But if the jobs weren't all in the downtown of the major city, but spread throughout the metro, most of the environmental issues go away. Also, less traffic = less idle time in cars wasting energy.

As usual the control freak stuff doesn't even make sense using their own flawed premises once you actually break it down. Building out more mid sized cities and restoring economic vibrancy to existing major cities that are down on their luck would do 100x more for peoples quality of life AND the environment than cramming people into 10 coastal cities that are a living hell to live in.


----------



## la pulga (Aug 12, 2019)

Uber is a luxury?? tell that to the pay rate!


----------



## Phila-mena (Feb 18, 2020)

Ballard_Driver said:


> You're not anti car... You just buy into the same BS propaganda that those people use to try to destroy car ownership. Close enough for me.
> 
> I don't think global warming is not happening at all... But the fact is politicians (AKA control freaks) are using it to push a lot of their pet projects, even when it ain't gonna make shit all of difference. I personally think, based on actual data collected by the IPCC, that global warming is going to be about half as bad as most media outlets make it out to be... But even if it is every bit as bad, most of the solutions are BS.
> 
> ...


You must really dislike big cities. But get over it and pray for New York right now coz that's a city that influences how your suburban neighborhood will survive (aka 2008 recession)

FYI I live in the suburbs and I totally dislike the idea that I have to own a car to get around. A car is expensive compared to public transportation. My other option is...UBER. So the power is in the hands of the car companies and insurance companies.When they know you don't have an option - they monopolize.

I am anti- anything that gives too much power to one entity. Whether that be the car industry or public transit. And I Certainly hope there will be other car companies other than Tesla to balance the scale in the future.
My point is if you want a car by all means get one, if you don't public transit should be accessible and efficient for you to survive without the car note, registration fees maintenance fees insurance fees etc. If you want to upgrade and do Uber that's great too! But in no ways should owning a CAR be someone's only option to get around which it sounds like you're saying...

By the way, owning a car costs an average of $800 a month and my job doesn't even pay me enough to cover that bill. I dont earn enough so I do ride-share for the riders who cant afford that monthly cost. Are you still saying car ownership is the way to go???

You're blaming politicians but they work with the car industry that you're endorsing to make sure you keep paying that car note and insurance. If you have an option other than them then they're out of business like the horse and carriage back in the day...which Im sure had someone like you endorsing that form of transportation during that time.

Also are you from Detroit? You talk of hubs and spokes. Detriot is a hub and Spoke city and Detroit hasn't been doing so well since it gave all its power to car companies...the ones you're re advertising for...

It sounds like the car company's propaganda is working on YOU. Also sounds like you have $700$1000 plus to pay for your car in the bank. Good for you! It's not the case with everyone.


----------



## mikees3 (Nov 9, 2018)

OP is my bff ❤


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

IRME4EVER said:


> HERE'S A GOOD ONE, ACCORDING TO UBER I DID 1347 TRIPS LAST MONTH, DECLINED 96.


I've driven FT for 3 years in a large metropolitan market (1.3MM people) working 12 hours a day. It's a similar size city compared to Phoenix, where you are.

1,347 trips in a month means you did 45 trips a day, every single day, if you worked 7 days a week, every single week.

The absolute most I have physically been able to do, considering traffic conditions and driving time in a 12 hour period, was during our annual 10 day long summer festival. That was 28 rides, done at a tempo where I had stacked pings most of the day, and had to go offline just to pee.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

RideshareDog said:


> You lost me at that rediculous false statement. You don't work for uber you work for yourself.


semantics



dmoney155 said:


> Absolutely essential. * I have provided number of rides today. 0 viral transmissions.*


thiis guy must have a virus sniffing nose &#129300;


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

got a p said:


> semantics


No it's not! U do not work for uber and if you make this your full time gig then your asking for punishment. When you get the ability to sue Uber then you can untill then full time drivers are slaves to the app. Don't be a slave and go get a job that has employment standards behind it and use Uber on the side.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

sellkatsell44 said:


> I'll take my chances on an empty train car vs a four door enclosed with a driver who drivers around pple on a daily basis and could be exposed him or herself...


100% agree with you on this.


----------



## waldowainthrop (Oct 25, 2019)

RideshareDog said:


> No it's not! U do not work for uber and if you make this your full time gig then your asking for punishment. When you get the ability to sue Uber then you can untill then full time drivers are slaves to the app. Don't be a slave and go get a job that has employment standards behind it and use Uber on the side.


I don't live in my house. I reside in it.


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

RideshareDog said:


> No it's not! U do not work for uber and if you make this your full time gig then your asking for punishment. When you get the ability to sue Uber then you can untill then full time drivers are slaves to the app. Don't be a slave and go get a job that has employment standards behind it and use Uber on the side.


So is that what you do? You have full time employment elsewhere?
Or is that just only for others to follow?


----------



## LuxCarSpy (Jan 25, 2019)

Phila-mena said:


> And it's especially true for the United States where little to zero effort is being made to make cars "less relevant" by improving public transportation. NYC is the only city with SFO where public transportation deems owning a car unnecessary and those cities STILL need cabs/rideshare services...


The concept of mass transit and public transportation are two separate things. The systems in NYC and Toronto (Canada) are robust means to move oneself without a car and be classified as "mass transit". All the other transportation systems, that originated nearly a century ago when cars were less popular, are public transportation to move people . Although cars grew in popularity, political leaders keep the systems alive to garner the votes of those without cars, typically in lower income neighborhoods.

It's not my intention to spur a political debate over why the systems should or should not remain. The issue is should alternative modes of transportation be explored versus "white elephant buses or trains" with near zero riders a good part of the day.

In the Philadelphia market, like most larger urban centers, the public transportation requires over 35% of its operating expenses to come from taxpayers. The commuter trains running to the burbs pay for themselves, suggesting a disproportionate amount of tax payer dollars are being funneled into lower income neighbors ....The question ? Are there better solutions ?


----------



## everydayimubering (Aug 5, 2017)

FormerTaxiDriver♧ said:


> *It's not worth getting killed over.*


Exactly! Why put both the driver and the passenger(s) at risk by putting them in close proximity - makes perfect sense.



tohunt4me said:


> IT IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE TO OPERATE MASS TRANSIT DURING THIS VIRUS OUTBREAK !


YEAH RIGHT, TELL THAT TO THE GOVERNOR OF YOUR STATE!.

YOU DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT MASS TRANSIT HAS THE CAPACITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO SPACE THEMSELVES CONVENIENTLY - SOMETHING YOU CAN'T DO IN A PRIVATE VEHICLE UNLESS IT IS PROPERLY EQUIPPED AND FITTED FOR THAT PURPOSE!


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

everydayimubering said:


> Exactly! Why put both the driver and the passenger(s) at risk by putting them in close proximity - makes perfect sense.
> 
> 
> YEAH RIGHT, TELL THAT TO THE GOVERNOR OF YOUR STATE!.
> ...


People are NOT spacing themselves.
12 bus drivers haveDIED OF COVID IN LONDON.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

RideshareDog said:


> Oh just cuz our governments have said it is then it totally is essential


Exactly. That's why liquor stores are open: because they have been deemed "essential", because government officials decided that in the applicable orders and regulations that they would be defined as "essential". There is nothing more to it than that. They make a judgment call, based on what they think is "reasonable", which businesses will and won't be included as "essential".


----------



## everydayimubering (Aug 5, 2017)

IRME4EVER said:


> ACCORDING TO UBER I DID 1347 TRIPS LAST MONTH, DECLINED 96. I WAS AT 93% ACCEPTANCE RATING SUNDAY, WENT DOWN TO 88% MONDAY. THEY ARE SO SCREWED UP!! NO WAY IN HELL DID I DO ALL THOSE TRIPS. THEIR SYSTEM IS SO SCREWED UP'


I hear you loud and clear as I can relate to that: Mine said I did 2162 trips in the last 30 days... and my A/R went down 8 percentage points. But the next day, it fixed itself - as if by magic.



tohunt4me said:


> People are NOT spacing themselves.


People CAN'T space themselves in a car - even if they tried!


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

everydayimubering said:


> I hear you loud and clear as I can relate to that: Mine said I did 2162 trips in the last 30 days... and my A/R went down 8 percentage points. But the next day, it fixed itself - as if by magic.
> 
> 
> People CAN'T space themselves in a car - even if they tried!


12 at a time cant catch Covid.

Even if theyTried !


----------



## everydayimubering (Aug 5, 2017)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Exactly. Th AFAIK, at's why liquor stores are open: because they have been deemed "essential"


I don't know who and why would they deem them to be essential - oh maybe the same people who kept the gun stores open. AFAIK, all stores and malls are closed - except for phamacies and grocery stores. And you can buy beer and wine at the grocery stores. For liquor, you may have to order it online and have it delivered, or they might have a pickup facility in some cases.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

everydayimubering said:


> I don't know who and why would they deem them to be essential - oh maybe the same people who kept the gun stores open. AFAIK, all stores and malls are closed - except for phamacies and grocery stores. And you can buy beer and wine at the grocery stores. For liquor, you may have to order it online and have it delivered, or they might have a pickup facility in some cases.


I'm in upstate New York, and in this county, they're open; my wife and I just went to the grocery store, and next door is a liquor store, and it was definitely open as usual.

Are liquor stores "essential"? Apparently, "yes", because they are defined to be so. Now, whether it was _wise_ to include them is another question, but I would say yes, even though I don't drink.


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Exactly. That's why liquor stores are open: because they have been deemed "essential", because government officials decided that in the applicable orders and regulations that they would be defined as "essential". There is nothing more to it than that. They make a judgment call, based on what they think is "reasonable", which businesses will and won't be included as "essential".


And including a service that has people being sexually assaulted as essential def makes that service essential huh. A service where drivers can't keep their hands to themselves will def have drivers going the distance to keep this empodemic from spreading further. And a service where young ant keep 2 meters away def needs to be running. No they aren't making a judgemt based on what's reasonable. It's based on what will get the least backlash


----------



## Actionjax (Oct 6, 2014)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Exactly. That's why liquor stores are open: because they have been deemed "essential", because government officials decided that in the applicable orders and regulations that they would be defined as "essential". There is nothing more to it than that. They make a judgment call, based on what they think is "reasonable", which businesses will and won't be included as "essential".


Liquor stores are deemed essential because there are individuals who have dependencies and abuse problems. If they were all closed people who have substance abuse problems would drink anything with alcohol in it including poison. This would already add to the burden hospitals would face.

I never understood the reason behind it till someone from the medical field told me. Then it made sense.



JohnnyBravo836 said:


> I'm in upstate New York, and in this county, they're open; my wife and I just went to the grocery store, and next door is a liquor store, and it was definitely open as usual.
> 
> Are liquor stores "essential"? Apparently, "yes", because they are defined to be so. Now, whether it was _wise_ to include them is another question, but I would say yes, even though I don't drink. :wink:


See my response other response. It's to avoid issues with those with substance abuse ending up taxing hospitals further.



RideshareDog said:


> And including a service that has people being sexually assaulted as essential def makes that service essential huh. A service where drivers can't keep their hands to themselves will def have drivers going the distance to keep this empodemic from spreading further. And a service where young ant keep 2 meters away def needs to be running. No they aren't making a judgemt based on what's reasonable. It's based on what will get the least backlash


People have been sexually assaulted at offices as well. And may of them are still open.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

Actionjax said:


> Liquor stores are deemed essential because there are individuals who have dependencies and abuse problems. If they were all closed people who have substance abuse problems would drink anything with alcohol in it including poison. This would already add to the burden hospitals would face.
> 
> I never understood the reason behind it till someone from the medical field told me. Then it made sense.
> 
> ...


That's certainly part of it, but public officials are also very well aware that a lot of people are going to be sitting at home with a lot of time on their hands that they need to kill, and closing the liquor stores would be _extremely_ unpopular with a lot of people who don't have any dependency issues. And those people vote.


----------



## Phila-mena (Feb 18, 2020)

I live in PA and the stores were deemed non -essential. I was in the long lines along with others 2 days before they closed the stores bought bottles of wine and ran out in a week...Once things showed that this was getting bad I decided to quarantine with my family in VA. I had no idea that VA deemed liquor stores essential but was very happy to find out.

My family and I have been restocking while some in PA are trying to figure out how Jesus turned water into wine... Or routinely cross the borders if you have a car.

Question; if you drive to get wine across states do the police fine you for non-essential travel? According to PA its non-essential right? But if you cross over into DE and DE police pull you over...how you explain that to the DE police?


----------



## RideshareDog (Feb 25, 2019)

Actionjax said:


> Liquor stores are deemed essential because there are individuals who have dependencies and abuse problems. If they were all closed people who have substance abuse problems would drink anything with alcohol in it including poison. This would already add to the burden hospitals would face.
> 
> I never understood the reason behind it till someone from the medical field told me. Then it made sense.
> 
> ...


Thats such a lame argument. Not the same thing First no where near the same frequency as it does on Uber and with offices people are screened much better than uber does. And you missed my point which was that a good number of Uber drivers don't care about passenger safety so they won't be disinfecting their cars or wearing protective gear or installing partitions. So it's rediculous that a service that's so unsafe b4 this epidemic is considered essential and its not just sexual assaults its speeding its driving after smoking a joint its driver's not knowing the city its drivers running red lights ya these drivers sure will clean their cars oh ya.


----------



## Kurt Halfyard (Dec 13, 2017)

RideshareDog said:


> Thats such a lame argument. Not the same thing First no where near the same frequency as it does on Uber and with offices people are screened much better than uber does. And you missed my point which was that a good number of Uber drivers don't care about passenger safety so they won't be disinfecting their cars or wearing protective gear or installing partitions. So it's rediculous that a service that's so unsafe b4 this epidemic is considered essential and its not just sexual assaults its speeding its driving after smoking a joint its driver's not knowing the city its drivers running red lights ya these drivers sure will clean their cars oh ya.


Meh. Taxis are not much better. I fail to see your point.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

Phila-mena said:


> I live in PA and the stores were deemed non -essential. I was in the long lines along with others 2 days before they closed the stores bought bottles of wine and ran out in a week...Once things showed that this was getting bad I decided to quarantine with my family in VA. I had no idea that VA deemed liquor stores essential but was very happy to find out.
> 
> My family and I have been restocking while some in PA are trying to figure out how Jesus turned water into wine... Or routinely cross the borders if you have a car.
> 
> Question; if you drive to get wine across states do the police fine you for non-essential travel? According to PA its non-essential right? But if you cross over into DE and DE police pull you over...how you explain that to the DE police?


It's possible that it might be a technical violation, because transporting alcohol across state lines to avoid paying applicable liquor taxes is something that states frown upon.  But I'm going to guess that, under the circumstances, cops probably have bigger fish to fry at the moment.


----------



## Phila-mena (Feb 18, 2020)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> It's possible that it might be a technical violation, because transporting alcohol across state lines to avoid paying applicable liquor taxes is something that states frown upon. :wink: But I'm going to guess that, under the circumstances, cops probably have bigger fish to fry at the moment.


&#129315; Really? OMG I had no idea about that violation. but wait if you're buying the liquor to stay sane...and avoiding taxes is an unintended bonus... My gas ⛽ money from Pa evens it out &#128514;

You're right, the police have bigger issues to deal with. But you know, If a story like this comes up on the news about the police fining someone for this exact reason...you know they were bored &#129315;.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

Phila-mena said:


> &#129315; Really? OMG I had no idea about that violation. but wait if you're buying the liquor to stay sane...and avoiding taxes is an unintended bonus... My gas ⛽ money from Pa evens it out &#128514;
> 
> You're right, the police have bigger issues to deal with. But you know, If a story like this comes up on the news about the police fining someone for this exact reason...you know they were bored &#129315;.


Again, I want to emphasize that I was only suggesting that it _might technically_ be a violation; it would depend on which two states were involved, and what the specific law is in those states. However, it would be very surprising if anyone was actually charged for it under present circumstances. I have to believe that there's a good chance that your colleagues back at the station house would be rolling their eyes if you were wasting your time on that. :wink:


----------



## Calirolla (Aug 13, 2018)

You left out "essential for food deliveries" in the question, as Uber Eats it. For restaurants that need us to deliver their food and survive, to people that can't drive to get food, don't want to leave family at home, or go into a public restaurant to get their food etc. I've delivered McDonalds to a handicap person missing half their arm.
As for public transit some would rather be in a car with 1 person rather than a bus with 10-20+...but some are also worried because they don't know how sanitary are cars are, or think some are dirty and they might get the virus from a previous rider. A cousin of mine was scared to get in an Uber for a ride to an airport (surely will want a family ride back from the airport) as many people are worried, so they prefer known relatives to drive them around now more now.


----------



## Ballard_Driver (Jan 10, 2016)

Phila-mena said:


> You must really dislike big cities. But get over it and pray for New York right now coz that's a city that influences how your suburban neighborhood will survive (aka 2008 recession)
> 
> FYI I live in the suburbs and I totally dislike the idea that I have to own a car to get around. A car is expensive compared to public transportation. My other option is...UBER. So the power is in the hands of the car companies and insurance companies.When they know you don't have an option - they monopolize.
> 
> ...


Dude, sooooo much wrong in there. First off, I live in a major city. Seattle. Been here for 15 years. I am actually moving in the near future, but only because they've made sooooo many STUPID policy decisions in the last several years I can't take it any longer. One of those is trying to make traveling by car shittier ON PURPOSE, just out of spite. That's bullshit. Tons of other stuff is stupid. Cost of living is stupid. If it was still half way like it was when I moved here I would live here until the day I die. But it's not. So I'm going to bail and buy a big ass house, a 10-20 acre vacation property, and some rental units and call it good.

Next: Reality is what it is homeboy! If you live ANYWHERE you need transport. Back in the day fancy folks had their own horse or carriage. Others walked or took cabs drawn by horses. Then some mass transit came into existence, trollies and such. Then the car kicked all their asses because it was a superior mode of transportation. We kept some mass transit around because it genuinely makes sense in some spots (NYC or Chicago), and to keep poor people happy. But it sucks balls, and is a last resort for basically everybody.

You don't HAVE to have a car to go places. What you really mean is you want an alternative that you deem to be "good enough," but at a lower price point. Which is fine. My problem with mass transit programs is that they NEVER charge the true cost of operating them as fares. If people had to pay the REAL cost to operate the subway in NYC, subway use would go down... Because even though it's probably the best example of mass rail transit working in the USA, it still sucks in many respects, and is expensive as hell to operate. If true costs had to be paid, I bet buses would be a lot more popular in NYC.

Personally, I am a big fan of buses. They tend to be the most cost effective form of transit, AND they're very flexible. You can add or remove buses to a route literally instantly, which is awesome if use patterns change. Fixed rail of any sort costs a ton of money and can't be easily changed if ridership patterns change over time. I have no problem with buses, provided they actually charge what they cost to operate, so people can make a truly informed decision about what mode of transport works for them. I am NOT in favor of charging $2 bus fares when it really costs $3.50 to run the damn thing, and making people that don't ride the bus pay the difference.

Next, only a moron thinks it really takes $800 a month to own a car. Nobody has to own a fancy ass, brand spanking new car. So to use that as your basis for what a car costs is BS. I've NEVER owned a car that cost anything like that, and I've made over $100K a year for more than the last decade at this point. Most I EVER spent on a car was $8,700, but my last car for RS was only $5,000! Both of those were pretty damn nice minivans actually. $800 a month is extravagant BS, and lower income people wouldn't spend anything like that on a car to begin with. You can buy an ok beater for $1,000 bucks. Or if you're THAT broke, get a beater financed at a shady auto lot and have $100 a month payments for a year or year and change. Insurance on a cheap car should be like $80 a month or less. My car had full coverage for only $80 something before I upgraded to RS coverage, so a crappier car should be less than that. Liability only should be waaay less. Somebody could probably be all in on auto ownership for maybe $100 a month on an okay basic run around car, that would be cost averaging on a monthly basis the purchase price, insurance, plus maintenance, then however much gas they use.

So that whole argument is bunk. Also, ever heard of a motorcycle or a moped if you're on a budget? They're awesome, and I'd rock either of those before I'd ever put up with riding the bus around. You can buy a cheap bike for next to nothing, they cost next to nothing to operate (50-100 MPG!), and in many states you don't need insurance at all if you don't want. Total cost of ownership could be a couple dozen dollars a month, but with just as much mobility as a car, albeit with less cargo space!

So between all those options, your argument about costs go out the window. It's a matter of preference. You can prefer a bus all you want, but just don't expect me to subsidize it with my tax money! Then we'd be cool.

The car companies don't control shit. Their lobby is so weak Obama bulldozed the shit out of them with emissions/economy regulations that screwed the entire industry. So don't know WTF you're talking about there... There is no "pro car" propaganda. People like cars because they sell themselves on their merits! BTW tons of electrics are ON THE MARKET from almost every auto company. It's not just Tesla. So don't worry about emissions, it's a non issue without government involvement over the next decade or so. Just like any tech it takes time to roll out.

The reason cars dominate is because ALMOST EVERYBODY prefers cars... Because they're an inherently superior form of transportation. Again, you don't have to have one if you don't want... But you have to suffer from not getting the amazing utility they provide if you don't have one. If you choose to live in the burbs, and not have a car, that's nobodies fault but yours. The burbs are designed around the car, because that combo creates an amazing quality of life. A house, with a yard, but stuff close enough by to have lots of things to do. It's a great compromise between urban and rural living with some of the best qualities of both. Now again, I'm fine with buses that my tax dollars don't pay for. But if you want cheap, I still suggest a motorcycle as the best combo of costs and utility.

As for hub and spoke surrounded by hub and spoke... Detroit being a hell hole has nothing to do with the concept in general. My point is that too many jobs have been put in JUST the main downtown of a metro area. This forces people to commute to downtown. Since not everybody can afford to live in a high rise right downtown, this creates massive commuting problems. Many "suburbs" if they were in the middle of nowhere would be considered fairly large cities in their own right. So main city with "spokes" to it's main suburbs, which in turn have "spokes" to some other lesser suburbs is not a bad thing. Lots of jobs can be done in the main suburbs, which diffuses commuting patterns, and suppresses cost of living issues.

Just around Seattle we have Tacoma, Bellevue, Renton, and Everett that are all fairly big cities. Tons more smaller ones. As a local example, if Amazon put more jobs in Tacoma and Everett, it would dramatically reduce the traffic problems we have here. It would ALSO help with cost of living problems, as people could live south of Tacoma and work in Tacoma, that presently can't live that far south and commute to Seattle. Ditto with Everett, but sprawling further north. This eases the commute, and eases cost pressures for housing within the "can commute to downtown Seattle" land area. If they put more jobs in Spokane (2nd biggest city in Washington) it would have an even bigger positive effect on commuting issues and cost of living issues. Ditto for throwing some jobs into Detroit, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, etc because they need them!

My only point here is that too many jobs have been put into too few geographic areas over the last 10-20 years. It's been a "trend" lately... But trends can reverse, as the trend was the opposite for decades before this with many jobs being moved FROM cities TO the suburbs. I think the trend needs to reverse again, and jobs, and hence people, should be more dispersed. I think the quality of life improvements would be HUGE.


----------



## 1.5xorbust (Nov 22, 2017)

Ballard_Driver said:


> Dude, sooooo much wrong in there. First off, I live in a major city. Seattle. Been here for 15 years. I am actually moving in the near future, but only because they've made sooooo many STUPID policy decisions in the last several years I can't take it any longer. One of those is trying to make traveling by car shittier ON PURPOSE, just out of spite. That's bullshit. Tons of other stuff is stupid. Cost of living is stupid. If it was still half way like it was when I moved here I would live here until the day I die. But it's not. So I'm going to bail and buy a big ass house, a 10-20 acre vacation property, and some rental units and call it good.
> 
> Next: Reality is what it is homeboy! If you live ANYWHERE you need transport. Back in the day fancy folks had their own horse or carriage. Others walked or took cabs drawn by horses. Then some mass transit came into existence, trollies and such. Then the car kicked all their asses because it was a superior mode of transportation. We kept some mass transit around because it genuinely makes sense in some spots (NYC or Chicago), and to keep poor people happy. But it sucks balls, and is a last resort for basically everybody.
> 
> ...


I agree with your final paragraph and think there will be a movement in that direction. I assume it's a summary of your first eleven paragraphs.


----------



## Ballard_Driver (Jan 10, 2016)

1.5xorbust said:


> I agree with your final paragraph and think there will be a movement in that direction. I assume it's a summary of your first eleven paragraphs.


LOL

No, I'm bored and responded point by point to a bunch of silly stuff the other guy had written...

However I do think we HAVE to spread things out more. We've pushed the cramming every good job in the country into a dozen cities thing as far as it can go. People that make 6 figures in highly skilled white collar jobs in most major cities have a standard of living in many respects than a high school dropout who learned a blue collar trade in most of the country... That is not sustainable.

I live in a tech city, and so pay attention to that nonsense a lot. The last few years many tech companies have FINALLY started to branch out and open offices in many other major cities. Over time it will ease up the pressure on SF, Seattle, Boston, etc. It's too bad these geniuses didn't start doing it BEFORE they ruined the quality of life in these cities, but better late than never.

If we distribute a lot of the good white collar jobs a little better in this country, we really could have a level of prosperity that we've never seen before. 6 figure programmers living in a place like Pittsburgh etc can actually enjoy a 6 figure lifestyle there. The lower cost of housing enables them to spend a lot more money into the economy buying stuff, eating out, services, etc. So it would really improve things for everybody all over if this becomes a major trend.

It's just got too insane in the main trendy cities to last any longer. I know a lot of professionals who are moving away from Seattle because it's too expensive, and the quality of life has gone down from cramming so many people in here. Between the companies finally realizing it is actually better for their bottom line to distribute, and workers demanding to live somewhere with reasonable cost of living, I don't see how things won't go that direction in the future.


----------



## Nina2 (Oct 6, 2018)

in many markets most public transportation is shutdown so often Uber or Lyft are the only choices especially in small markets


----------



## 62354 (Jun 26, 2016)

Nina2 said:


> in many markets most public transportation is shutdown so often Uber or Lyft are the only choices especially in small markets


uber is a global essential service!


----------



## libingbing (Apr 17, 2017)

it's Essentially stupid to driving in these dangerous times. one cough in your car & there goes your health and potentially your life.


----------



## AngelAdams (Jan 21, 2019)

RideshareDog said:


> In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?


Nope, Rideshare is a liability. Cheap disposable workers for the task at hand, yes, essential, **** no.



libingbing said:


> it's Essentially stupid to driving in these dangerous times. one cough in your car & there goes your health and potentially your life.


It's already the most dangerous activity one can do. Now add biohazard to it. **** $15. Drivers need to clear $75 an hr period. Anything less, you're being exploited! That goes for every industry.



JohnnyBravo836 said:


> Exactly. That's why liquor stores are open: because they have been deemed "essential", because government officials decided that in the applicable orders and regulations that they would be defined as "essential". There is nothing more to it than that. They make a judgment call, based on what they think is "reasonable", which businesses will and won't be included as "essential".


Liquor stores are also open, because for most Americans a handle is cheaper than suicide. #werenumberone lol



waldowainthrop said:


> It depends on the passenger and the trip, but obviously the answer is "yes" for some trips.
> 
> - Someone who works in a hospital and has a broken down car.
> - Someone who works at a grocery store or food production facility and has a sick relative who normally drives them to work.
> ...


You can also borrow someone's car that's not working. 
I personally think rideshare drivers are kidding themselves if they believe this essential bullshit. It's like everyone saying, "thank your grocery store worker. " no *****, they don't want to be there. Not to mention last thing they want to do is stop and have a conversation with you lol. Get your shit go home and chill.
Waaaay too many what ifs. If they want drivers to drive triple the pay and add hazard on top. Oh and plus full guarantee (in writing) that your medical bills will be 100% covered UPFRONT!


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

Uber is a SUPER SPREADER Service.



Coachman said:


> I've carried any number of health care workers and other essential employees during the past two weeks. If that doesn't make me essential then I don't know what would.


It makes you contagious.


----------



## UbingInLA (Jun 24, 2015)

A ride to the hospital in most cities:

Ambulance = $10,000
UberX = $4

Plus water, mints. Probably less wait time and a free mask. UberX all day long!
🤒🤧🥵😷


----------



## AngelAdams (Jan 21, 2019)

UbingInLA said:


> A ride to the hospital in most cities:
> 
> Ambulance = $10,000
> UberX = $4
> ...


Ya but no hot firefighter and flashing lights.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

UbingInLA said:


> A ride to the hospital in most cities:
> 
> Ambulance = $10,000
> UberX = $4
> ...


plus you get to infect the driver with the mask made out of a teeshirt.



UberLaLa said:


> Uber is a SUPER SPREADER Service.
> 
> 
> It makes you contagious.


this. i'm not surprised people are avoiding this fact. ubers cars are virus-share. this shit is real!! it has caused untold amounts of death just this last month, when will this country wake up to this self-inflicted problem??


----------



## Big Lou (Dec 11, 2019)

Karen Stein said:


> Mass transit will never be able to provide the access, flexibility, or efficiency of an individual car.
> 
> Private cars can go anywhere, anytime and carry more goods than mass transit.
> 
> ...


I would say that both individual vehicle and mass transit has it's place in our world. The key word for public transportation is *MASS. *
You see the importance of mass transportation in big first rate cities like New York, London, Paris, Rome Madrid, etc.....Not in cities like Los Angeles where the private vehicle vital.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

got a p said:


> plus you get to infect the driver with the mask made out of a teeshirt.
> 
> 
> this. i'm not surprised people are avoiding this fact. ubers cars are virus-share. this shit is real!! it has caused untold amounts of death just this last month, when will this country wake up to this self-inflicted problem??


Gubernment needs to let those who are infirmed, elderly & not so smart, contract the virus first.


----------



## Unleaded (Feb 16, 2018)

RideshareDog said:


> In a city with good public transit is Uber an essential service for passengers?


if Uber is not an essential service now, it will be again wgen the new normal arrives.


----------

