[wolverine876]

I have taken more taxis in more cities than you imagine. Thousands, I would guess. I've talked to many cab drivers and rideshare drivers about this exact issue: IME most think Uber/Lyft screw them, that cabs were better as their fate was in their hands (and they didn't have to provide a car!), but as Uber/Lyft control access to rides (the only real value they provide), the drivers have no choice.

Uber/Lyft also use corruption to get free use of our public commons - the streets that they clog - while with cabs it was fairly distributed in free market bidding for the public resource (i.e., medallions).

[kortilla]

> I have taken more taxis in more cities than you imagine. Thousands, I would guess.

Thousands? That’s daily commute level which puts you in one of the extremely rare locations that had a semi functional cab system.

You don’t understand how miserable the cab system was (and generally still is) in most of the US because you lived in an aberration.

> Uber/Lyft also use corruption to get free use of our public commons - the streets that they clog

Not even on the top 10 of concerns surrounding Uber for the 95% of the population who don’t live in a super dense city. Also, it’s not free use because the drivers pay the same road taxes we do. They just aren’t double taxed without the medallion system.

[wolverine876]

> You don’t understand how miserable the cab system was (and generally still is) in most of the US because you lived in an aberration.

That's circular - you repeat your conclusion (cabs are poor) as evidence for it. I've taken cabs in many, many cities. Some cities do lack sufficient cab service; I'll agree with that.

> Not even on the top 10 of concerns surrounding Uber for the 95% of the population who don’t live in a super dense city

The standard isn't 'super-dense', and more people live in cities than you think. Plus, why are the concerns of people in cities any less important than yours?

> it’s not free use because the drivers pay the same road taxes we do. They just aren’t double taxed without the medallion system.

It's not the drivers using it, it's Lyft and Uber. Corporations are separate entities using the road space for profit.

[kortilla]

> The standard isn't 'super-dense', and more people live in cities than you think. Plus, why are the concerns of people in cities any less important than yours?

The standard absolutely is super dense. I live in a spread out city and your concerns are completely hollow. Nobody in Houston is concerned about the number of Ubers on the road.

> It's not the drivers using it, it's Lyft and Uber.

It’s the driver’s car. The driver is driving it. It’s the driver.

[giaour]

> Not even on the top 10 of concerns surrounding Uber for the 95% of the population who don’t live in a super dense city.

How does it make economic sense for Ubers to circle around non-dense areas that couldn't support a taxi system? If there's an answer beyond a combination of VC subsidies and convincing drivers to assume additional economic risk, I'd love to know! (So would Uber, for that matter. Or at least their investors.)