Uber Hypocrisy at SFMTA Meeting: or, the First Casualty of Venture Capital is truth

Speaking at the SFMTA hearing on the Vision Zero plan for a Safer Market Street, Mark Gruberg of the San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance spoke to the "hypocrisy of Uber" being in Sacramento claiming that they should be "exempt from commercial vehicle" registration at the same as they were in San Francisco wanting "the privileges" of commercial vehicles.

This seemed to become a moot point when both Uber and Lyft speakers later backed the plan.

However, their endorsement for a Safer Market Street really was yet another demonstration of their posturing and mendacity because they primarily gave their support for two reasons: they realized that they were not going to be allowed to use transit lanes in any case and it gave them a chance to undermine the taxi industry.

UBER at SFO: GEO FENCE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING GEO FENCE!

According to the SFO ruling granting temporary permits to the TNCs, "All TNC Vehicles not actively loading or unloading passengers shall be parked in the designated staging area ... TNC Vehicles may only enter enter the Airport terminal if carrying an Airport-bound passenger or if a ride request has been accepted from a customer at the Airport."

In addition, there is supposed to be a "GeoFence" around the "Polygon" or perimeter of SFO where the TNC Apps won't work – call it a TNC dead zone. This means that the TNC Apps should only work in the TNC staging area and not anywhere else in or near the Airport.

But, in fact, the SFO doesn't appear to be enforcing its ruling and, of course, Uber drivers are paying little or no attention to it. The following sequence took place on November 16, 2014 between 9:18 pm and 9:28.

Photo One Shows an Uber cruising at the lower level of SFO with its App open and seeking a ride.

Photo Two show that this Uber has accepted an order.

Photo Three show the Uber meeting its customer on the upper level of the International Terminal

Photo Four shows the customer climbing into the faux taxicab ... er... TNC.

This was not an isolated incident. Quite the opposite. These photos were taken by limo and cab driver Douglas O'Conner and he sees more Ubers either hiding out on the top level of SFO or cruising with the app open ever time he drives through.

12-14-2014 An Uber cruises with App available.

12-21-2014 An Uber cruises with the App open. The driver spent half an hour circling the upper level.

1-11-2015 An Uber hangs out on McDonnell Road after the driver spotted Doug following him.

1-22-2015 An Uber hangs out on the upper level of SFO.

For Uber watchers this is hardly shocking. If Uber has ever shown any indication that it intends to obey any rule or regulation I'm unaware of it. This, after all, is a venture-capitalized corporation that is run by a CEO that has never heard a lie that he didn't want to tell himself. This is a corporation that lies to every customer and driver that downloads their App, unaware that they're signed away their rights to collect liability in case of negligence. This is a corporation that refuses to fingerprint or train its drivers. This is a company that makes agreements simply to get regulators off it's back.

And, they've succeeded admirably at SFO. I drove around with Doug on December 14, 2014 and we saw dozens of Ubers hanging out at various places on both the upper and lower levels but we failed to see one single SFO cop checking to see if the Ubers were there.

I recently ran into an Indian cab driver who said that America had become the most corrupt country in the world. He's got a good argument. The Indian government shut down Uber and even issued an indictment against CEO Travis Kalanick. And, China chased them out of the country for not obeying the rules.

Here, in California, the powers-that-be reward them by lowering or eliminating safety standards – let the public be dammed – and Uber still doesn't bother to pay any attention to what weak and pathetic rules they have agreed to follow.

And why should they? Here the long arm of the local law reaches out, not with hand cuffs, but with palms up and wide open.

Who is John Galt? Uber, Lyft, Sidecar & the Culture of Deception

One answer to the above question is that Uber CEO Travis Kalanick thinks he is. Why else would he have t-shirts printed with the Uber "U" asking, "Who is John Galt?"

Kalanick obviously identifies with the hero of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. For those unfamiliar with Rand's philosophy, she sets the innovative genius against a society rife with democrats, communists, unionists, socialists, corrupt politicians, seedy journalists, the overweight, sleazy lawyers, environmentalists and their various shills.

I confess that I was a big fan when I was 19. Naturally, I identified myself as a potential fellow genius but beyond that I was attracted by the integrity of Rand's characters: Galt, Howard Roark from The Fountainhead, and Rand's persona Dagny Taggart. The books were not only about greatness vs mediocrity but truth vs lies.

Uber's Phony Surcharges or the Trickery of Travis

Uber is now changing a $4.00 airport fee. This is interesting for a few reasons:

• It's illegal for them to drop at the airport.
• An airport fee is for picking up at the airport.
• Uber failed to inform the customer that there was going to be a surcharge.

Therefore, Travis as in travesty, when are you going to pony up?

Just as interesting is your $1.00 safety fee. Is this to protect the customers from your drivers?

• Like from the one in NYC?
• Or the one in Washington D.C?
• Or the one who needed the 5 star rating?
• Or ... I could go on

Are you going to take care of that stuff, Travis? Is that what that one dollar is for?

Apparently not, says Travis.

Let me emphasize that last paragraph,

"In the email, Kalanick blamed the media for thinking that Uber is 'somehow liable for these incidents that aren't even real in the first place.' Kalanick also stressed that Uber needs to 'make sure these writers don't come away thinking we are responsible even when these things do go bad.'"

Lyft and Sidecar Customers and Drivers Are Not Insured ...

is what hack-reporter Rachel Swan told me was going to be in her piece on the app industry vs the cab industry. This was supposed to be a balanced article that showed cab company corruption going against the dangers of using illegal and uninsured taxi services.

I also pressed her to warn the drivers and customers of Lyft and Sidecar that the "terms" to which they agreed when they downloaded the apps included signing away their rights to sue and agreeing to come to the defense of the app companies (at the customer's expense) in case the companies were sued for negligence.

Needless to say, Rachel did neither. Instead of warning the public about the possible dangers of riding in uninsured vehicles, she passed on an advertising blurb dressed as a fact by Sidecar CEO Sunil Paul claiming that a they had done a study showing that Sidecar passengers "felt safer" then they would have riding in a taxicab. "Felt safer!" Rachel wrote this as if it proved that they were safer. And, why would Sunil bother to do a study when he has Rachel Swan ready to make every bit of garbage that comes out of his mouth sound like the word of God?

Rachel also engaged in the usual hatchet job that appears to be a right of passage for wanna be journalists in San Francisco. She included all the bad stuff about the cab industry and treated the CEO's of Lyft, Sidecar and Uber as if they were a combination of Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs and Charlemagne instead of developers of illegal, taxi apps. The tone of her prose would go very well with an orientation video for new hires at Sidecar U.

As it turns out I'm not the first to be jobbed by this babe. This is from a comment to Sweet Rachel's purple post:

@healied2 "This writer is well known by lefties in the East Bay for doing exactly what you describe, and also for the fact that she actually has turned against her very informants who bring a story to her.  She did this in her East Bay article, titled Obama Drama. She was brought a story about how the official Obama campaign folks were actually doing things all over California to jeopardize that campaign, and she never followed direct leads she was given that would've proven that point. Instead, she wrote a glowing story about the official campaign folks and turned a negative light on the most radical dedicated workers in that campaign. If anyone is ever approached by her for a story- stay away. "

I have to drive my cab tonight so I'll cut it short but I'll leave you with a few things from Twitter and Yelp that were sent to me by Athan Rebelos.

In the first one, Danielle V. should clearly have read Lyft's "terms" before agreeing to use the service (the "terms" that I asked Sweet Rachel to warn the public against). These "terms" are almost impossible to find on the Lyft and Sidecar websites. Rachel couldn't find them herself and had to call me up and ask me where they were (way at the bottom in very small print). They print out to over 20 pages at 12pt type.  I don't know how anybody could read the "terms" on a smart phone. These are some of the limitations in question:

Limitation of Liability

IN NO EVENT WILL WE, OUR SUBSIDIARIES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES OR OUR SUPPLIERS, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR INDIRECT DAMAGES ... ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH LYFT, OUR SERVICES OR THIS AGREEMENT (HOWEVER ARISING, INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) EVEN IF WE OR OUR AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES KNOW OR HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES....

LYFT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER FOR THE ACTIONS OR CONDUCT OF DRIVERS OR RIDERS. LYFT HAS NO OBLIGATION TO INTERVENE IN OR BE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN DISPUTES THAT MAY ARISE BETWEEN DRIVERS, RIDERS, OR THIRD PARTIES. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DECISIONS YOU MAKE REGARDING PROVIDING OR ACCEPTING TRANSPORTATION REST SOLELY WITH YOU. IT IS EACH RIDER AND DRIVER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS IN ALL ACTIONS AND INTERACTIONS WITH ANY PARTY THEY MAY INTERACT WITH THROUGH USE OF THE SERVICES. LYFT MAY BUT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO SCREEN OR OTHERWISE EVALUATE POTENTIAL RIDERS OR USERS. USERS UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THAT LYFT HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE IDENTITY OR ACTIONS OF THE RIDERS AND DRIVERS, AND LYFT REQUESTS THAT USERS EXERCISE CAUTION AND GOOD JUDGMENT WHEN USING THE SERVICES. DRIVERS AND RIDERS USE THE SERVICES AT THEIR OWN RISK.

Talk about the warmth of community, no?