JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
And that's fine for you, Donald Trump. I've used Uber a bunch of times, and the cars were all clean and well-maintained. The drivers were all polite and friendly. The few times I've been in a JC cab, I felt like I was taking my life in my hands. No argument, taxis are great in NYC - but until we really are the Sixth Borough, I'll stick with Uber.

If that works for you that's great. I just want to be clear and make people aware that Uber and Lyft are NOT car services nor are they regulated like one. People have the mistaken notion they are car services and it's a notion the companies don't mind perpetuating. I know they look cool because (gasp!) there have apps and they're cheaper, but people should be aware that with that cheaper ride comes a trade-off.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

rescuelife wrote:
Quote:

JadedJC wrote:
Uber & Lyft = app-assisted hitchhiking. Just google "Uber safety" and there are a number of hair-raising issues and incidents. No thanks. I'll pay the extra bucks for a properly licensed, regulated and insured taxi or car service.

By that logic, isn't calling a car service phone-assisted hitchhiking? Uber cars are licensed, regulated, and insured so not sure how you are making any distinction other than that all Uber drivers have full background checks done on them (same CANNOT be said about limo and yellow/white taxis) and the entire trip once you are picked up is logged, which is a huge safety feature for women riding alone.

So then why are Uber, Lyft and Sidecar fighting so hard against being regulated in every city they operate? Their standard argument is that they're a tech company and NOT a car service. My understanding of how they operate is that any schmuck with a decent car and a driver's license can become a driver. They often call themselves a "peer-to-peer ride-sharing service." Tech speak for "get into a car with a total stranger." The background checks they do on drivers are cursory at best, and I was under the impression that drivers are carrying nothing more than their personal insurance - which raises a big question of whether their insurance companies would pay up in an accident if they found out they were using their vehicles as a taxi service. And when something does go wrong, Uber typically tries to weasel out of any responsibility. The $1 "safe ride" fee Uber charges is laughable. It guarantees nothing, and my safety is worth more than $1.

I actually feel pretty safe in NYC yellow taxis. The TLC does a pretty decent job regulating them, and all drivers have their hack license and a medallion number displayed so that if something does go wrong, I know I have recourse through the TLC. The lack of regulation is also why I generally don't use JC taxis. The longest ride I ever took in one was between Grove Street and the Heights - that's pretty much my limit. I don't stay out into the wee hours, so taxis/car services aren't a huge expense for me. The only time I ever really need one is early morning or late night trips to/from the airport. Then I'll call the corporate car service my company uses and tell them it's a personal ride I want to charge to my own credit card. The airport trip is perhaps $10 more than Uber, but I'm fine paying that.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
Maybe it's my age, but I still feel weird sitting on the train when ladies of any age are standing. Plus, it's kind of fun to watch a 23-year-old girl get all flustered when she's offered a seat. It's such a new experience for most of them that they don't know how to react.

Yup, that's your outdated social conditioning at work. It's fun to fluster young women? That's kinda creepy.. It's a new experience for them because there's no good reason that young women need to sit on a train.

Judging from the comments here, you're right; it's every man/woman for himself on public transportation. Thanks for clearing that up, and I'll turn up the volume on my headphones so everyone within 10 feet can hear it.

So, you tell me. Why would an able bodied, young women need to sit?

She doesn't NEED to sit; traditional etiquette is that a gentleman doesn't sit while a lady stands. I admit it may be an outdated construct, but I'll stick with what works for me. And, also, whatever; there are a lot bigger issues than this to worry about.

Traditional etitquette? So you're not doing something because it makes sense, you're doing it because other people used it to do it in the past? The logic there is not sound.. since we know there are lots of past traditions that would be unnecessary or even unsavory.

And how does it "work for you" if you are surprising women by doing this? Did it occur to you that they don't want your seat charity and might only take it in order to end an awkward situation?

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
This is one of the worst JCList threads in recent memory.

Necessitated by some of the most disgusting series of actions we've seen in recent memory. The Ferguson protestors were back to shooting at police last night. 31 people arrested.

All in honor of a confirmed strongarm robber (yes, confirmed, as his family and accomplice admitted it was him) who very well tried to take a police officers gun, fought with him, and sent him to the hospital. Even worse, we saw an immediate crucifiction of the cop. Great role model and martyr.

At not once has anyone considered they could be wrong. Not once has anyone in that community condemned the strong arm robbery. Instead we have a large group of people acting like two year olds having a temper tantrum. So yes, this whole debacle is truly disgusting.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
Maybe it's my age, but I still feel weird sitting on the train when ladies of any age are standing. Plus, it's kind of fun to watch a 23-year-old girl get all flustered when she's offered a seat. It's such a new experience for most of them that they don't know how to react.

Yup, that's your outdated social conditioning at work. It's fun to fluster young women? That's kinda creepy.. It's a new experience for them because there's no good reason that young women need to sit on a train.

Judging from the comments here, you're right; it's every man/woman for himself on public transportation. Thanks for clearing that up, and I'll turn up the volume on my headphones so everyone within 10 feet can hear it.

So, you tell me. Why would an able bodied, young women need to sit?

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
Maybe it's my age, but I still feel weird sitting on the train when ladies of any age are standing. Plus, it's kind of fun to watch a 23-year-old girl get all flustered when she's offered a seat. It's such a new experience for most of them that they don't know how to react.

Yup, that's your outdated social conditioning at work. It's fun to fluster young women? That's kinda creepy.. It's a new experience for them because there's no good reason that young women need to sit on a train.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
More looting and burning down stores last night. And due to fear of bad press, the police stood back and watched it happen.

Despite the widespread looting, police made no arrests. So this is the current situation, as per CNN:

"That harmony has been replaced by store owners holding semi-automatic rifles and handguns and sweeping up ruins."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/16/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html

And this gem:


"This is wonderful. This is what should have happened a long time ago,? Robert Powell, 42, said as he watched looters during the night hop through the shattered glass door of a meat market."

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationn ... nrest-20140816-story.html

This is the country that some of you want. Screw the business owners who pay taxes, probably the only people who pay taxes in the ghetto. They aren't important. Like some people on this thread have said, screw the scummy police! We have to protect the rights of lowlifes to rob and steal at will!

A white person has no idea what blacks go through on a daily basis. Whites on JClist no everything but really don't know sh*t and feel its their duty to tell blacks, Latinos, and Asians how to live their lives. I pity most of these (fools) posters... Don't get caught up in the dram here, and this thread was created to talk about blacks and how much I hate the N*ggers... Here is interesting read

heights wrote:
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... isabled.html#incart_river
PATH riders not giving up seats for pregnant, elderly, disabled, advocate says.
Read comments below article they rival some on JCLIST and give another insight on the PATH.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Hopefully, the city will use that money to hire inspectors to make sure these lots have the garbage removed and the snow cleaned. If not, then this fee is just a penalty in owning property in JC.

Aren't there codes that allow the city to fine or perform remediation on overgrown or dangerous lots already? To add a fee to those lot owners who pay taxes and maintain their property, to pay for the city to go after those who don't, is insane-they've already paid taxes to do this.

I don't get this either. Isn't this what property taxes pay for? It's like charging me a fee because I have a blue house.

tommyc_37 wrote:
I have met a few permanent live-aboards in the area. It's pretty neat. It can be very cost-effective, actually. And there is undoubtedly something whimsical about it. I've stayed aboard one night at a time in Liberty Harbor, and several nights at a time at other port of call.

I'm actually heading to Boston tomorrow and will be sleeping on a 40' yacht in lieu of a hotel room (and cheaper!). I've done it before and it is extremely pleasant, assuming some minor wave action doesn't bother you.

Cheers to Jersey City being a harbor town!