[yishanl]

Because they have a very compelling future and a really strong product. They evoke discussion on the economics of car ownership and have made transportation accessible/convenient for a lot of people who can't afford cars.

I feel there is a stereotype of Uber that it's mostly used by rich, spoiled, college students and young folk. I used to believe that as well, but since working on my own startup in the restaurant industry, I've seen how a lot of blue collar workers like chefs who really do rely on Uber for day-to-day transportation or supplemental income when their paychecks aren't enough.

[jon-wood]

Isn't people needing it for supplemental income an argument for a decent minimum wage, rather than one for Uber to be allowed to make more money?

[bane]

> Because they have a very compelling future and a really strong product.

Yes, the slightly more convenient, probably illegal, taxi at a higher price, product.

[fredkbloggs]

As far as I can tell, the discussion is always around the latest petulant demand by Uber's execs for some special concession from the public or the state. I haven't seen much discussion of "the economics of car ownership", probably because most of the people "sharing" their cars are driving 98% Uber miles and 2% their own. It's not a carpool. It's not a car-sharing service. It's a taxi service, like any other, and everyone knows it.

[yishanl]

It doesn't matter how we categorize Uber. (We can just call it a platform.) What is way more important is what Uber means to a customer. The average person in SF knows is that Uber is cheaper than a taxi, more plentiful in supply, and more convenient.

So it doesn't matter what the discussion is about, since the core product hasn't changed. It provides utility to both the avid users and occasional users like me. And that's why there are people giving these "simpletons" money.

Now with Uber, people who out of budget don't have to ever consider buying/leasing a car. Even those who do have cars are starting to see just how affordable it is to Uber around. http://blog.samaltman.com/uber-vs-car-ownership

As for people using their cars to drive "98% Uber miles", that's their decision. And it's a pretty logical one if you don't have a stable, decent-paying job to begin with.

- You already own the car and are going to be paying for maintenance and gas and DMV fees anyways, which isn't cheap. Since chances are, you're already living/driving around that area, you might as well just drive a few extra miles here and there to earn a few bucks.

- Cars depreciate fast. It's not like you will get substantial value when you resell if you've kept your mileage low. Maybe it's a few hundred dollars, but given the thousands you already paid for the car, you might as well drive it and earn money with it.

- Your car can become an asset if you can make it one via Uber. It can't be an investment if it's losing value as soon as it rolls out of the dealership. Otherwise, it'll just be sitting in your garage as a liability, collecting dust and you'll just be waiting for the eventual yearly bills from DMV/mechanic. Might as well go out and make money with it if you need to offset your costs.

[pm24601]

You are right it doesn't matter how Uber is classified -- just the vehicles being permitted on to the section of Market Street in question.

If the vehicle is not one of the permitted kinds of vehicles, it gets ticketed.

Uber is really irrelevant. The original article title is link-baity. From what I have heard, they didn't even show up at the hearing and most of the public comment was in favor of the closure.

[thrownaway2424]

The other option which you conveniently omitted is car sharing, which became established in San Francisco in 2001 and has tens of thousands of vehicles available.

[awad]

Do you have any actual data to back up that claim?

[eruditely]

Generally the only trend I see in uber discussions are toxic derailments by people like you screwing up any discussion. It's obviously a good thing, saves drunk driving deaths and "designated driver" has become a thing of the past.

[kedean]

No, people blinding defending ride-sharing is the derailment. It's not about whether or not ride-sharing is a thing, it's about the legal gray area these companies operate in and the entitlements they claim with it. The concept is not the issue, the companies behind it are.

[eruditely]

Not really, drunk driving deaths are saved, you should tell this story to parents who have had their kids die. I had 2 stories on my facebook feed recently about lives ruined due to drunk driving. Stop overstating the case.

[fredkbloggs]

What prevents drunk driving deaths is not driving while drunk. There are plenty of ways to avoid that. Decades before Uber existed, the big PSA push was "call a taxi!" Then the designated driver came into vogue. In large cities at least, almost no one drives to bars at all; the plan is always to use transit or taxis. Of course today even small towns have taxi services that trawl the bar areas around closing time, so you rarely even have to call (or have the bartender call for you). To the extent that Uber makes any difference here, it's solely by providing additional taxis, which any taxi company can do.

This might be the weakest defense of Uber I've ever read.

[eruditely]

Not really, your ability to contemplate alternatives is reduced significantly, impulsive people and people with EF deficits by definition have a lowered ability to mentally represent alternate outcomes and are more prone to drinking, you cannot tell them to not drink because of how their brain processes choices and the economy of outcomes, if these people take an uber there and back they will be good and saved.

I have plenty of defenses, it is yours that is weak.