Comments on: Ann Arbor Taxi Board Reacts to Uber it's like being there Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:56:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: Vivienne Armentrout Vivienne Armentrout Wed, 28 May 2014 16:07:30 +0000 Tangentially related: here is a report [link] cited in a New York Times article today about the use of driverless cars. Ann Arbor was one of three examples chosen for modelling. It discusses use of shared fleets in order to reduce ownership and use of personal cars.

A number of humorous things about its description of Ann Arbor. From the ivory tower where the study was done, potholes and pedestrian crosswalks are probably not visible.

By: Scott Scott Tue, 27 May 2014 18:30:41 +0000 It would be nice to see the city tackle this in a way that does more than protect the entrenched monopolies of the established cab companies.

Safety is the primary concern? I support that. I did my first weekend driving for Lyft this Saturday and Sunday. It took me about 2 week to get through the driver vetting process. I conducted a drivers test with another Lyft member, had my car inspected, and waited to be cleared by a background check.

I carry personal insurance on my car, which will decidedly NOT cover me when I am using my vehicle for personal use. So before I set out on the road I spent time with Lyft’s phone support hearing them out on the supplemental coverage they provide for their drivers. That keeps me covered when I’m operating as a vehicle for hire. I printed out that certificate of insurance and keep a copy of it in my glove-box along with my personal proof of insurance.

If the city wants to get involved I don’t see that as a problem. But I hope they will explore getting involved in a way that doesn’t completely cut off innovation. Provide an avenue for TNC drivers to get approved by the city that is reasonable. I’ll gladly play ball.

By: stewart resmer stewart resmer Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:49:57 +0000 Kudos to Dave Atkins who has written a most comprehensive article as I have ever seen on the issue of the illegal predatory business practices of Uber and Lyft on a nationwide bsiais as well as Berlin Paris Barcelona the Phillipines China and now Austrailia having ruled the scheme illegal.

In numerous cities across the US cease and desist orders have been issued and Uber and Lyft defiantly continue to operate regardless, in St Louis a judge has ordered Lyft to shut the app down entirely, in Texas the chief of police in San Antonia has repeated his warning his department has a zero tolernace for the practices.

In Houston a federal case was filed citing the R.I.C.O. act ( Running an Incouragble Corrupt Organization)and while the court has initialy dweclined to issue an injunction against Uber and Lyft given th e afct that these rogue operations have continued to operate in open defiance of the cities cease and desist order, it may well be that the court will in fact issue that order in the upcoming expidited hearing.

In Arizona the Governor there vetoed a bought and paid for bill that would have carved out an insurance exception that favored the TNC’s.

In city after city, in county after county in state after state it is always the same gvt regs rules and laws dont apply to them according to Uber and Lyft who exempt themselves as other existing compliant operators #playbytherules.

In Minneapolis yesterday the disabled community rose in support of existing fully compliant operators citing the total disregard that both Uber and lyft have for servcing the disabled under the ADA ( Americans with Disabilities Act)and their hiring practices, as the Teamsters joined the fray there calling for one city one ordinance, as Taxi operators spokespersons displayed how the use of apps to ehail a ride are not unique and original as the TNC’s would have every one else believe.

In Seattle Uber and Lyft have spent $400,000 to agther 36,000 signatures to put the matter on the ballot there after the city council voted to cap the # of TNC operators.

Uber and Lyft have been floating a line about insurance but neither will actually present their nmaster policy to regulating authoritiies and in the example of the 6 year girl killed in San Francisco as she and her mother and brothjer were mowed down in a cross walk, Uber has refused to accept any liability for the death of the child and the hospital bills of the family as the city of san frnacisico is reported to have payed out $500,000 to mitigate the cities financial exposure for having NOT reined in these unscrupuolous operators.

Here they are Ann Arbor, like it or not. Lead follow or get out of the way as Chicago commercial for hire livery operators have taken their city tto federal court for unequal protection under the law there.

* Point of order:
Chicago Mayor Rham Emanual’s brother is reported to be heavily invested in Uber.

By: Douglas Smith Douglas Smith Wed, 30 Apr 2014 11:02:37 +0000 Drivers for hire is an ambiguous term. It would seem to include truck drivers or other jobs that require a chaufer’s license. It would have to be clear in the ordinance that it applies to those who primarily carry passengers.

The problem with deregulating fares is that those of us that just use cabs occaissionally, don’t know the rates until we get into the taxi. If deregulation is designed to increase competition, then there would have to be some type of requirement for making the rates known. When I take a taxi, it is usually because I am taking my car to the repair shop or I am at a hotel or the airport. In those cases, I ask someone to call me a cab, so I don’t select the cab company. That also raises the possibility that the hotel employees, and the repair shop employees may be offered kick backs to send customers to the more expensive taxi companies. When I am at the airport, there is no competition because I have to take the next taxi in the line. Those are rules set up by the airport authority.

By: Jim Rees Jim Rees Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:20:01 +0000 When you say “bartering” do you mean “bargaining”? Bartering would be where you trade, say, a bag of cookies for a ride across town.