[kitcar]

I believe it is because they are hesitant to blatantly disregard local laws - it's part of their brand persona, they try to be seen as the "nicer uber" - hence they try to play nice with the jurisdictions they expand to, resulting in slower expansion.

https://a16z.com/2017/09/25/government-relations-local-lyft/

[eddieplan9]

You are misinformed. If you had followed both companies from the beginning, you would know that Uber started with licensed drivers - even UberX started that way with only cheaper cars - and it was lyft who broke the city ordinances by using unlicensed drivers under the disguise of tipping-as-payment. Uber refused to do it, until they realized the governments were not enforcing the laws at all. The case in Miami is the best example of it, as pointed out by malandrew in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15686983. This is covered in the book "Wild Ride: Inside Uber's Quest for World Domination".

As many drivers in the lyft reddit point out, lyft just want you to believe it's more ethical, when it is far from the truth. It's also sad some people here draw conclusion from talking to drivers, often lyft drivers only, without considering there is huge survival bias.

[njj023]

Thank you for calling out what seems like an incredible -- almost intentionally ignorant -- hive mind HN tends to have at times.

[malandrew]

> I believe it is because they are hesitant to blatantly disregard local laws

Lyft was the first company to operate in Miami, and Miami was the first market where drivers could face criminal charges. Uber avoided operating in Miami for this very reason and when it saw inaction in enforcement, they informed the Miami government that they would also enter the market if they continue to not enforce the law. I don't know about you, but putting drivers in a position where they could face criminal charges and jail time is far worse than anything I've seen Uber do. With civil liabilities, these companies can support the drivers with legal help, but with criminal liabilities, neither company can offer their drivers a get-out-of-jail free card.

The idea that one company is more ethical than the other is a farce.

[kitcar]

FWIW Not suggesting they are in actuality any better, but rather from a branding perspective they want people to perceive them as better.

[yeukhon]

Certainly a factor, but honestly, I really think this is about building up the business. Uber burns so much money through its quick expansion. You could be the first, one and only one entirely, and last standing, but what really matters is to be the last standing right? The way I see it is Uber has proven shared riding is a great business to build, so Lyft just let Uber paved the way (bring shared riding) and bring shared riding to the rest of the world, while Lyft builds up a competent team in the U.S, then take advantage of shared riding momentum.. In a way think of Lfyt taking a shared ride with Uber but the last to pick up.

[pm90]

I have had the same view of them, except when they went along with Uber and left Austin when we passed a local law requiring all drivers to get fingerprinted and undergo a background check. That really soured my perception of them.

That said, given a choice b/w Uber and Lyft I most certainly choose Lyft every time.