Nah, much easier to get mad at customer.

How much would a cab fare be from Gold Coast to the closest strip casino, say CP? I am assuming that since its across the freeway it is not walkable? Thanks

I agree with this and have been saying as much myself for years already. People think I speak out against Uber because I am fearful of Uber taking my job, and that's nonsense. Uber will never be responsible for the elimination of my job, perhaps other markets they may be able to achieve such a task but not here. To your point, what's going to be responsible for the end of my job is simply automation.

I've been making the joke for a long time...

After the Google car replaces all of the cab drivers, I wonder how much money the owners will have to spend to reprogram them all to longhaul?

Edit to add* Google car is already well on their way with their test models driving over 700K miles already accident free. Their biggest remaining hurdles include parking in lots with many open spaces, four way stops (as there is a unmistakable human element to them) and driving in adverse conditions (rain & snow) as the image wreaks havoc on the sensors as well as slippery roads are hard to distinguish for the computer. Despite these remaining challenges the Google car is set to hit the market in 2017. NV was the first state to allow registration of automated cars, they courted Google for it you may recall. So far as I know, the only way you or I will be able to determine that a vehicle is an automated one will be by the infinity symbol that will be added to every license plate. I say we put yellow bumpers on them like NASCAR Rookies but oh well.

Thanks for saying that first of all, I appreciate that. Nobody ever has the cabbies back, but you do and that's cool.

However, Uber lovers are more than welcome in this thread. I want them in this thread because this thread is where I will pulverize their position. I have yet to read one persuasive argument on why Uber should be exempt from the regulations that govern livery service. I've yet to read one persuasive position on what differentiates the nature of Uber's service from the nature of taxi service. I've yet to read anything that is justification for an UberCab NOT meeting the actual legal definition of a taxicab per NRS. I've yet to read anything on what differentiates "ride sharing" the Uber way from "livery service", that would warrant exemption from livery service regulations. I've yet to read one good position on how Uber is NOT a transportation company. I've yet to read one good position on why Uber has a lesser duty to the public than Taxi Co does. And I don't just mean in this thread, I mean anywhere....

I keep saying...It's almost like we're in the same business. Somebody take a paragraph and you persuade me to agree that UberCab & TaxiCab do not operate in the same business. My sincere hope is that someone, anyone, can come at me with something better than romantic notions of bliss and "cab drivers are the scum of the earth".

Side note to my last*

Let's talk about the people for a second. Not the nasty cab company or the ridiculous uber company but the actual individuals like me who are doing the work. Without respect to the company he works for, or what specific car he is driving, let's talk about the man, let's talk about the guy who decides to earn income by transporting people to places in exchange for monies....

Uber proponents love to illustrate a supposed difference between the two drivers. They wish to believe that there is a "bright line" between the two. So, somebody take a paragraph and explain to me what makes me the average cab driver fundamentally different than the average uber driver? How is it so that I am the scum of the earth by default and the uber driver is a good guy by default? What mechanism is in place that allows for this trend? Why do only scum become cabbies and only cool guys become Uber drivers? Also, is it that only scum is attracted to driving a cab, or that the nature of driving a cab over time makes you into scum? And is it that only cool guys are attracted to driving an Uber, or that the nature of driving for uber makes you into cool?

Somebody explain the difference between the two people for me please, I would love to read it.

Good. That was my only mission with that, was to help you empathize with our plight.

And to clarify as it appears others down the line have grasped on to your citation of a 20min wait... I don't recall if I said 20 mins before or if you did just now but either way I want to note that that would just be an example, anyway. A cabbie could wait no minutes, he could wait 20, he could wait 2 hours sometimes. It all depends on the situation. For example tonight I did 23 rides in 11.5 hrs so, do the math. It wasn't too bad for a Monday actually.

And once again that is NOT to say that his wait time should have a bearing on what anybody tips. If you wish to take that into consideration then good on you, however I've never suggested that you're obligated to.

Yes. These things are not mutually exclusive. In fact my over arcing point here is that they are not exclusive at all. If I give an example of cabbie pitfalls, it's to illustrate that cabbies fall into pitfalls, not that Uber is great. If I give an example of uber pitfalls, it's to illustrate that ubers fall into pitfalls, not that cabbies are great. Heck, it's almost like we operate in the same business.

The sooner everyone comes to the realization that Uber is simply another cab company the sooner my job will be done. For once you acknowledge that they are in the same business, there is NO GOOD ARGUMENT for why Uber should be exempt from the laws that govern the trade, or why we should be governed by different laws. And since I know Uber's business model cannot survive such costs associated with honoring their duty, it's just a matter of time. Some reports say they are purging so much money trying to change consumer behavior and fight regulators that they are still not even profitable yet. A 40 Billion dollar company that owns no assets and that hasn't turned a profit yet? Now that's amazing. All of this would certainly explain their fervent desire to avoid any and all requirements of the trade. This would constitute a promise failed to investors anyway. Because, you know, those $5million commercial liability plans are ****ing expensive dog. Especially with a fleet of 160,000 vehicles.

6 years ago there was a dude on Craigslist that was offering rides in his personal car from LAS to anywhere in the valley for $20. I don't know how long he was doing it for, but eventually the TA caught wind of it and had a UC request a ride from him and then the TA promptly arrested the guy and cited him with all the usual stuff, operating without a permit, operating without a medallion etc. etc.. I don't recall anyone getting bent out of shape about that guy getting busted before or since. And yet, all Uber has done is create a platform and a means of dispatch for a pool of craigslist drivers. And all TA did was bust them for operating without a permit. It's exactly the same thing.


It's relevant to a refute of my assertion that "uber cancels rides". Really, I find it interesting that you skipped my most probative citations, failed to refute or rebut either one of them and went directly to my 3rd and least probative source. Furthermore, I even stated directly that of course some of the results there will not be relevant. The point with that is it offers a much more broad scope than one discussion board and one twitter feed I also mentioned.

Regarding your last sentence, I'll refer you to my first two paragraphs in this post. But 8 million vs 10 million you say? It's amazing I tell you, it's almost like we're in the same business.

Somebody is starting to pick up what I'm laying down...

Slow clap...no wait **** that, fast clap!


I'll tell you what to make of it, make of it that Uber is just another cab company.


Fair enough. To this I would only say to to you all to give it some time. Most people are still very much in the honeymoon phase of uber love.

To this I would ask you, how many seriously injured or deceased parties need to go without medical coverage or recourse for wrongful death before you will be satisfied that the cab companies have sufficiently adapted? How many will it take before you would say, ok, Uber in fact has a duty to be responsible to parties they injure? How many Sophia Liu and Roberto Chicas's does there need to be before you will revisit your position here?


You're starting to sound like an Uber public relations sound board. What Uber is doing is NOT ride-sharing. It never was. It never will be. You're not "sharing" anything with your Uber driver. You're giving him money to drive you somewhere. If you want to carpool with your neighbor to work? That's ridesharing. You want to give your neighbor a lift to the store because their car broke down? That's fine, that's ridesharing. It's even fine if that neighbor insists on giving you $5 for gas. No problem there whatsoever. However, and this is a big however, you cross the threshold into a different realm called livery service when the POINT of the transaction becomes THE MONEY. The meaning of the money has implications in all sorts of business. This is why, for example, porn stars are not arrested and charged as prostitutes. Sure, they are paid to have sex, but the point of the money is not for the sex but for the acting. The point of the transaction is to make a movie, not sex for pleasure. The money's purpose has a ton of context here my friend.

Livery service is basically defined as, "transporting live persons to destinations in exchange for money"....is it your position that this is NOT what Uber and or Uber drivers are conducting themselves in? Please write me a paragraph on what differentiates the nature of Uber's business from this industry...I would love to read it.

Uber requires drivers to carry their own insurance and also purchases their own insurance for each and every ride.

I think that the point is that the way we currently handle the business of "transporting live persons to destinations in exchange for money" is archaic and results in poor service for the consumer.

Uber is doing it better and that's why they're making money hand over fist.

Does anyone use Uber as a mode of transportation to/from LAS to the strip? If so, is it really inefficient as has be stated in this thread?

I usually use the shuttle service from LAS and overall the results have been good. I think one time I had to wait a while for the shuttle but aside from that it hasn't been too burdensome. It seems to be laborious to schedule a shuttle back to LAS so I always take a cab back.

Anyways, I've never used Uber or Lyft myself but one time I did post an ad on craigslist hoping to hitch a ride with someone coming back from a casino in Oklahoma back to Dallas. The trip would be 70 miles and I offered $50. To my surprise a driver who drives for Uber and Lyft accepted my offer and actually drove from downtown Dallas, picked me up 70 miles away and drove me 70 miles back to Dallas for the flat rate of $50 (we agreed no tip ahead of time, just $50). He was super friendly and acted very professionally...it was much better than some random degen from the casino giving me that ride. And I can only imagine what the taxi cab would have cost me. I think in Dallas it would have been at least $125 + taxes/fees which I'm sure are crazy high.

From a consumer standpoint I'm just not sure what I would be getting for that extra $75 + fees.

Up front yes, it is a requirement to purchase insurance. But who is monitoring them to make sure they keep it in force once approved?

And who are the purchasing this insurance from for each and every ride. It's not Uber as I understand it?

Upon approving the insurance, Uber sets an ending date based on the driver's policy. Drivers must update the insurance before expiration and send them proof so that it doesn't lapse. Sure, somebody could technically cancel their policy without Uber knowing, but that's no different than any other driver on the road that wanted to fool police into thinking they have active insurance when they do not.

Uber is also purchasing supplemental insurance for each ride. You can ask your driver to look at the waybill and see the certificate of insurance. It will have the name of the company where the policy was purchased as well as the policy number and start date.

The insurance problem is being addressed, whether they're being pushed into it by legislation or by market force. That is an entirely fixable issue that is already being fixed.


You're right, ride-sharing is not the correct term. We don't disagree on what Uber basically is- a transportation company much like a livery or cab service. The difference is that Uber is using innovation to make the product better than what the taxi industry has been offering. I know that sounds like I work for Uber PR (for the record, I don't have anything to do with them), but it's the truth. I can't think of a single thing that the traditional taxi industry does better. Uber et al have taken all of the things that people dislike about taxis and offered solutions for them. I know full well they're not perfect (how they treat their drivers is a real concern) but I can't think of anything they do wrong that won't get fixed by market force as they go.

And yes, it isn't fair that they aren't playing by the same rules and regulations that the taxis have to abide by. But again I say that's not Uber's problem. If the rules by which an industry, any industry, operates need to change- and I think you would agree that much needs to change in your industry- this is how it happens.

And let's be real about why the taxi industry (and I include the regulators/legislators in that bucket) is against Uber. It has very little to do with public safety and nearly everything to do with squelching competition. To me, it is not unlike the efforts to outlaw online poker, and if the main argument against Uber is that its presence creates competition, then Uber has won the argument.

(now switch to me bitching about surge pricing next time I want a ride).

Uber doesn't operate in Nevada (they did for about 10 minutes before getting shut down).

As for my own experience in LA (where I live), I now always use them for rides to the airport and it's easy as can be and half the cost of a cab. Last time I tried to take a cab it never showed up.

Cost is the primary reason for Uber's sucess correct? What's concerning to me is that taxi rates are set artificially and not by market demand. I assume they were standardized to protect consumers but if the consumers are being price gouged across the board these standardized rates don't seem to be protecting consumers.

Where is all this money going? I doubt it is going to the drivers so is it going to the cab companies? To the govt in the form of taxes/fees? Or is it simply due to regulatory burden, bureaucratic overhead, and/or inefficient outdated business models? (I don't buy that it's all going to insurance)

This statement right here is quite concerning when you really think about it:

So what exactly IS a taxicab, anyway? It seems like any meaningful discussion on TaxiCab vs UberCab should included some base definitions that we can work off of. Particularly in light of my assertions that they are identical. So what defines a taxicab and does Ubercab fit that definition? Well, let's take a look...Here I go citing sources again...

We're in Vegas here so let's look at "taxicab" defined in Nevada Revised Statutes:

NRS 706.124 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-...l#NRS706Sec124


NRS 706.124  “Taxicab” defined.  “Taxicab” means a vehicle which is not operated over a fixed route, is designed or constructed to accommodate and transport not more than six passengers, including the driver, and is:

1.  Fitted with a taximeter or has some other device, method or system to indicate and determine the passenger fare charged for the distance traveled;

2.  Used in the transportation of passengers or light express, or both, for which a charge or fee is received; or

3.  Operated in any service which is held out to the public as being available for the transportation of passengers from place to place in the State of Nevada.

Ok, so there are basically 5 criteria that determine if your vehicle is a taxicab.

A. The vehicle must not operate on a "fixed route". In other words, it has a from anywhere to anywhere aspect to it. That is the nature of a taxicab. Clearly Uber would fit this criteria.

B. A taxicab is a vehicle that carries no more than 6 people including the driver. In other words a normal passenger vehicle. (Once you're transporting more than 6 you cross a threshold into another type of vehicle ie. limo, shuttle bus.) Clearly Uber vehicles would fit this criteria.

1. A taxicab is a vehicle that is not only charging a fee for transportation, but more specifically that it has a means of calculating what that amount of money should be. Clearly, Uber via their app system has a means of calculating the cost of said transportation and thus would fit this criteria.

2. So what does a "taxicab" transport? A "taxicab" transports passengers eg. "live persons" and light cargo to a destination in exchange for money. Two key points I have already made. We're delivering live persons, in exchange for money. Clearly Uber would fit this criteria.

3. And last but not least, a "taxicab" can not discriminate as it is "open to the public". From time to time you will see a sticker on a vehicle that says, "NOT FOR HIRE" and what they are saying is that they are not open to the public. If you are not open to the public then you operate under a different set of duties than you do if you are serving the public. That is to say, the public's safety is paramount. By not being open to the public the standard of operation is considerably less and as such, it's considering less expensive to operate said vehicle. Clearly Uber is open to the public and as such would fit this criteria.

5 things determine if your vehicle is a "taxicab" and I'll be damned if UberCabs don't fit all 5 perfectly. It's kinda starting to sound like we're in the same business I think.

As I have already pleaded, I challenge anyone here to write a paragraph on how and why Uber does not fit this definition. I would love to read it.

Lastly, my personal favorite about all this is how Uber loves to trumpet about how they have revolutionized the industry, (what's that, we're in the same business?) and yet the nature of their business fits quite perfectly into this nearly 30 year old definition. As far as I'm concerned the only thing Uber has revolutionized is the means of dispatch and ability to skirt all of the traditional costs and obligations traditionally associated with the trade. This much I'm certain cab owners are surely jealous of. Furthermore, I have no problems admitting the app giving the customer the ability to track the arrival of his vehicle is nothing short of genius. Of course, this could have never even been thought of prior to GPS, but they saw a new use for this technology and it was nothing short of brilliant. This sort of outside the box, innovative and creative thinking IS what makes America great, imo.

In closing, in the words of the great Rowdy Burns..."Now get your own car and we'll see how you do in the crowd."

I saw a self-driving Google car on the highway last time I was in Palo Alto. Besides being clearly plastered with Google logos (which I'm sure the commercial models won't be), they have a spinning radar thingy on their roof.

It's uncanny how any pragmatist with any level of critical thinking skills immediately arrives at this conclusion.

YAY!!!


BOO!!!

It's the taxi industry's problem that Uber is not following the law? That's an interesting idea. I guess if a surgeon from Mexico came to Las Vegas and starting doing appendicitis's in his garage for 1/10th of the price it is at the hospital then that is not his problem for breaking the law, that is not the problem of the public due to the increased risk, but rather that is the problem the licensed physicians? The licensed physicians need to figure out a way to compete or they're going to go the way of the 8 track? You're on a really slippery slope here dude...

I would argue that the fact that Uber has declared themselves not responsible for anything is decidedly THEIR problem. And that of the public's as well. For starters, their lack of compliance in NV. has led to them being shut down, so their inability to operate here sounds to me like a problem for them, not for me. And NV is far from special in this regard. They run into bans and other regulatory snaffoos in practically every market they enter. From Portland to Vancouver to Toronto to Boston to Philly to Nevada to San Antonio to just about everywhere in Florida to France to Germany to Belgium to Spain to come to think of pretty much all of Europe except for England and there is a massive storm building on that front. To pretty much all of Asia and India, did you hear there is a warrant for Travis K's arrest in South Korea? True story. .... and Australia and to Brazil and on and on to their home, the great state of California where a hugely important class action suit levied by Uber drivers who claim miss classification; that they are not Independent Contractors but rather employees. This suit has already survived motion to dismiss attempts so apparently it has merit and it's implications for Uber are the entire ballgame. If the courts decide that Uber drivers are employees then Uber is totally ****ed. In addition to this, DA's in both LA and their home city of SFO have filed suit against them for misrepresenting the nature of their background checks and "safe ride fees". It appears they have quite a few problems, to say nothing of their PR hits they've taken as a result of their approach.

What a minute, 'safe ride fee'? That sounds like a fee a company in the transportation business might come up with.


The short answer to your question is the same one my Father gave to me when he told me I couldn't smoke weed, "Because it's against the law, and when you break the law there are consequences." That really aught to be enough shouldn't it?

I want you to take a minute and tell me exactly what you feel is bloated and corrupt about a bureaucracy that requires of motor carriers to have properly insured vehicles and properly vetted drivers? What specific policy do you have a problem with? Any one at all. ...You're sounding like Uber PR sound board again.

Obviously all black markets should be made legal then because it's a huge market therefor the rules that govern those activities are archaic and bureaucratic and shouldn't apply, because it's a huge market. Is that how it works?

Bravo common sense prevails again.


If I had come on here 5 years ago and suggested that Vegas cab companies be allowed to cancel their hefty commercial liability insurance coverages, forgo all federal background checks for their drivers and be allowed to increase their rates when it was busy every man, woman and child on this board would have laid me to the fire.

Private auto insurance is different from commercial insurance which costs much more. If an Uber driver has private insurance the company can refuse to cover a commercial ride.

This is a good breakdown on the issue.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhue...ver-insurance/

It isn't so much that the uber drivers insurance might lapse, although to your point there is no one to verify that it hasn't, it's that the very nature of a personal car insurance policy does not cover commercial activity for that vehicle. Not only is commercial activity not covered in a personal auto policy, it is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in most insurance contracts. When you get personal car insurance the presumption is you use your car to commute to work and go to movies on friday night. But now you're driving 150 city miles a day transporting dozens of passengers ie. potential claimants and getting paid for it. Your exposures are exponentially higher, and this breach of your contract is all the excuse your provider needs to deny any claims and revoke your coverage altogether.

Now for the interesting part. In the Uber driver contract he signs with Uber, excuse me did I say Uber? I mean Raiser. The contract the Uber driver signs with Raiser stipulates that the drivers insurance is PRIMARY and Raiser's insurance is SECONDARY. And as such, all incidents that result in claims must first be submitted to the drivers insurance provider. To me, the fact that Uber knows damn well that personal auto insurance don't cover commercial use, yet they demand in writing that the driver's insurance is primary anyway is possibly the biggest F U Uber is giving to it's drivers and the riding public. It's a fraud. And it gets worse. Uber claims that if in fact the drivers insurance company denies the claim, only then will it proceed to Raiser's insurance provider James River claims dept and that is when their coverage kicks in, after the denial of the drivers carrier. Except one giant problem, the contract also stipulates that James River will insure claims that exceed the "existing coverage" of the uber drivers insurance. Except, there is no existing coverage on that vehicles because he doesn't have any, the claim was denied for a reason, and there is a good chance his policy will be getting revoked altogether and that is all the reason James River needs to deny a claim on their end.

So far a lot of people are getting denial letters like the one shown in that article. The only people who seem to be getting any payouts are the tenacious ones who are not letting the issue die down and some others who have garnered local media support and the outcry led to uber taking care of it. And all of those have been minor property damage type stuff. As far as the huge claims go, Uber, Raiser and James River are batting 1.000 when it comes to telling everyone to get bent. "We're not a transportation company," they say. "Your issue is between you and your driver".

And in other news my personal favorite, the company that I work for here in LV operates a few hundred cars and their insurance premiums are MORE EXPENSIVE than Raiser's premiums that ostensibly cover their some 160,000 vehicles nationwide. Well that's kinda interesting. Further, James River Ins. co. is a firm that has been around all of ten years and in their short history none of it has been in the transportation industry. Uh oh. And they just happen to be based in,...wait for it.....Bermuda. Oh man, I love Bermuda!

Uber doesn't even have a phone number for drivers or passengers to call regarding any claims they may have. But I mean, why would they right? After all, Uber doesn't actually carry any insurance themselves, why would they? They're just a "technology company" remember? That's what Raiser is for, silly.

Regarding the Cabbie/doormen dynamic, do cabbies ever give kickbacks to doormen to get the high kickback rides?

The reason I ask this is because I was in a long taxi line (there was a long line of taxi's, our personal wait was short). When my group of 3 guys got to the front of the line we asked to go to a crazy horse 3, and instead of getting the next cab in the line the doorman whistled to the parking lot and another cab came up out of nowhere completely cutting the cab line and whisked us away (he gave us the standard coupon for free drink upon entry or whatever promotion which I assume are just used to track the cabbie and give them their kickback).

This was originating from the MGM as well so I'm not sure if that has anything to do with your distaste of them, just wondering if that cabbie had a deal with the doorman to get priority on that ride, and also was it legal for the doorman to do so? I assume the other cabs waiting in line would have had a legitimate gripe (but probably not able to do anything about it), especially the next cab for potentially losing out on a ride with kickbacks but also every other cab in the line being forced to wait one more turn?