Uber Demonstrations Snarl Traffic In London, Madrid, Berlin

Graculus (3653645) writes with news that, as threatened, cab drivers in several European cities mounted a protest against Uber today. From the article: "Uber Technologies Inc., the car-sharing service that's rankling cabbies across the U.S., is fighting its biggest protest yet from European drivers who say the smartphone application threatens their livelihoods. Traffic snarled in parts of Madrid and Paris today, with a total of more than 30,000 taxi and limo drivers from London to Berlin blocking tourist centers and shopping districts. They are asking regulators to apply tougher rules on San Francisco-based Uber, whose software allows customers to order a ride from drivers who don't need licenses that can cost 200,000 euros ($270,000) apiece." The Guardian covered the London protest, which ended peacefully 3 p.m..

Comments

Competition Sucks

[TechyImmigrant]

Competition sucks. Gotta keep that privileged access to the market.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Trepidity]

If Uber were really offering legitimate competition, I would be more sympathetic. But they're partly undercutting existing taxis through ridiculous things like using drivers who lack commercial vehicle insurance, which is rather irresponsible.

Re:Competition Sucks

[js3]

How so? Requiring one party to pay 200,000 euros to operate a taxi while not enforcing that on another party is not competition. That privileged access is a requirement from the government itself.

Re:Competition Sucks

[nctritech]

Yes, and the solution is to eliminate that requirement.

Re:Competition Sucks

[TechyImmigrant]

It appears that Londoners were adopting Uber rapidly when all the taxis went away to protest.

the reality is that the cat is out of the bag. If Uber stop existing, it won't alter the fact that ad-hoc ride calling schemes will continue to exist legal or not, because the technology exists and is ubiquitous.

Lawmakers would be wise to work with the real worlds, rather than against it. But they don't generally do that, so it'll be messier than it needs to be.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Trepidity]

If people start losing their driver's licenses when they're caught doing commercial driving without being properly insured, I would guess fewer of them will take the risk.

Re:Competition Sucks

[TechyImmigrant]

>That privileged access is a requirement from the government itself.

And they are lobbying their governments to keep that privileged access. Being undercut by a cheaper competitor is certainly competition.

Re:Competition Sucks

[grumpy_technologist]

all ridesharing transportation partners carry best-in-class commercial insurance coverage in the event of an accident.

Also, their coverage is considerably higher (in dollar amount) than commercial taxis in major cities. Uber provides this for their drivers. The drivers do not need to purchase this.

source: http://blog.uber.com/uberXride...

Re:Competition Sucks

[Trepidity]

It's generally riskier for the insurance company. People who offer transportation services for a fee have heightened liability to passengers (which is passed on to the insurance) than people who are driving friends/family. They also typically have a higher risk of incurring a payout in a given year.

Vehicle insurance is a fairly competitive market, and most of the rates are set pretty straightforwardly by actuaries.

Re:Competition Sucks

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Competition sucks. Gotta keep that privileged access to the market.

I am hardly wholly sympathetic to the taxis; but there is one important aspect that is often elided in the hagiographic "Hail Uber, destroyer of corrupt taxi monopolist cartels!" pieces: In regulated markets, taxi operators are subject to a variety of rules, some of them costly (insurance, metering accuracy consumer protection stuff, getting the much-coveted and supply limited taxi medallion in the first place), that Uber is just too hip and 'disruptive' to bother with.

If you wish to adopt the 'bring on the competition and let the cards fall as they may" view, it is an imperative that the existing taxi providers be released from the assorted regulatory burdens that Uber just ignores. Failure to do so is, in effect, a substantial subsidy to Uber under the guise of 'competition'.

If you take the position that taxi regulations exist for good historical reasons, founded on what happened before there were such regulations, it is similarly imperative to keep them from being flouted by assorted twee distinctions-without-difference "Oh, this isn't a taxi, it's an independent entrepreneur(who just happens to be hardwired directly into our business' software systems; but never you mind that, having 'employees' might expose us to obligations) offering social ridesharing!".

Regardless of whether you prefer the status quo, or would prefer to set the status quo on fire, anyone who does abide by taxi-related regulation and has to compete with people who don't has a very legitimate grievance. Whether that ought to be resolved by eliminating that regulation or extending it is a different matter; but either position still leaves the existing taxi guys getting the short end of the regulatory situation as it is now.

Re:Competition Sucks

[bluefoxlucid]

Uber supplies insurance protecting the passenger from loss and liability up to $1 million.

Re:Competition Sucks

[praxis]

>That privileged access is a requirement from the government itself.

And they are lobbying their governments to keep that privileged access. Being undercut by a cheaper competitor is certainly competition.

Party A plays by the rules and therefor has higher costs. Party B does not play by the rules and has lower costs. Party A is angry at the unfairness of this situation. I agree that the rules are dumb, but unfairness rankles me more. Either Uber buys taxi licenses for its drivers or we abolish taxi licenses. Until then, the should both play by the rules.

Re:Competition Sucks

[bigpat]

Yes, if these are people who's job it is to drive people around in order to make money then that is a limousine or taxi service and it should be regulated the same way.... but $270,000 license fees sound more like glorified bribes to prevent competition than something close to a legitimate license fee.

If the taxi drivers were protesting the absurd license fees, then I would be more sympathetic.

On the other hand if part of the uber service is simply a better way of matching people for sharing the costs of carpooling and ride sharing, then that is a service that is sorely needed and really isn't a taxi or limousine service.

Re:Competition Sucks

[NotDrWho]

I'd be less pissed about the competition from Uber and MUCH MORE pissed about the ridiculous cost of those licenses. I mean, $270,000, REALLY???

Re:Competition Sucks

[swillden]

If Uber were really offering legitimate competition, I would be more sympathetic. But they're partly undercutting existing taxis through ridiculous things like using drivers who lack commercial vehicle insurance, which is rather irresponsible.

Is it?

The fact that commercial vehicles must have said insurance by law doesn't mean it's actually necessary even for them. In many cases, those sorts of legal requirements are imposed not because they're actually necessary per-se, but because they establish obstacles to entry of service providers into the market, and aren't obviously arbitrary. They are arbitrary, just not obviously arbitrary.

In a market where information is highly asymmetric, establishing arbitrary obstacles to entry is actually a useful thing to do, because the mere act of bothering to clear the hurdles demonstrates a high probability of good faith on the part of the company trying to enter. Individuals or organizations trying to brand themselves as cabs, for example, in order to more easily rob unsuspecting patrons will wish to be able to establish themselves quickly and then disappear quickly.

The Internet, particularly the mobile Internet, however, breaks down information asymmetries. Uber uses different mechanisms that have much lower friction to establish trust in its drivers, eliminating the need for arbitrary obstacles. Do Uber's mechanisms work? I don't know. They appear to, and time will tell whether or not something more is required to make the service safe and effective.

This then means we have to revisit the basis for requiring commercial vehicle insurance. Since it's no longer required as an arbitrary (but not obviously arbitrary) obstacle, is it actually required? What problem does it solve that's not solved some other way?

FYI, I suspect I know what the problem is, and I think it probably is a real problem. My point is that all of the assumptions about what is necessary for ordinary commercial operations do have to be re-evaluated because in the new context they may not make sense, even if this one does. We shouldn't just blindly apply the old rules, but should instead see what problems arise and apply the rules that make sense to resolve the problems.

Re:Competition Sucks

[cowwoc2001]

Sounds like a problem for insurance companies, not the government. What is the difference between the two kinds of insurances except for the price? If you drive someone "occasionally" should your insurance really cost as much as the full commercial insurance does?

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

But they're partly undercutting existing taxis through ridiculous things like using drivers who lack commercial vehicle insurance, which is rather irresponsible.

That's not true for the countries these demonstrations are in. For example in Britain all Uber drivers and cars are required to be licensed as "Private Hire" drivers and cars (2 separate licenses.) In order to get the private hire car license, you must present the certificate of commercial insurance to the local council.

Uber's competition in Britain at least is completely legitimate. They are obeying the law. And the department that issues licenses for London have come out and said as much.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

Lawmakers in Britain don't have to do anything, as Uber is already able and does comply with all licensing requirements.

Re:Competition Sucks

[meta-monkey]

Regulation is fine. Insist that Uber drivers have commercial insurance. An insurance company will offer "uber insurance" for a few extra euros and they'll make some money and the public will be safer. Uber could even partner with an insurer to make that happen more quickly and smoothly. But there's no reason you need a 200k euro license to drive people around.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Opportunist]

How the heck does this make the public safer? It makes it more likely to get money from your opponent's insurance if he kills you on the street, but that's about it.

Insurances never make anything more secure. They make the loss more bearable. At best.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Opportunist]

You mean impose punishments that are way, way out of proportion compared to the "crime"? Like insane fine blown out of proportion have stopped filesharing? That way?

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

but $270,000 license fees sound more like glorified bribes to prevent competition than something close to a legitimate license fee.

I don't know where the article got that number from. In London, a taxi driver license incurs fees of a few hundred dollars. And a Taxi vehicle license is less than a hundred. Perhaps they are quoting the cost to be a licensed taxi operator (the company that runs many taxis).

(NB: Uniquely, London does require potential Taxi drivers to know all the streets, important locations and routes for central London. A monumental feat of memorisation that generally takes 2-5 years of hard work to complete, buzzing around the city on a scooter. Called "Doing The Knowledge". So it's certainly hard to become a taxi driver there. It's far more of a bar then the costs.)

Re:Competition Sucks

[Russ1642]

$1 million coverage is not enough.

Re:Competition Sucks

[kaizendojo]

And do what, pay back those taxi drivers that already bought their hack license? Sure, that'll happen. Cause the government loves to give back money.

Re:Competition Sucks

[meta-monkey]

Uber handles the insurance issue by providing it themselves. They insure their drivers for $1 million.

It's perfectly reasonable to extend regulations for vehicle safety/inspections, posted notices, etc to Uber drivers, but the taxi drivers aren't protesting Uber because of public safety, they're protesting because Uber drivers aren't bothering to play the medallion game. That I have no sympathy for.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't be surprised if the people who are pro-Uber are the very same ones who are anti-H1B or anything else that gives "evil" corporations a way of undercutting domestic labor.

We are always for something that makes things cheaper for us regardless of the underlying issues and against anything that may take away from our income. We're hypocrites since the justifications used to lower our costs are the very same justifications used against us to lower our wage.

Re:Competition Sucks

[bluefoxlucid]

Some of the other problems are nonsense, too. Background checks are social: if your cabbie is a rapist, you can report that; if you disappear in transit, there are records of where your phone was and what cab drive you had. Service is, likewise rated rather than a company promise; and they use GPS to track distance. Most of these mechanisms are satisfactory to the average user, and out of the control of the driver and passenger alike.

Round One had a bunch of people talking about some highly-arrogant sense of self-importance black cab drivers derive from a specialized certification. They have full knowledge of the area's history, sports, current events, and the best route through the city in their head, so they can chat you up while they drive and can find the shortest path. A lot of folks weighed heavily on this idea that you get the shortest path and thus the best deal; but, if Uber is cheaper, a less-optimal path may come out at a lower dollar cost. Likewise, GPS navigation with real-time traffic largely handles this; and many people don't want an enforced premium just so they can ride with a cab driver who knows everything about everything.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Opportunist]

How is me driving with a stranger more likely to result in an accident than me driving with a friend? If you think my friend is more predictable, you don't know my friends.

Also, the "higher risk" is mostly due to commercial drivers driving ALL the time while "normal" drivers will only do so when they need the car, i.e. the higher risk is due to them being on the road far more often and far longer. The cab driver would not go to the passenger's destination if it wasn't for the passenger wanting to go there. That's not the case with commercial car sharing because they only get to tag along. I would not go to their destination if I wasn't going there anyway.

Re:Competition Sucks

[bluefoxlucid]

That's why the Black Cab Mafia is extorting protection from the government. Wouldn't it be a shame if your nice London streets got all clogged and your nice London shop owners went out of business?

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

The fact that commercial vehicles must have said insurance by law doesn't mean it's actually necessary even for them.

Of course it's necessary. If the driver only has non-commercial insurance, then the insurance company won't pay out when they discover that the car was being used for commercial work.

And why is it acceptable that Insurance companies have a two tier system? Because commercial vehicles are used far more than private vehicles, and the carrying of passengers makes for greater liabilities.

(I'll leave aside the question of whether Uber themselves provide insurance, as the issue is whether they are insured, not who purchases the insurance.)

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

A decent part of being "hip and 'disruptive'" is skirting archaic regulations and laws. Your presumption that those regulations exist for good historical reasons is reasonable, but that certainly does not mean that they are still valid or necessary. Being "disruptive" shakes up the status quo so they can be reevaluated, which would take way too long to evolve naturally. If the hacks wanted a "fair" playing field they would embrace these changes, rather than fight them.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Penguinisto]

If insurance is your only beef, then like sibling said - most insurance companies can offer an "Uber" rider for a couple extra pounds/euros each month, and that's that.

Otherwise, I do have a question: why the demand for "commercial insurance" in the first place? If you and your rider get in a wreck, you're the driver, and would theoretically face the exact same liabilities as a commercial driver would - prolly less, since the plaintiff would be more likely to jack up the monetary demands against a commercial taxi. Also, most auto insurance setups actually do cover the passengers in your vehicle should they get injured, so, well - what's the beef?

If the rider gets injured, sure he can sue you - just like a hitchhiker could, or a friend riding along, or anyone really. If you're signing on to drive someone around, that's the risk you accept. One caveat, though: if the rider signed a waiver online that lists the risks, and requires him to acknowledge and agree to them before ordering a ride, he very well wouldn't have much of a case unless the driver were drunk or high or etc.

Re:Competition Sucks

[bluefoxlucid]

But the standard varies between $50,000 and $150,000 depending on municipal requirements.

Re:Competition Sucks

[swillden]

Yes, that's the issue I suspected. However, Uber has already addressed it.

Re:Competition Sucks

[swillden]

If people start losing their driver's licenses when they're caught doing commercial driving without being properly insured, I would guess fewer of them will take the risk.

Uber provides a $1M liability policy, so they are properly insured.

Re:Competition Sucks

[dj245]

Competition sucks. Gotta keep that privileged access to the market.

There are many legitimate reasons to limit the number of cars available for hire. Taxis drive around the city core looking for passengers, or park in the city waiting for a call. Increased competition would make this worse. In some cities, traffic is already a nightmare. I don't live in New York or any particularly dense city, but I have driven in many. Taking even a small number of cars off the road is often very desirable.

You can limit the number of delivery trucks, personal vehicles, and public/private busses on the roads only so much using financial incentives (high tolls and parking fees). At a certain point you need to use other methods to limit the number of cars, and limiting the number of taxis (and taxi-like services) is something that is easily implemented through taxi medallions. It is also reasonable because in most cities who don't license "enough" taxis, there are plenty of transportation alternatives.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

That's not the case with commercial car sharing because they only get to tag along. I would not go to their destination if I wasn't going there anyway.

I don't know how Uber operates where you are. But in Britain they are not for casual profitable car shares. They have recruited people who drive hire cars for a living. They need to be licensed, but driver and car, in addition to the commercial insurance. So it wouldn't be worth it for the occasional casual to do it.

Re:Competition Sucks

[spasm]

It would be competition if taxi drivers were allowed to ignore the regulations that govern their activities too. All regulation has compliance costs; uber is 'competetive' largely because it dodges the compliance costs borne by existing services.

Now what would be really interesting is to see what happens when some city decides 'sure, uber can operate here, but we're dropping all the regulations we've built up over the years which currently apply to cabs too'.

Re:Competition Sucks

[SydShamino]

You are assuming that Uber drivers only go places they would go anyway. Numerous previous stories indicate otherwise. So drivers are on roads they may not know with a stranger they may not be comfortable with next to them, who may be talking on the phone or doing other things typically done in a cab. Plus the odds of having a passenger are higher, and you are less likely to know their past medical issues, and they are more likely to take you for all they can get than a friend would be.

I'm not an actuary, but those all seem like things that would result in higher premiums to me. And that excludes flat-out higher liabilities for commercial drivers.

Re:Competition Sucks

[jeffmeden]

That's not the case with commercial car sharing because they only get to tag along. I would not go to their destination if I wasn't going there anyway.

That's an assertion so dubious it's hard to know where to start. I suppose that it would be fair for lawmakers to mandate a lie detector feature in your car when you are driving for Uber, to ascertain if you are really driving of your own direct will, or acting based on the guy in the back seat who just agreed to pay you by the minute.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

What country/city charges that much? The article doesn't say. Certainly not London.

I suspect they've stupidly quoted the cost for an operators license, i.e. what a company which runs many taxis would pay.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

Uber are playing by all rules in London. The London licensing body has said as much.

The London Black Cab drivers are angry because the technology allows Private Hire cars such as Uber to compete much better. It's a protectionist complaint.

Re:Competition Sucks

[mythosaz]

If people start losing their driver's licenses when they're caught doing commercial driving without being properly insured, I would guess fewer of them will take the risk.

You mean impose punishments that are way, way out of proportion compared to the "crime"?

Why is losing your license when specifically operating your motor vehicle in express violation of your license somehow "way, way out of proportion"?

It seems exactly in proportion.

Re:Competition Sucks

[angel'o'sphere]

Uber most certainly is, but the drivers driving 'for' Uber most certainly are not.

Re:Competition Sucks

[angel'o'sphere]

The number is wrong.
It is that simple. There are two licenses. The actual license to transport persons in a car, which is a simple extension to your driving license and hence rather cheap. (Perhaps 1k - 2k Euros)
THEN there is a permit issued by the city to be allowed to actually run a cab in that city. This again is rather cheap, just a few k Euros.
HOWEVER the cities consider themselves full with cabs, so they don't issue such permits anymore.
The only way to get one is to transfer an existing one from one cab owner to another. THAT is what costs a few 10k to up to a few 100k bugs as the previous owner is not giving it up cheaper.
So the 'corruption' the cab drivers are complaining about is 'inside' of 'their own system'!

Re:Competition Sucks

[pr0fessor]

Not safer but most personal auto insurance plans won't cover you in the event you are in an accident while driving commercially. My state doesn't require a special license if the vehicle holds less than 16 passengers, but you do need auto insurance that will cover commercial, a tax ID, and you have to pay taxes.

Re:Competition Sucks

[mythosaz]

Insurance is quoted for people based on their driving behaviors.

While it all obviously depends on averages (and everyone on the internet is a special snowflake with an anecdote to counter anything), the average personal driver drives fewer miles, with fewer occupants, to known locations, on repeated paths, generally close to where they live and work. Commercial drivers, not so much.

That's the beef.

Re:Competition Sucks

[mythosaz]

If people start losing their driver's licenses when they're caught doing commercial driving without being properly insured, I would guess fewer of them will take the risk.

Uber provides a $1M liability policy, so they are properly insured.

Oh, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

Re:Competition Sucks

[Sarten-X]

It makes it more likely to get money from your opponent's insurance if he kills [or otherwise injures] you on the street...

...which certainly improves financial security.

There's also the detail that to get commercial insurance, the insurer can impose further restrictions to improve their own assumed risk. A price break for having regular maintenance, good record, or practicing safe driving habits, for example, can all reduce specific risks to the driver, passengers, and bystanders.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Sarten-X]

And if you're getting paid for something, you'll probably do it more often, simply tempting probability more that you'll have a serious problem.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Shimbo]

As far as London taxis go there are two sorts of taxis: the familiar black cabs, and minicabs. Black cabs have the privilege of being able to be hailed by a passing passenger, whereas mini cabs need to be booked through their firm.

The main public interest in this distinction is that booking minicabs means that a third party will have a record of the passenger and driver, if the police need to come looking to see what has happened to the passenger. It takes years of training to know London well enough to get a taxi licence, so it's something of a barrier to someone with criminal intent.

The thing about Uber, is that it provides a very efficient way of linking up minicabs with passengers, whilst maintaining the record that the law requires. However, the taxi drivers have got used to the inconvenience of having to book the competition as their competitive advantage.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerds: "Competition! Distruptive markets! Adapt or die!"

IT Corporations: "Cool, we'd like to bring in loads of Indian programmers because you lot are too expensive"
Nerds: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

Government: "Well we can always teach computer science to every kid. That way there'll be a huge supply of future programmers which will bring down the cost of IT systems and software"
Nerds: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

Film companies: "You know we use the free market to set a price for our goods that people are willing to pay and we offer plenty of alternatives such as streaming, so we think the government should crack down on illegal operations that steal our shit"
Nerds: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

In what way? Do you have any evidence?

Re:Competition Sucks

[dj245]

Also, their coverage is considerably higher (in dollar amount) than commercial taxis in major cities. Uber provides this for their drivers.

$1m isn't enough. Most commercial taxis are run by companies which have other assets besides 1 taxi which might be involved in a major accident. They usually have more taxis, the taxi license (which can be sold for a high price, about $1m each in NYC), an dispatcher office somewhere, etc. They also have other sources of income- if one taxi is destroyed and the driver disabled, the others still generate income. If their insurance only partly covers an accident, they can pay it off using the income from the other taxis, sell some of their (considerable) assets, get a business loan, etc.

Compare this with Joe Blow with his 1 car, 1 employee (himself), and no other significant assets. Let's assume a very serious accident involving multiple cars with multiple injuries. At best, Joe escaped the accident unharmed, and only has to buy a new car. More likely, Joe himself was probably injured in the serious accident, can't work for several days/weeks/months, and has his own medical bills to pay. His "normal" vehicle insurance won't chip in for Joe's injuries since it doesn't cover commercial use of the vehicle. The passengers' medical bills exceed $1m, which can easily happen in a very serious accident. What recourse does the passenger have? They have huge bills to pay and need to recover damages from someone, but Joe Blow might very well be destitute. Uber keeps their drivers at arms length so recovering from them is unlikely. The passenger gets screwed and has little legal recourse against a destitute Joe. Getting a $20 check from Joe every month for the next 50 years isn't going to pay their huge medical bills.

Even though the commercial taxi company has less insurance, the passenger is better protected against out of pocket accident costs.

Re:Competition Sucks

[dj245]

Yes, and the solution is to eliminate that requirement.

That requirement exists for reasons besides money.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

Fortunately, or unfortunately you don't need a 'commercial' insurance. A normal one is just fine, Except for trucks I doubt that there something like an 'commercial insurance' even exists.

For Britain, you are most certainly wrong. I suspect for most of the rest of the world you are wrong too.

Re:Competition Sucks

[jopsen]

If Uber were really offering legitimate competition, I would be more sympathetic. But they're partly undercutting existing taxis through ridiculous things like using drivers who lack commercial vehicle insurance, which is rather irresponsible.

True, and calling the drivers self-employed, which is also a lie that moves more liability to the drivers and in the US frees uber of having to pay benefits etc...
That said, I'm pretty sure uber requires drivers to be insured, also uber does have insurances that covers the passenger, etc. google it for details.

Another, big cost saving that uber does is letting people use their private vehicles, which does make sense from a cost cutting perspective. And enables drivers to offer better service. For example by keeping their car clean.

Note, cost cutting is not the only reason uber is nice. Ordering and paying through an app is really nice too. So is the rating system, which holds drivers accountable.

Re:Competition Sucks

[bsolar]

The problem is that privileged access to the market is exactly how the system was meant to work.

A taxi driver in most of the countries involved is required to buy a license which costs as high as $250'000, which the taxi driver is usually able to recoup only after 15 years of activity. No sane person would invest that much money (often requiring to get a loan) without some guarantee that they will be able to recoup and profit from it, which is what the regulated access to the market was supposed to do.

Now most municipalities would gladly let Uber or other private companies operate, but taxi drivers paid them a lot of money to get the licenses supposed to protect them from the competition which Uber is doing... many of them have not recouped their investment yet and if Uber is allowed to operate most likely never will.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

As a principle, government should not pick winners and losers. This is a free country and whoever wants to try to start any business has a right to.

Regulations are fine for safety and similar things, but the government has no business limiting entry to a select few.

Re:Competition Sucks

[alexander_686]

You are assuming that insurance companies can't discriminate. They can, where allowed by law.

Require that the insurer has a commercial or limo license (In America at least the requirements are higher). Charge higher fees for those with lots of driving infractions. Charge lower fees for those who attend certifications and take classes. etc..

The point being is that the regulations should say if you can meet the requirements you are good to go. Currently most cities issue a fixed number of licenses.

The problem is that the insider who hold the licenses (usually gained with great effort) want to keep the outsiders out. The safety issue is mostly a smoke screen.

Re:Competition Sucks

[N1AK]

>That privileged access is a requirement from the government itself.

And they are lobbying their governments to keep that privileged access. Being undercut by a cheaper competitor is certainly competition.

Party A plays by the rules and therefor has higher costs. Party B does not play by the rules and has lower costs. Party A is angry at the unfairness of this situation. I agree that the rules are dumb, but unfairness rankles me more. Either Uber buys taxi licenses for its drivers or we abolish taxi licenses. Until then, the should both play by the rules.

Uber is playing by the rules (at least in the UK). In London you need a license to drive a cab and that license comes with various rules but also various benefits. Cabs are allowed to stop for passengers who flag them in the street, which Uber drivers and other services aren't. In the past this was fine with cabbies because it wasn't easy to get a non-cab quickly. Now with services like Uber it is often cheaper to do so. In London cab licenses are for 12 months. If Cab drivers think that they would be better off driving for Uber then they are free to stop paying for a license and to do so.

Re:Competition Sucks

[painandgreed]

If Uber were really offering legitimate competition, I would be more sympathetic. But they're partly undercutting existing taxis through ridiculous things like using drivers who lack commercial vehicle insurance, which is rather irresponsible.

Only undercutting in some instances. In others they are charging more and winning out because of better service.

Re:Competition Sucks

[kilodelta]

But here's the thing about the industry in general. The outrageous taxi scheme goes away one autonomous vehicles are predominant. Just whistle up a car and it takes you where you need to go. No more human to have to pay, no more of that.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

I am hardly wholly sympathetic to the taxis; but there is one important aspect that is often elided in the hagiographic "Hail Uber, destroyer of corrupt taxi monopolist cartels!" pieces: In regulated markets, taxi operators are subject to a variety of rules, some of them costly (insurance, metering accuracy consumer protection stuff, getting the much-coveted and supply limited taxi medallion in the first place), that Uber is just too hip and 'disruptive' to bother with.

This story is about European cities, where Uber operates perfectly legally, following the regulations.

It sounds like there are some US cities where Uber are not offering the right people bribes. And so protectionism is working against them. But that's off topic for this story.

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

There are many legitimate reasons to limit the number of cars available for hire

Granted, but such a crude tool like limiting the number of medallions is one of the old methods that made sense long ago, but doesn't any more. Without services like Uber it would be nearly impossible to implement a more modern, more efficient and more useful solution.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

No, not really. The article doesn't specify where it's talking about, but I doubt there's anywhere in the world that charges that for a taxi license.

It's possible that the article is referring to the cost of an operators license. The company that runs a fleet of taxis. Or it may be that it's referring to the one off price that one Taxi driver will charge another to take over his license, where the issue of licenses is limited.

Re:Competition Sucks

[king neckbeard]

Because it's just driving a passenger around for money. I've done that with friends and acquaintances quite a few times, albeit in a less formal setting.

Re:Competition Sucks

[alexander_686]

First, because commercial activity is a proxy for costs. Taxis drive more so they tend to get into accidents more. When they get into accidents there tends to be more people in the car. In theory this could be refined, for example charging insurance by the mile and not by the year.

Second, I think, payouts for commercial passengers tend to be higher. If I am at fault in an accident my passengers (i.e. wife) can claim medical but probably not lost wages. Lost wages probably would be covered for a passage however. I am sure this is highly dependent on local laws.

Re:Competition Sucks

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In absence of details about the locations where the protest are occurring, I don't venture an opinion one way or the other about the validity of the rules. Just the position that having them apply to taxi operators but not to Uber is hardly 'competitive'. Apparently, given their protests, the taxi operators would prefer the 'apply to both' option, while Uber would presumably prefer the 'apply to neither' option(at least if the alternative was a crackdown that actually forced them to comply or leave, I'm sure they don't mind at all the current situation of skirting the laws that their competitors are subject to.)

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

What recourse does the passenger have if they get into an accident in their own car, or if a friend were driving them, or if they get hit by a random driver while crossing the street? There seem to be a lot of assumptions in your post that I, personally, don't find warranted.

Re:Competition Sucks

[nuggz]

Why don't you just get the correct license or insurance.

When I upgraded my car to allow light business use, it only cost a few dollars a year more.

Re: Competition Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people think the government is charging for the medallions ? The cities don't have more medallions to issue, and they don't print them up for huge sums of money.
Cabbies own the medallions, and cabbies sell them. It's not government, it's the FREE MARKET people love until it's too corrupt to get through the market entrance.

Imagine that, Slashdot free market advocates upset by one free man with a medallion selling it for what the market supports to someone who wants it as part of a consensual transaction.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no insurance. You agreed to release Uber from all liability as a condition of using the service. They have insurance in case that waiver is invalidated in court, which will take many months of time and many thousands of dollars in lawyers fees, but until them you have NO COVERAGE!

Re:Competition Sucks

[Noah Haders]

uber provides plenty of insurance stop gaps. what do you expect them to do? http://blog.uber.com/rideshari...

fyi i get my facts from facts not from youtube videos. maru!

Re:Competition Sucks

[Etherwalk]

If Uber were really offering legitimate competition, I would be more sympathetic. But they're partly undercutting existing taxis through ridiculous things like using drivers who lack commercial vehicle insurance, which is rather irresponsible.

Competition doesn't have to be fair to be legitimate. Cab companies also generally underinsure to the extent permitted by law. In New York, they carry some ridiculously low number like $25,000 of insurance, and each cab is incorporated so that there's no way to get to the company that actually owns them.

Fundamentally, if Uber can insure at least comparably to cab companies, are roughly as reliable, and can offer an equivalent service cheaper, they *should* win.

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

Of course the taxis would like the rules to apply to both, because it would saddle their competition with outdated regulations that don't necessarily apply to them or make sense. For example, requiring a driver to have encyclopedic knowledge of the street map is next to useless in today's GPS world. Uber is a business and I'm sure they'd take whatever advantage they can get, but I'm sure they'd settle for reasonable rules for the modern age that applied equally to all. That seems fair to me and the hacks being obstructive (in both a physical and regulatory sense) is not going to win any fans to their side.

Re:Competition Sucks

[war4peace]

"No, officer, he didn't pay jack shit, he's a distant relative, um, friend, um, acquaintance!"
My colleague drives me home at the end of my shift, it's called carpooling. Carpooling could be arranged among strangers or people very loosely connected (e.g. working within the same neighborhood and living within the same other neighborhood).
My workplace encourages carpooling and they even have an ongoing project to identify people who have similar routes during similar times. We're 2000-strong employees here so it makes sense. One person in each car add up to a lot of pollution and increase traffic jam. Using a cab has the same effect.

Yes, I am sorry for those who would see their income diminished, but trying to keep that income without adapting is akin to people in the past banning cars because the horse-related jobs would be affected. It wouldn't work.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Update: As others have pointed out, Uber already addresses the question of liability coverage by providing the coverage itself... so the potential problem arising from drivers not having coverage is already handled via another mechanism, making the law irrelevant (not inapplicable in a legal sense, just irrelevant in the sense that it's not actually accomplishing anything).

Taxi forums show that the necessary full "legit" insurance can cost $50 US a day for a commercial taxi driver, those these will vary (and drop with an experienced cabbie)
http://www.taxiforums.co.uk/Home/tabid/87/aff/3/aft/8552/afv/topic/Default.aspx

Uber does not provide that level of insurance. It provides only insurance to the passenger, not the driver or third parties likely to be injured/killed/damaged in an accident and not at values that would reasonably cover one "WASP" fatality much less a couple of barrister's kids. The typical uber driver will be disowned by their non-commerical driver's insurance and on the hook for the entire amount. of damages. Since uber drivers tend not to be wealthy, that means that a severe injury and medical treatment will be paid for by the taxpayers since the uber driver will have to default on those huge debts. That's why licensed taxis actually have to carry high dollar/pound/euro insurance in the first place and why a cab costs much more than the price of gas.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Qzukk]

Actually, in New York City, a Taxi Medallion (required on a per-car basis) is around a million dollars.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

A taxi driver in most of the countries involved is required to buy a license which costs as high as $250'000

Where does a license cost that much?

There may be a secondary market for licenses, where numbers are limited, but that's not money going to to the local government, it's money going to retiring taxi drivers.

Re:Competition Sucks

[praxis]

Uber is playing by the rules (at least in the UK). In London you need a license to drive a cab and that license comes with various rules but also various benefits. Cabs are allowed to stop for passengers who flag them in the street, which Uber drivers and other services aren't. In the past this was fine with cabbies because it wasn't easy to get a non-cab quickly. Now with services like Uber it is often cheaper to do so.

In London cab licenses are for 12 months. If Cab drivers think that they would be better off driving for Uber then they are free to stop paying for a license and to do so.

If that's the case then I have no understanding of the situation.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Ravaldy]

Officer: Are you being paid to carry this passenger?
Driver: No, this is my friend. We are car pooling.
Officer: Ok. Have a good day!

PROVE IT. Nobody is going to get stopped for this.

Re:Competition Sucks

[dj245]

There are many legitimate reasons to limit the number of cars available for hire

Granted, but such a crude tool like limiting the number of medallions is one of the old methods that made sense long ago, but doesn't any more. Without services like Uber it would be nearly impossible to implement a more modern, more efficient and more useful solution.

They are pushing the boundaries and making people ask the right questions, which could lead to a "more efficient and more useful solution." My personal gripe is that people assume Uber's model is good, and deregulation is that more efficient and more useful solution. Obviously Uber does not mention the downsides themselves, and the number of people questioning their model as being good for society is typically not substantial.

Re:Competition Sucks

[JD-1027]

Should license fees relate to driver having the knowledge of every street in town? Sounds like it might be better served by allowing competition.
"XYZ Cab Company has more knowledgeable drivers, I'll use them"
or
"Uber is cheaper, so I'll use them".

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

Exactly the possibility I stated in my last sentence.

Which means this is an investment, not a cost. It wouldn't be worth paying a million dollars for a taxi badge, you would never make a big enough living to to make it worthwhile. But if you can buy one for 1 million dollars, use it for a couple of decades, then sell it for 1.5 million dollars, then you've profited in two ways.

It's certainly not the local government making money from taxi driver licensing.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

Not only that, but the Black Cabbies encyclopaedic knowledge of streets may not be significantly better than a Sat Nav with traffic info.

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

I could say that my personal gripe is that people assume Uber's model is bad, and that deregulation will lead to anarchy. So let's agree that people who make unfounded assumptions should both be griped at.

It's hard not to see that Uber is better in many ways than the existing model and it fills an important niche, so in that sense it's hard to say it's not good. There is certainly a case to be made that there are downsides, but I haven't seen any that aren't fixable. This is not to say that the current Uber model is the best possible, that it is the only viable system or that there shouldn't be a completely new set of regulations that apply to all services (e.g. a fair cost for traffic congestion based on time of day, miles driven, etc.).

Re:Competition Sucks

[lgw]

Most states in the US have a "chauffeur license" needed to drive anyone commercially, that applies across taxis, livery cars (limos) and personal drivers. That should really be a requirement here for Lyft and similar services.

Break the monopoly/oligopoly of taxis services in major cities. It's crony capitalism BS, and needs to go. But a "taxi permit" is a totally different thing than a commercial drivers license. We can end the taxi monopoly without any loss of useful regulation through basic licensing.

Re:Competition Sucks

[king neckbeard]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but rather, that revoking a license for something on a similar scale is a disproportionate.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Maxo-Texas]

If insurance doesn't cover you, then you may suffer enormous expense and go untreated (since no money is available for therapy). In some cases, you'll die due to lack of money for proper treatment.

I speak from personal experience. Having insurance makes you safer if your injuries are serious.

This is only for countries without good national health care. Even there, I think more serious or long term injuries might be prioritized lower.

Re:Competition Sucks

[jythie]

Anyone is free to get a license and provide a similar service. They are not trying to block out 'competition', they are trying to block a company that can provide lower prices by failing to pay the same costs people playing by the rules do.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Maxo-Texas]

From what I've read, it's more like.

Passenger: "Uh, hi! Are you Dave from Uber?"

Driver: "Yup- please hop in and we'll head to the zoo."

Passenger: "Okay, here's the 17 dollars for the ride"

Driver: "Thanks"

Policemen Passenger: "And here's your $500 ticket. And btw, we'll be impounding your car so you need to find a ride home."

Re:Competition Sucks

[PIBM]

When you signup for your car insurance, and when you renew (at least in Canada), you are asked to provide the highest number of miles you might drive in the year. Should that mileage exceed your declaration by a large value upon a reclamation, you might run in some trouble.

Re:Competition Sucks

[jythie]

Beyond that, all it takes are a few high profile 'things going wrong' to change the tide. Right now Uber is riding on a wave of support born out of low prices and political philosophy. However, taxi services developed these regulations over the years partly out of historical problems, problems Uber is not going to magically avoid.

If the prices go up and the ideological good will they are getting starts to go away, no facy app is going to save them.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Firethorn]

The problem occurs when the 'friend' is an idiot and lets the true relationship slip out when he's injured and unhappy with the payments.

I say 'idiot' because only an idiot would rat out his driver when the consequence is that the insurance company gets to cancel the driver's insurance and NOT pay out for the accident, making the claims fall on the driver's personal assets. Good luck getting blood from a stone...

Re:Competition Sucks

[Firethorn]

That's where an extra rider would be handy. It wouldn't be bad if I simply paid an extra 5 cents or so per mile for my 'commercial' driving if I only do Uber during the highest demand periods when Uber jacks up the rates.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Pax681]

In what way? Do you have any evidence?

well here in Scotland a taxi driver has to be vetted for criminal records etc, then licensed. If he is an owner/driver then his car has to be passed through a "TAXI MOT"(MOT being an annual test for all cars here BUT this one is more stringent).
Also there is specific commercial insurance.... to suggest otherwise is just plain fucking ridiculous, seriously fucking ridiculous.
For vehicles used for commercial/business application, most especially passenger transportation, then specialised commercial insurance is required.
All private hire (ie non black taxi/hackney) vehicles licensed for passenger transportation have to display a special license plate on their rear bumper and also display this information, including the drivers taxi permit inside along with his photograph.
This is why Uber has no operations in Scotland as far as i know... because they, most likely, would be illegal in some respect here or not up to spec in some way.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Anonymice]

At least in the UK, there is strict licensing for anyone who wants to take a passenger for commercial purposes. And there are different licences for different types of taxis. If they do not have a licence, then their insurance will be invalidated. The authorities crack down heavily on unlicensed drivers.
To be honest, I would expect this to be the same around much of the rest of the world too.

Evidence? My father runs a cab company, and also the fact you can't go anywhere in London without seeing scaremongering posters warning of the dangers of unlicensed taxis.

Re:Competition Sucks

[demonlapin]

Because we routinely hold people who engage in some activity for profit to a higher standard than those that do it for fun. It's the difference between flying yourself and running an air taxi, between having friends over for dinner and opening a restaurant.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Firethorn]

True, and calling the drivers self-employed, which is also a lie that moves more liability to the drivers and in the US frees uber of having to pay benefits etc...

Can you provide any proof that the drivers are actually employees of Uber? To my knowledge they don't meet the IRS guidelines to be considered employees. Note: There may be exceptions for their explicit 'for hire' cars where Uber owns the vehicle in question. Heck, I think it was in a previous thread here that I read about an Uber driver talking about how he was also signing up to get leads/customers through Lyft and Sidecar.

So, going from what IRS says:

Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:
Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Behavioral: Uber does have conduct guidelines and will drop you if your customer satisfaction rate is too low. However, they do not set hours or even whether any given driver will take a given ride request.
Financial: Uber takes a cut of any ride for providing it's service, but doesn't provide the car, only provides limited insurance coverage, doesn't pay an hourly rate, has the driver/operator worry about maintenance and such.
Type of relationship: No employee type benefits, written contract. Driver can drop uber and work with other services at any time, and of course Uber isn't dependent upon any one driver. Heck, the drivers can work with multiple such services at the exact same time if they chose to do the work.

My non-expert opinion: Uber has a strong case that the drivers are independent contractors, not employees. Signs of this are no hourly wages, drivers must provide their own licenses, insurance, and equipment, set their own hours, can decide whether to take any one job or not, and are not tied to Uber for providing driving services.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Pax681]

WRONG!.. in the case of Scotland certainly.
all drivers of vehicles licensed to carry passengers on a commercial basis must be licensed themselves.
Then the cars have to undergo safety checks and emissions tests and once the vehicle is licensed it must be appropriately insured with appropriate passenger liability insurance.
Otherwise it's 100% illegal for people to charge fares for taking people anywhere commercially. plain and simple as that.
In the case of Taxi drivers with a "Black cab license"(those who drive the classic London cabs) ... then those guys have to STUDY for a minimum of two years and sit an exam called "the knowledge" to show that they know well the geography of the area. And their vehicles taxi license plates, in Edinburgh anyway, SELL FOR A FUCKING FORTUNE.....
The thing with Uber is that it is setting rates that are NOT set by the local councils Taxi licensing board. In Scotland each city council/local authority sets the rates for both black taxis and private hire cars such as Uber would be legally classified. Thus they are undercutting in a way that other companies would be legally disallowed from doing as the rates are set firm by the councils so as to avoid customers being humped.

So as you an see, at least here in Scotland, and possibly in england,Waqles and northern Ireland too.... Uber would have to recruit drivers who were already licensed with licensed vehicles , start it's own fleet and get drivers in to drive them or... operate illegally and get humped in various courts and jurisdictions around the "UK"

Re:Competition Sucks

[digitig]

Lawmakers in Britain don't have to do anything, as Uber is already able and does comply with all licensing requirements.

That's in dispute. It hinges on whether the app that Uber divers use to calculate the fare constitutes a taximeter or not. Uber (and Transport for London) say it doesn't because there's no physical connection required with the vehicle, whereas the black cab and minicab drivers say it does because it's a device that calculates the fare based on measured distance travelled. The case has yet to come to court, and until it does nobody really knows whether it's legal or not (personally I suspect it isn't, but IANAL).

Re:Competition Sucks

[demonlapin]

You certainly do where I live in the US. A standard individual car insurance policy does not cover commercial activity - for example, delivering pizzas.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

But Uber in London and Manchester do every item that you've listed. Which is why they are legal. And I see no reason to suppose they won't also be able to operate in Edinburgh and Glasgow when they get round to it.

Re:Competition Sucks

[demonlapin]

That's more like UberBlack and UberSUV. We're talking UberX, where you're picked up by a normal person using their personal vehicle.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Pax681]

what puts the higher price on these vehicles license plates is that usually there is a limited number of them
For example, Edinburgh city council limits the amount of black taxi vehicles plates to 300 in total(this is a made up number.. dunno how many it actually is)
Now it might only cost you say £500 GBP to buy that plate from the council if you were the original purchaser. you see this plate can be transferred from one vehicle to the other. it outlives the vehicle and thus due to it's limited availability it can and does sell for FORTUNES at auctions held for the rare occasion they come up for sale.
London is NOT unique in doing the "knowledge". I can only speak for Scotland however each council here requires all black hack drivers to do the knowledge for their license area... i just pity the poor fuckers in the Highlands who have a gargantuan area to commit to memory!

Re:Competition Sucks

[hurfy]

As opposed to getting hit by john on his way home with the minimum required insurance. That's a whole 10k for property damage and $25k medical in my state. Which has been the same for quite some time. The numbers seem a little outdated to say the least. Anything past a bent bumper and broken arm and you probably have to sue him anyway :(

Something seems a bit shady with them but it probably isn't the insurance issues. Of course the taxi business seems a bit odd on its own when they only allow X number or Y company to wait at the airport. Waiting 20 min for a taxi to show up at the airport was rather retarded.

Rather doubtful any pay all the right taxes to all the right places, try that route.

Re:Competition Sucks

[tompaulco]

I can vouch that in the United States, the GP is also wrong.

Re:Competition Sucks

[NotDrWho]

Christ, no wonder NYC cabbies are always so pissed off.

Re:Competition Sucks

[lgw]

To have a higher bar, because there's almost no requirements for a basic drivers license, and you have to try really hard to get that basic license taken away.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

In the UK all Uber cars are licensed Private Hire vehicles, with licensed private hire drivers. Including UberX. There is no such casual driving with unlicensed vehicle such as you describe. It's illegal.

Re:Competition Sucks

[xelah]

Insurance may price some riskier drivers out of the market, or insurance companies may refuse to offer insurance at all. And they may impose conditions, and provide incentives (in the form of lower premiums) to use risk-lowering techniques (like minimum vehicle standards, driving courses, recording devices and the like) and make different choices (cheaper to insure cars).

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

That seems like a reason to increase the requirements for a basic driver's license, instead. If someone is a competent driver (whatever the state says that is) then that should be the same whether they are driving themselves, their friends, or a paid passenger. If they're not competent then they shouldn't be driving under any circumstances.

I could see a case made that drivers who drive a large number of miles per day or per year could be subjected to more rigorous requirements, but that would equally apply to a Lyft driver or someone who had a very long commute, IMO. The goal there being that you don't decrease the number of bad drivers, just the relative number of bad drivers on the road at any given time.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Immerman]

I imagine it would be no more difficult than proving prostitution: pose as a customer and arrest anyone who offers the service.

Re:Competition Sucks

[mythosaz]

A license defines the narrow scope in which you're allowed to operate motor vehicles. A "regular" license generally says you can operate a passenger vehicle for personal and business use (where business doesn't include the business of transportation).

Because they specifically make licenses for commercial drivers - you know, the kind that require additional certification or training, or come with further restrictions on the type of vehicle you can drive or the number of hours you can operate it without rest - you're violating the "regular" license you have by not getting a commercial one while operating as a commercial driver.

Revocation of your license seems perfect.

Go get the right training.
Go take the right tests.
Go get the right license.

Re:Competition Sucks

[jxander]

True, but that's a tough charge to make stick.

Are you operating a commercial driving service? No.
But this is an Uber-car, it has the little logo.... I'm not working, just taking the car to get serviced.
But you have a passenger in the back... Just a friend of mine, giving him a lift. It's on the way.

Re:Competition Sucks

[John Jorsett]

How the heck does this make the public safer? It makes it more likely to get money from your opponent's insurance if he kills you on the street, but that's about it.

Insurances never make anything more secure. They make the loss more bearable. At best.

If insurance is a requirement and you can't get it because you're a risk, then you can't legally operate and the public is safer. QED. The big question is whether you'll enforce the requirement. If you don't enforce a law, it may as well not exist.

Re:Competition Sucks

[lgw]

Why do you have a problem with the idea that transporting strangers for money should be held to a higher bar than driving yourself? Do you feel the same way about aircraft? (A private pilots license is easy to get, as it should be, but a commercial pilot license is a whole different world.) About restaurants?

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

London is NOT unique in doing the "knowledge". I can only speak for Scotland however each council here requires all black hack drivers to do the knowledge for their license area... i just pity the poor fuckers in the Highlands who have a gargantuan area to commit to memory!

The highlands may be a large area, but there's not much in it.
And a short set of multiple choice questions in a small city or rural county does not in any way compare with the London Knowledge. A local would be able to answer the Scottish tests. The London Knowledge takes years of study, travelling round and round London on a scooter, even for a Londoner. There is no city in the world that compares with The Knowledge in London. And certainly not in Scotland.

Re:Competition Sucks

[jxander]

Entrapment. You can't hail an uber taxi on the street. Uber will never pull up and ask if you need a lift (lyft) You have you request them specifically via their website or phone app.

If a cop calls you, asks you to perform an illegal action, and then arrests/tickets you for performing said illegal action: entrapment.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

None of which is relevant given that Uber in the UK only employes licensed Private Hire drivers with licensed Private Hire cars.

Re:Competition Sucks

[jxander]

But Uber/Lyft doesn't offer services to passing strangers. You can't raise you arm to hail an Uber-cab. You have to call them (via phone app) and specifically request a ride to/from a location.

Similar loophole to all the craigs list prostitutes. A cop cannot respond to the ads and say "Hello, I would like to exchange money for sex," and then arrest anyone who says "OK." That would be entrapment.

Re:Competition Sucks

[jxander]

So, wait ... let me see if I understand this. The argument is that "real" taxi meters read the tires (tyres) to evaluate distance, but Uber uses GPS to evaluate distance. Thus Uber is not a proper taxi and not beholden to proper taxi laws?

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

I consistently feel the same way in all the cases you mentioned. I have no issues using "Luft" to have a private pilot in his Cessna fly me to Las Vegas for a fee - no special FAA license required as he is doing the exact same thing he has been qualified by them to do (take off, fly and land his plane safely). I have no problem with using "Lyfe" to hire a private chef to come to my house to prepare a meal for me without requiring a special food preparation license, inspections or oversight. I rely on the government to license the minimal skills required for the task and the services (Lyft, Luft and Life) themselves to inform me as to which providers go above and beyond that in terms of quality and professionalism.

Re:Competition Sucks

[nblender]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

If you were just some normal Joe Schlub who wouldn't even consider being an Uber driver, but some cop stopped you and induced you into driving him somewhere in exchange for a nice shiny $20 bill, then that's entrapment... If you are a registered Uber driver, and a cop reserves you, and you agree to drive the cop somewhere, then that it something you would normally do and is not entrapment.

At least that's how I read it and have always understood it.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

Taximeters were never meant to be a privilege. They are there to protect the public. They are specific approved machines, inspected and sealed by the licensing body, that sets a maximum charge for a journey. They have other requirements like the display has to be visible to the passenger, and there has to be a flag that indicates when a fare is being charged, also connected to the For Hire light.

In none of the significant ways does an iPhone app match the legal description of a taximeter.

If Black Cab drivers think they have a unique monopoly on the use of software that calculates a fee from a given distance and time, they are insane. But of course they are not insane, they are just grasping the only short straw they see, hoping to keep technology enabled competition at bay.

Re:Competition Sucks

[jxander]

Well, if I were an uber driver, I would be unlikely to drive a cop somewhere.

By showing up in plain clothes and not disclosing his intentions, he's induced me to the above offense which I would otherwise be unlikely to commit.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Maxo-Texas]

You are in denial.

The funny thing about people in denial is that when they finally actually get to court- about 99.9% of them collapse immediately because they really knew all along they were wrong.

About .1% actually believe their crap and fight bitterly to the end. But they usually come off as crazy.

In any case, you can verify what I said is already reality with a trivial google.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Immerman]

True, but they could find someone offering sex for money and then offer to hire them, which is no longer entrapment.

In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely to commit

In Uber it's even easier - anyone signed up as a driver is presumably intending to take on passengers, and their rating history will show that they have done so before, so it's very hard for them to argue that they would have been unlikely to commit the crime if the officer hadn't made the offer. With a good lawyer they could perhaps argue that they wouldn't have committed that *particular* instance of the crime without the officer's participation, but in a world where kids get sent to prison because a cute undercover officer talks them in to tracking down some drugs for them I doubt that will carry much weight.

Re:Competition Sucks

[s73v3r]

If Uber was lobbying for getting rid of the cabbie license, or was requiring cabbie licenses, then you'd have a point. But they're not, so you don't.

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

In any case, you can verify what I said is already reality with a trivial google.

If he were willing and able to do that simple task he would have already. For some people reality is overrated.

Re:Competition Sucks

[s73v3r]

The problem is that the insider who hold the licenses (usually gained with great effort) want to keep the outsiders out.

Presumably because they paid quite a bit for them. It's not at all fair that someone else comes in to try and take your customers who hasn't had to do that.

Re:Competition Sucks

[s73v3r]

Otherwise, I do have a question: why the demand for "commercial insurance" in the first place?

Because they are operating in a commercial manner. And considering that they are doing that, and driving much more than the average person, they are more likely to get into an accident.

Also, most auto insurance setups actually do cover the passengers in your vehicle should they get injured, so, well - what's the beef?

Most auto insurance setups will expressly NOT cover a crash or injury if it was determined that you were using your vehicle in a commercial manner, which is what this would be.

One caveat, though: if the rider signed a waiver online that lists the risks, and requires him to acknowledge and agree to them before ordering a ride, he very well wouldn't have much of a case unless the driver were drunk or high or etc.

I would posit that any such waiver be invalid.

Re:Competition Sucks

[TechyImmigrant]

That makes no sense.

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

Whether or not it is fair depends on how much you paid for those licenses and how much you got out of them, doesn't it? If you weren't making a lot of extra money per year because of the license than you were a fool for buying it in the first place. If you bought one last month and haven't had a chance to recoup some of the costs then you're a fool for not seeing the potential risk to your business from Uber, Lyft, et al.

Re:Competition Sucks

[s73v3r]

How in the bloody hell is that entrapment?

If a cop calls you, asks you to perform an illegal action, and then arrests/tickets you for performing said illegal action: entrapment.

No, that definition is completely incorrect. If they coerce you into performing an action that you otherwise would not have done, that is entrapment. It would be almost impossible for someone who is signed up as an Uber/Lyft driver to argue this, as they very clearly would have done the action without the police around.

Re:Competition Sucks

[alexander_686]

Economist calls it "Rent Seeking". Taxi drivers make surplus profits because there is an artificial scarcity in the market.

Barons used to give the King sacks of gold to collect rent from lands forever. Just because Barons paid big bucks does not mean it is right. Society would be overall better off if the cap were abolished. If you want to argue that taxi drivers are not nobility and should not be punished the answer is not to keep the system in place. The city could buy out the licenses and lift the requirements. Slowly flood the market over 10 to 20 years. Etc.

On the other hand, most cities regulate cab fares down, cutting into their profits. Instead of positions trying to figure out the right balance between the number of cabs and fare I would vote for the free market.

Re:Competition Sucks

[s73v3r]

Uh, no. That's not at all how it works. That's like a drug dealer saying he wouldn't have sold the drugs if he knew the person was a cop.

Re:Competition Sucks

[s73v3r]

Ummm, no? They very much can do that, and it is not entrapment. Because the person was doing it anyway, they were not coerced by the cop.

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

Because we routinely hold people who engage in some activity for profit to a higher standard than those that do it for fun.

That is far from a universal standard, but even if it were I'm asking why that should be?

It's the difference between flying yourself and running an air taxi, between having friends over for dinner and opening a restaurant.

Opening a restaurant or flying a jumbo jet are large operations that require special skills and special attention from the government. An individual who flies you in his private plane which he has flown a hundred times or a cook who comes to your house to cook for you should not need a special license or qualification, even if they're paid. I also don't see the need to license every pizza delivery boy, maid, gardener, or babysitter either. Perhaps a business which employees them, but not they themselves.

Re:Competition Sucks

[s73v3r]

So you're saying that the only Uber drivers I'll find are those with commercial licenses? Given how it operates here in the states, I find that notion completely laughable.

Re:Competition Sucks

[alexander_686]

But this is a insider's response.

If you want to braid hair you need to spend 3 to 12 months getting licenses. The hair stylist association claims it is to learn health and safety. In reality it is to keep people out.

I think it is a reasonable question to ask why commercial drivers need to pass a higher standard. It can't be because they are on the road more. I know traveling salesmen who put on far more miles than taxi drivers. For example, are additional sections needed because limos and minibuses are longer and heavier than passage cars?

Re:Competition Sucks

[s73v3r]

If the iPhone app doesn't match the legal description of a taximeter, then that would be a strike against Uber, as they're not using one.

Re:Competition Sucks

[s73v3r]

How is me driving with a stranger more likely to result in an accident than me driving with a friend?

Just one ride? It won't. However, someone who's doing this is likely going to be driving far more than your average driver. Which is where the more likely to result in an accident thing comes from.

Also, the "higher risk" is mostly due to commercial drivers driving ALL the time while "normal" drivers will only do so when they need the car, i.e. the higher risk is due to them being on the road far more often and far longer.

Exactly.

That's not the case with commercial car sharing because they only get to tag along.

No. That's not at all how these services work.

Re:Competition Sucks

[s73v3r]

Wait, why would Uber have a lower license cost than the cabbies who know the town?

Re:Competition Sucks

[nurb432]

Around here, cab drivers are far worse drivers than private citizens.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Trepidity]

Isn't it already standard to have your license at least suspended if you're caught driving uninsured? I don't think I'm proposing some kind of new policy, just enforcing the existing one.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Trepidity]

Interesting, that seems pretty recent. From some googling around, it looks like they introduced it a few months ago. I definitely remember some interviews with their CEO last year where he was strongly insisting that they had no obligation to offer such insurance. Perhaps his lawyers overruled him?

Re:Competition Sucks

[Trepidity]

But you have a passenger in the back... Just a friend of mine, giving him a lift. It's on the way.

Wouldn't it be pretty easy for police to disprove this claim by subpoenaing Uber's records? If a car is carrying an Uber passenger, Uber has that information, timestamped and with the driver's name and a log of GPS coordinates, all stored in the trip record.

Re:Competition Sucks

[N1AK]

If that's the case then I have no understanding of the situation.

You must be new to discussing on the internet. You're supposed to claim I'm lying and insult me ;)

Re:Competition Sucks

[swillden]

Or maybe they just decided it was the easiest way to make that particular issue go away.

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

Even if they have no legal obligation it may still make sense from a business or public relations standpoint.

Re:Competition Sucks

[praxis]

If that's the case then I have no understanding of the situation.

You must be new to discussing on the internet. You're supposed to claim I'm lying and insult me ;)

Why? You presented pretty clear evidence that I failed to consider. Rather than waste both of our times, I cede the point.

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

However, someone who's doing this is likely going to be driving far more than your average driver. Which is where the more likely to result in an accident thing comes from.

Which is why insurance for all drivers would be more accurate if they charged per mile driven, rather than use this crude estimation.

Also, the "higher risk" is mostly due to commercial drivers driving ALL the time while "normal" drivers will only do so when they need the car, i.e. the higher risk is due to them being on the road far more often and far longer.

If drivers are significantly more likely to get into an accident because they are tired and overworked (see Tracy Morgan incident) then they should be taken off the road, not charged more for insurance.

Re:Competition Sucks

[swillden]

Uber does not provide that level of insurance. It provides only insurance to the passenger, not the driver or third parties

No. Uber provides coverage up to $1M per accident in automobile liability insurance. So any liability arising from the auto accident is covered.

http://blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsurance

http://blogcdn.uber.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/commercial-insurance-policy.pdf

Re:Competition Sucks

[Darinbob]

But the taxi companies DO have to pay for the licenses, so when uber bypasses all the laws and regulations then it is indeed unfair to those who do follow the rules. In other words, uber is cheating and making up excuses about it. It's like when amazon failed to collect sales tax and people used them precisely because they were cheaper than the competition which had to collect tax, then politicians naively backed them up for fear that the internet would be killed if they tried to enforce existing rules.

If there are existing rules, then protest those rules if you don't like them. But breaking the rules is absolutely unfair to the competition that feels compelled to follow them because of ethics or morality. There is essentially zero difference between uber and a traditional limousine service except for a hipster phone app.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Darinbob]

Well then, I'm going to be hip and disruptive by violating all sorts of rules. No more taxes for me, and I'll jaywalk whenever I want (those silly traffic rules are for stupid people and not me), I'll open up a day care center in my home (it's ok because I'll have a phone app for it which makes it different and not subject to rules), and dammit, I'm going to mix my recyclables in with my garbage! Disruption!

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

Good for you! I fully support your efforts to get rid of ridiculous, outdated laws - you are truly a man of principle. Of course, part of being such a standup guy is paying the price when you get caught, even if it's unfair, so you should be prepared for that too.

I'm totally with you that jaywalking should not be a crime when it does not cause a hazard, but you're going to have to explain to me why you think zipping through a red light should not be illegal or that a day care need not be licensed.

Breaking laws just because you think you're special and you think you can get away with it just makes you an asshole. Not getting a license for your daughter to babysit a neighbor == principle. Not getting a license to run a day care with dozens of toddlers == asshole. Can you really not see a difference?

Re:Competition Sucks

[lrocker]

Insurances never make anything more secure. They make the loss more bearable. At best.

Insurance makes many activities safer. See IIHS in the US for example.
At my place of work, Fire regulations are rudimentary and almost laughable. But when the insurance inspector pays a visit, we snap to attention and clean up our act. They have far more stringent requirements for things like fire safety and business continuity planning, and there's money on the line if we don't follow their recommended best practices.

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

But breaking the rules is absolutely unfair to the competition that feels compelled to follow them because of ethics or morality.

It wasn't until I saw this part that I realized your entire post was meant to be ironic. Good job, made me laugh.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Opportunist]

I think that's a global problem.

Maybe that's the real reason why they pay a higher premium?

Re:Competition Sucks

[demonlapin]

I get (and mostly agree with) your point, but a license to drive a cab/limo is barely more expensive than a regular one - in my state, $5 more every four years. It does require a medical exam and a scheduled road test, but those are one-time expenses. It's not like a year-long training program.

Re:Competition Sucks

[demonlapin]

The guy who flies a private plane has already undergone an FAA medical exam. In my state, at least, the medical exam and a slightly more strenuous road test is the only real difference between a private driver's license and a taxi/limo driver's license (vehicles holding 16 or more people are different, which is why they make 15-passenger vans). That's not a big barrier to entry.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Stuarticus]

There is a free market, if you think a taxi is too expensive then don't get in it.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Stuarticus]

Make sure you ask him if he's a cop. If he is he totally has to say yes.

Re:Competition Sucks

[king neckbeard]

For commercial passenger transport, I think a moderate fine would be more appropriate, and maybe a point on your insurance. Revocation of a license isn't typical for driving above weight, which I would say is a bigger infraction.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Azghoul]

So basically, the tax cartel in Scotland has successfully erected numerous barriers to entry that prevent competitors from entering the market. Congratulations, I guess, if you're proud of that sort of thing.

Re:Competition Sucks

[alexander_686]

Not beaning forced to buy a good makes it a market - it does not make it free market however. A free market would allow competitors to enter the market which they can't.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Stuarticus]

Evidently they can as there are always new firms opening and new drivers starting.

Re:Competition Sucks

[alexander_686]

No they can't. Read further up the thread. Most cities, and all the cities the article cites, have a limit on the number of cabs. All of these cities have hit their limit ages ago. When new licenses are issued they are costly. Last I heard New York was selling newly minted licenses at over a million.

The entire points of the licenses are to constrain the number of cabs out there at an artificially low level – that is the limiting factor on new competitors. I am arguing it should be the free market that determines it.

See this link for more info.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

Uber UK doesn't hire them unless they are licensed private hire drivers. And you can't get a private hire license without a driving license, commercial insurance, a criminal records check, etc.

So yes you won't find one that hasn't.

I don't care how laughable you find it. Not everywhere is like the states.

Re:Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

No. Uber cars are licensed Private Hire Vehicles, which in London are not allowed to have Taximeters. Only Taxis are. It makes no sense, but that's the way it is.

In other cities in the UK, the situation varies: some allow private hire vehicles to have taximeters, some require it.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Azghoul]

Bah - tax*i* cartel....

Re:Competition Sucks

[jxander]

If the crimes against Uber and it's ilk were such a slam dunk, then why haven't the cops been ticketing them in droves. According to a Washington Post article last month, Uber is adding close to 20,000 drivers per month. Law enforcement could generate millions by simply issuing citations to them all (plus Lyft, Sidecar, and any others). But they don't. And it's not like they're hard to spot. Uber-taxis have a neon blue U in their window

So you've gotta ask yourself, why aren't Ubers getting ticketted in droves? Do you think Law Enforcement lets them slide out of the goodness of their hearts and a true desire to see the small upstart companies battle the entrenched establishment? Or just because they can't.

Re:Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

It may not be a huge barrier, but it's still an unnecessary barrier without a legitimate or fair purpose, IMO. At one point it probably made sense to license drivers who you call to your house or who pick you up on the street - it provided at least a minimal level of safety and reliability for customers. In cities or countries with high crime and corrupt or incompetent police it might still make sense. However, now that just about everyone in most western countries has a mobile phone and internet the safety and accountability has gone way up so the barriers to entry should likewise go down.

Re:Competition Sucks

[jopsen]

My non-expert opinion: Uber has a strong case that the drivers are independent contractors, not employees.

I don't dispute that this is the case under US law... My problem is with this practice of doing this... In the US the same happens to taxi drivers and pizza delivery drivers.
I find it distasteful to cut costs on people who have very little income. Sometimes these people makes below minimum wage. It seems to me like they are trying to exploit the little man. Because people do drive taxies, uber and deliver pizzas for a living, making them contractors is a distasteful way to cut money from people who make very little.

Re:Competition Sucks

[Firethorn]

It seems to me like they are trying to exploit the little man. Because people do drive taxies, uber and deliver pizzas for a living, making them contractors is a distasteful way to cut money from people who make very little.

I think that at least the pizza places got slapped down for trying to say their drivers were independent contractors. Taxi drivers are more complicated.

Remember it's about control. A true independent contractor has to have much more freedom in controlling how they work. Like I mentioned, somebody who's driving 'for' Uber can actually decide his or her own hours, work with competing dispatch companies, decide on what individual fares to accept or not accept with the only penalty being not getting paid for that individual job.

If the pizza driver isn't being allowed to also deliver competitor's pizzas or even pull jobs for Uber during slow periods they aren't a contractor.

Disruptive technology

[Camel Pilot]

That is why they call it Disruptive Technology... in this case the reaction is quite literally disruptive.

Re:Disruptive technology

[Firethorn]

The required licenses must be expensive for a reason.

Existing taxi companies lobby for restrictions on the number of cars... No reductions for them, of course. But we have to 'keep the roads clear'.

A LOT of the taxi requirements in many areas* amount to anti-competitive measures along the lines of the rules that ban Tesla from selling cars in many states due to independent franchise requirements.

*given that taxi rules will vary down to cities in most cases,

Re:Disruptive technology

[JMZero]

Taxi licenses/medallions aren't really about any of that - they're about limiting the number of taxis. After that, it's just supply and demand as medallions are resold.

For an example of how crazy this gets: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix...

So the reasonable complaint here would be something like "there'll be too many taxis if their numbers aren't capped somehow" or "the competition here is completely unfair". Insurance (and associated regulation) would mostly be a separate matter, and have very little to do with that $200,000.

Re:Disruptive technology

[bluefoxlucid]

The reaction is an illegal impedance of traffic, disrupting economic activity and costing millions of dollars. In the United States, peaceful protests are protected speech; physically impeding the movement of any person is not peaceful protest, and you can be arrested if your protest does not part and allow safe passage to all who don't care for your shenanigans. Clogging the streets in protest is, thus, a criminal act; I would be surprised if the UK considered such things legal, rather than an organized protectionist racket.

Re:Disruptive technology

[jandrese]

The required licenses must be expensive for a reason

The reason is to create a barrier to entry into the taxicab market so the established players can charge higher fares. That's the only thing those licenses provide. The cab companies are complaining about the system that they themselves set up.

Re:Disruptive technology

[meta-monkey]

There's a closed number of doctors?

Re:Disruptive technology

[meta-monkey]

You can strike and protest in America, too. But you can't block access to public roadways nor can you block entrance and egress to the employer you're striking from. At that point the protest is no longer peaceful, as force is being used to block free access.

Re:Disruptive technology

[meta-monkey]

The fascist control of doctors in America comes indirectly via the American Medical Association. They only accredit so many medical schools, and medical schools can only take so many students. But there isn't a hard limiting of doctors like there is taxi cab drivers via the medallion system.

Re:Disruptive technology

[meta-monkey]

I was in France during a transit strike a few years back. We were taking a train from Paris to Bordeaux and they still ran the train, they refused to take anybody's tickets. People just hopped on and we wound up spending the trip on the floor of a baggage train.

Re:Disruptive technology

[N1AK]

If you make it so that there are too few taxis in a city it doesn't work, the same if you give a licence to anybody. Too many taxis and you end up with each taxi not making enough for a living.
There has to be an equilibrium somewhere. And no sometimes the market does not self regulate, hence laws and regulations. Uber is a taxi system without calling it explicitely a taxi system. It evades the rules and regulations put by the legislator to enforce a viable taxi system. Hence why taxis are demonstrating in london, madrid, paris, berlin, rome etc... It's not a small issue and no I'm not a taxi driver.

It's nonsense to think that taxi services need a state mandated 'correct number' to operate. They don't across the vast majority of the earth's surface and yet taxi services still exist pretty much everywhere. If there are too many taxi drivers and costs go down then less drivers will enter the market and more will leave, when prices go up it will draw in more supply. Of all occupations this is likely one of the best examples of one where the free market can quickly come to an equilibrium. It's extremely naive to assume that regulation is automatically proof that the market can't self regulate. Just look at the price of taxi medallions in New York which is a system created in the 1930s to see how badly wrong regulation can go if allowed to continue because "regulation must be needed if regulation already exists". Taxi drivers aren't demonstrating in the UK because Uber avoids regulations. They're demonstrating because their market is being taken from them.

Re:Disruptive technology

[N1AK]

The right to strike is one of those rights you silly americans don't have. or had in the past and have forgotten about it.
To strike is absolutely legal in europe.

That silly American seems smart enough to know the difference between striking, and blocking a public highway; the fact you don't doesn't bode well for assessments of your intelligence...

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

Uber is a taxi system without calling it explicitely a taxi system. It evades the rules and regulations put by the legislator to enforce a viable taxi system. Hence why taxis are demonstrating in london, madrid, paris, berlin, rome etc... It's not a small issue and no I'm not a taxi driver.

False, false and false. In London Uber is a Private Hire Car company, obeying all the rules and regulations. The London licensing body has come out and said as much.

It's nonsense to think that taxi services need a state mandated 'correct number' to operate. They don't across the vast majority of the earth's surface and yet taxi services still exist pretty much everywhere. If there are too many taxi drivers and costs go down then less drivers will enter the market and more will leave, when prices go up it will draw in more supply. Of all occupations this is likely one of the best examples of one where the free market can quickly come to an equilibrium.

They will obviously come to an equilibrium regarding the earnings and the number of drivers. But there is no guaranteeing that that equilibrium will actually be good for anyone. That equilibrium may be at the poverty level, which wouldn't be good for drivers. It may be at the level where streets are clogged with taxis, which wouldn't be good for other road users. It may be at a level where it's impossible to get a taxi to certain locations or times of day (The famous "I don't go south of the River".)

The Taxi market is certainly one where the tragedy of the commons MIGHT apply.

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

Thankfully in Britain we still live in a democracy, and people are allowed to demonstrate. Demonstrations normally involve disrupting something. Indeed the police knew about the protest and limited it to one hour. Though I don't know whether the Taxi Drivers pushed it for longer.

What you do or believe in the USA is of no significance.

Re:Disruptive technology

[king neckbeard]

You've provided some factual statements, but not justifications for such policies. AFAIK, we don't have those limits because the market works better for sorting those things out.

Re:Disruptive technology

[bluefoxlucid]

So if I come to your house, stand on the sidewalk, and refuse to let you reach your car so that you can go to work because you work for a disgusting coal power plant that spews radioactive mercury waste into the sky, that's legal?

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

That sounds like secondary picketing. Which is illegal. What the taxi drivers did was:
a) Demonstrating, not picketing.
b) Where they work. Not in a secondary place.

Re:Disruptive technology

[cheesybagel]

Some professions have a closed number. Think doctors or notaries for instance. Do you find that anticompetitive ?

Yes.

Milton Friedman - The Real World Effects Of Unions.

Re:Disruptive technology

[bluefoxlucid]

I thought "where they work" was "the public roadway", meaning it's impossible for people to drive on those roadways to go from their house to their place of work, their place of shopping, a restaurant, and so on.

In the US, you are allowed to have a voice; you are not allowed to restrict the movement of others. You can picket in the streets or in front of businesses or in town square in front of city hall all you want; but when someone wants to pass, you move out of the way. You can raise signs and call them bad names, but you can't impede them.

This stems largely from the concept of a peaceful protest being peaceful, rather than forceful. Unions engage in peaceful protest all the time; you're allowed to cut a picket line, and they have to let you through. In some cases, the protesters refused to move, while a wage-worker who depended on the income from actually working their job wanted to pass. Abusive language coupled with a desperate need to collect paychecks to feed families eventually transitions to fists and broken faces, which is suddenly not peaceful; we like to interpret the forceful barring of entry to the place of work as passive-aggressive, and prohibit that sort of thing.

The opposite behavior is completely separate, but also comes up here: sometimes people throw buckets of animal blood at other people, both at abortion clinics and fur shops. That's direct aggression, rather than passive aggression, and, I would assume, is universally illegal.

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

Again, what happens in the US is irrelevant.

What the taxi drivers did in London was perfectly acceptable, legal, and even approved by the police (for a limited period.)

Re:Disruptive technology

[omnichad]

But by blocking the road, which is explicitly illegal - at least according to the UK Government's own interpretation:
https://www.gov.uk/industrial-...
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/b...

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

I already pointed out it wasn't a picket, it was a demonstration.

Re:Disruptive technology

[omnichad]

Those pages are about pickets, but refer to laws that cover any demonstration.

Article 11 of the Convention of Human Rights (1998):

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

(2) No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, or the police, or of the administration of the State.

The important part of this is "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." In UK law, use of the highway is considered a legal right. A partial blockage of a road is OK, but a total blockage infringes on the rights of others.

Re:Disruptive technology

[Firethorn]

Some professions have a closed number. Think doctors or notaries for instance. Do you find that anticompetitive?

Yes, and the point is?

If there's too many taxis to the point nobody can make money they'll go out of business until the number is at a sustainable level, with only the most efficient surviving.

Same with doctors, really. Increase the number of doctors and availability would increase even as you need to work them fewer hours.

Re:Disruptive technology

[j-beda]

Commercial insurance doesn't offer any more protection or security than personal insurance does. They charge more because they can, not because it conveys any real benefit.

In a competitive market, the differences in price between "personal" and "commercial" insurance prices would depend primarily on the statistics - I would not be surprised to find that for a taxi-like business there are more insurance claims per policy per year than for personal insurance claims, if only due to the greater number of miles driven.

Re:Disruptive technology

[shutdown -p now]

Some professions have a closed number. Think doctors or notaries for instance. Do you find that anticompetitive ?

Yes, of course. How could it possibly be interpreted as anything other than that? This particular form of disrupting competition is actually one of the most ancient ones, it's what medieval trade guilds did.

Re:Disruptive technology

[shutdown -p now]

Too many taxis and you end up with each taxi not making enough for a living.

So? That means that some people will drop out of business, and the number goes back down. What more, since different taxis operate differently, and some are more efficient than others, the ones that are less efficient and hence less profitable will drop out first, so the competition works to keep the strongest players in the game, while also keeping the prices as low as they can get - which is in the direct interest of the customers. That's exactly how it is supposed to work in a free market. There are cases when free markets don't work, but I don't see why they wouldn't here.

Re:Disruptive technology

[Issarlk]

The only disruptive technology here is not having to take a 270000$ loan to be able to do taxi work.

Re:Disruptive technology

[Stuarticus]

...you're allowed to cut a picket line, and they have to let you through. In some cases, the protesters refused to move, while a wage-worker who depended on the income from actually working their job wanted to pass

Those commie Union workers don't work for a wage? Just copies of Das Kapital and good will?

Re:Disruptive technology

[sFurbo]

What is the difference between demonstrating and picketing? That the intended effect of a demonstration is to spread information, while the intended effect of picketing is to annoy? That picketing takes place at the thing that is being complained about? Or something else?

Re:Disruptive technology

[sFurbo]

That equilibrium may be at the poverty level, which wouldn't be good for drivers.

If there are other, more well paid jobs to have, it wont be, as taxi drivers will chose other occupations. If there aren't, that is a much larger problem than the amount of taxis.

It may be at the level where streets are clogged with taxis, which wouldn't be good for other road users.

A taxi is not much more road space consuming per traveler than having a private car. If the equilibrium amount of taxis is where the roads are clogged, road pricing (or even tax on cars or fuel) is a better system to reduce clogging than restricting the number of taxis.

It may be at a level where it's impossible to get a taxi to certain locations or times of day (The famous "I don't go south of the River".)

If there customers paying enough to get south of the river, it wont be. If there isn't, restricting the amount of taxis is only going to make the problem worse.
In fact, that last one sounds like a problem introduced by an artificial limit on the number of taxis. Do you have any examples of it in cities where this is not the case?

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

If there are other, more well paid jobs to have, it wont be, as taxi drivers will chose other occupations.

Real people don't behave like numbers in an economics text-book. This is easy to see as economists are wrong as often as they are right when they try to predict a future trend.

Take the acting profession in the UK. A poll was recently done of people who consider themselves professional actors - to the extent that they spend UKP 150 on a professional casting website.

The average wage in the UK is UKP 26,500 per annum. Poverty level for a single person with no dependants is said to be below UKP 6600.

Only 2% of actors were earning UKP 20,000 or more.
75% were earning less than £5000.

A taxi is not much more road space consuming per traveler than having a private car.

Sure, and if well balanced, it's better to have taxis in use than cars parked. But the point is that your equilibrium may not be at the point that's well balanced for this. And taxis running round without passengers are extra vehicles on the road.

My point remains beyond dispute. The equilibrium that is reached naturally is not logically connected to any of the levels that are actually good for the various different people affected.

Water "finds it's own level". But that level may be a flood or a drought. Most of the time we don't have a problem with water's level. But that's because we have adapted to what water conditions normally are, avoiding desert and (mostly) avoiding flood plain Why should we have to adapt to the natural level of taxis, rather than manage the level to suit us?

Re:Disruptive technology

[bluefoxlucid]

Union workers work for a wage, and are expected to forgo wages while protesting. People try to cut the picket line to work anyway, which is frowned upon by the protesters; the point is it's illegal to prevent them from doing so. Restraint of a person from a legal act is considered not peaceful.

Re:Disruptive technology

[sFurbo]

Real people don't behave like numbers in an economics text-book. This is easy to see as economists are wrong as often as they are right when they try to predict a future trend.
Take the acting profession in the UK. A poll was recently done of people who consider themselves professional actors - to the extent that they spend UKP 150 on a professional casting website.
The average wage in the UK is UKP 26,500 per annum. Poverty level for a single person with no dependants is said to be below UKP 6600.
Only 2% of actors were earning UKP 20,000 or more.
75% were earning less than £5000.

I don't think that example shows economists being wrong, it just shows people putting value in being an actor, enough to offset the (extremely) low wage. It does show me being wrong - I had not accounted for that possibility. But do you want to prohibit most of these people from being actors in order to increase the wage of the rest? If you don't, then why would you want it for taxis? If you do, I can only say that I disagree, that I think people should be allowed to choose a untraditional life if that makes them happy, but I have no arguments save that.

Why should we have to adapt to the natural level of taxis, rather than manage the level to suit us?

Because the natural level is a Pareto efficient state, which is something we should strive for from a resource allocation point of view. And because it follows from accepting that people are autonomous agents, and have the most knowledge about their own lifes, which is something we should strive for from an ethical point of view.

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

Because the natural level is a Pareto efficient state,

No it's not. Consider the tragedy of the commons. It proves beyond doubt that the natural exploitation of a resource is not the one that is optimally best for most people.

And I'm suggesting that supplying a city with taxis is certainly one that could be a tragedy of the commons.

And because it follows from accepting that people are autonomous agents, and have the most knowledge about their own lifes, which is something we should strive for from an ethical point of view.

No man is an island. What one person does affects other people. Thinking abut what is best for society provides better outcomes than promoting everyone acting in their own self-interest. Selfishness is not ethics.

Re:Disruptive technology

[david_thornley]

They're complaining because the system is falling apart and leaving them broke.

Under the older system, somebody would acquire a taxi license or medallion or whatever, and have an opportunity to make money in a certain way from it. On retirement, that person could sell that license to the next person. This has been going on for a long time. People invest a lot of money in an asset that they can get a revenue stream from and then sell it. They were basing their financial future on the system continuing. They had good reason to believe it would.

Unfortunately, the system was based on artificial scarcity, and there are other ways to get similar service nowadays. This means that the license owners are facing a very serious financial loss. They won't be able to make the same income as before, and they certainly won't be able to recoup their investment. They may have large loans that still have to be paid back, unless they declare bankruptcy. (Cabbies who lease licenses may be in a similar position, finding their income drop and the lease payments still owing.)

So, yeah, sucks to be them. But we could extend them a little sympathy, and recognize that they are trying to avoid being financially devastated.

Re:Disruptive technology

[ColdSam]

All the problems you describe can be solved by the economists that you disparage and with newer technology it's really not that hard. You implement a road use fee (by mile or by time) so that the roads aren't clogged with useless or unused vehicles (e.g. taxis driving around with no passengers). You allow them to charge extra to drive people "south of the river" (and charge less to come back so taxis don't come back empty).

This is very different and much more flexible than the crude methods of limiting the number of taxis by law or mandating that drivers MUST take you to any destination you specify. It's simply about allowing the market enough flexibility to find the right equilibrium while forcing drivers to pay for the external costs (e.g. pollution, congestion, ...) of their activity.

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

I'm not promoting the particular management of limiting the number of taxis, but the general principle that roads in general and taxis in particular need standards, regulation and management. Your road fees and varying of the fee structure is just another way of doing this, and I'm not against it, so long as taxis and taxi drivers are still licensed. (The license procedure checks for things like ability to drive, insurance, a suitable vehicle, etc.)

Re:Disruptive technology

[ColdSam]

Ability to drive, insurance and suitable vehicle are all things that every driver should have. Why add extra constraints that you wouldn't have for a pizza delivery boy or even someone with a long commute?

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

In London Taxi/Private hire driver licenses include an enhanced criminal records check, higher standards on the vehicle than private vehicles, a check that the taximeter has not been tampered with (so they can't overcharge), commercial rather than private insurance, etc.

A pizza boy doesn't have a duty of care to old or disabled people or children. They generally buzz around on scooters, and have a high accident rate. Not something anyone wants for public transport.

Re:Disruptive technology

[ColdSam]

Why is the duty of a paid driver to care for the old, disabled or children? Their responsibility is simply to transport an individual safely from point A to point B. Any extra services are optional and a company that wants to provide those can, even charging an extra fee if that makes sense for their business model.

Your pizza boy example shows the hypocrisy of your viewpoint. If they are so dangerous to the public then shouldn't they be equally regulated, if not more so? Why do you think it's okay for incompetent drivers to fill the streets of London as long as they don't do it with a willing passenger?

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

Why is the duty of a paid driver to care for the old, disabled or children? Their responsibility is simply to transport an individual safely from point A to point B.

The bleakness of your world view is depressing. Why? It's the law. And it's the law because it's a good thing. It's also a moral duty.

Why do you think it's okay for incompetent drivers to fill the streets of London as long as they don't do it with a willing passenger?

I don't. Your questions are becoming child like.

Re:Disruptive technology

[ColdSam]

The bleakness of your world view is depressing.

Really? Your ideal world is a nanny state that prevents anyone from doing any activity the state (i.e. you) decides is not in their long term best interest. It requires laws for people to be considerate and civil to their neighbors, customers and passersby. I like my world much better, thank you.

Why? It's the law. And it's the law because it's a good thing. It's also a moral duty.

You have a law in London that says "Taxi drivers must take responsibility for the old and disabled. Everybody else, just ignore them?" I think your law is terrible and the time of blindly following stupid laws is long past.

I don't. Your questions are becoming child like.

The questions are simple, not childlike, and are necessary to point out that your philosophy is inconsistent and impossible. Where you get this romantic idea that taxi drivers are special guardians of society is beyond me, perhaps that's part of London cab lore, but it applies nowhere else in the world. In my bleak world view, taxi drivers, pizza delivery boys, fedex delivery men ALL drive safely and take on a shared responsibility for the weaker members of society just like everyone else.

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

You have a law in London that says "Taxi drivers must take responsibility for the old and disabled. Everybody else, just ignore them?" I think your law is terrible and the time of blindly following stupid laws is long past. ...
The questions are simple, not childlike

You ask a question, then assume an answer of your own, and argue it as if that's what you have been told. That's childlike. And it makes for an uninteresting exchange.

Re:Disruptive technology

[ColdSam]

Except you don't answer the questions, so I'm forced to figure out the answer from your evasive responses. Give a full answer that actually addresses the inconsistency I point out in your stated philosophy and I wouldn't have to take shortcuts.

WHY are taxi/Uber drivers special? You can't or won't address that properly. If you say that it is because of X (e.g. "it's the law" or "it's their duty") then that means that X doesn't apply to the OTHER cases (e.g. pizza delivery boys et al.) This is just simple logic.

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

Except you don't answer the questions, so I'm forced to figure out the answer from your evasive responses.

Don't bother to reply to this, as you'll only feel you have to make excuses for yourself. But that's simply not true. There were no unanswered questions at the point at which you started saying I have opinions that don't have. My disengagement from the discussion only happened afterwards. Because you killed it with this dishonest and boorish approach.

Re:Disruptive technology

[ColdSam]

I suggest you review the thread and/or have someone explain the basics of logic to you. If I ask you why a dog is required to be on a leash outdoors, but not a cat and you say that it's because a dog has four legs, then I am not going out on a limb by suggesting that you think a cat does not have four legs.

Re:Disruptive technology

[ColdSam]

You have some unique views about the job description and special duties of cab drivers that seem to put you at odds with the rest of the world. Perhaps this view is shared by most Londoners in which case companies like Uber will never be successful there. However, I expect that in twenty years when Londoners travel to other cities they will be pleasantly surprised by the cheap and convenient transportation options that are available compared to their own which have remained expensive and inefficient.

Re:Disruptive technology

[BasilBrush]

I suggest you look at the thread and stop being a cunt.

Good advert for Uber

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the protest backfired - drove more people than ever to download Uber in London

http://order-order.com/2014/06...

Re:Good advert for Uber

[j-beda]

Well the protest backfired - drove more people than ever to download Uber in London

http://order-order.com/2014/06...

"Uber is reporting an 850% increase in app downloads today"

Oops. I thought that might happen.

Perhaps the headline would be less confusing

[Chris Mattern]

If it read, "*Anti-*Uber Demonstrations Snarl Traffic..."

scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[Thud457]

$300,000 for a license to operate a cab?!!
Look at me, mr internet entrepreneur guy, disruptin' your business model because I'm a special fuckin' snowflake and the rules don't apply to me!

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[Trepidity]

In Europe that isn't even usually the case. In Sweden, one of the countries where Uber is whining about "regulation", the taxi market is deregulated. Anyone can offer taxi services, at any price, providing they meet four basic consumer-protection requirements:

1. They have a commercial driver's license

2. They have commercial vehicle insurance

3. They post their rates openly and visibly

4. They have a functioning meter, which is inspected occasionally to ensure that it is billing the same amount as the posted rates

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[Nezic]

You may need to hash out your post a bit.. I can't tell if you're mad at the cost of the licenses or mad at uber drivers not needing to pay it.

Anyway, if it really costs THAT much for a taxi license then the regulators are crazy. Why aren't the protests directed at that?

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than all these regulations I'm about to list, it's completely deregulated!

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Does 4 rules make your head swim? Nomadic Middle-Easterners in the distant past, praying to invisible men in the sky could deal with 10. I guess you can't expect that much out of the modern ape-man.

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[rasmusbr]

In Europe that isn't even usually the case. In Sweden, one of the countries where Uber is whining about "regulation", the taxi market is deregulated. Anyone can offer taxi services, at any price, providing they meet four basic consumer-protection requirements:

1. They have a commercial driver's license

2. They have commercial vehicle insurance

3. They post their rates openly and visibly

4. They have a functioning meter, which is inspected occasionally to ensure that it is billing the same amount as the posted rates

And since the Swedish authorities have not cracked down on Uber we can probably surmise that rules 3 and 4 will get rewritten or reinterpreted to allow what Uber is doing. Uber is in compliance in spirit (if not in practice) since they do advertise their prices to anyone who has the ability to buy a ride and the driver does have a meter app on his or her phone.

The real wrongdoing here by the Swedish authorities is that they're not (not yet) giving other companies the same pass that they're giving Uber.

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[N1AK]

As someone has already said a system with various requirements, even just those 4 isn't de-regulated. Taxi's shouldn't be de-regulated imo however the requirement to post prices and have a functioning meter are clearly outdated and stop a useful service model. An Uber user can easily see the rates and uses shared GPS tracking for metering, so those regulations stop wannabe Uber users from getting a service while doing nothing to benefit anyone else. if the rules were amended to say that drivers must be aware of pricing before entering the vehicle (allowing web booking) then it makes everyone happy.

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[Zironic]

Sweden is not giving Uber a pass. Swedish law currently requires a meter except in particularly unique circumstances such as visiting heads of state. Uber applied for exception and got denied.

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[omnichad]

Those 4 rules are called regulations. They were just pointing out your nonsense wording.

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[Trepidity]

In economics, a "deregulated" market does not mean "anarchy with no laws". It's a specific term meaning taking a market that traditionally has government-fixed prices and monopoly operators, and opening it up to a market that any entrant willing to meet some basic requirements can compete in.

For example, when Texas deregulated its electricity-supply market, this meant that the former utility-pricing model was replaced by a market model, in which consumers shop around and sign contracts with power-plant operators, who can choose to differentiate themselves on various grounds (price, customer service, "greenness", etc.). It does not mean that Texas has abolished all laws relating to power-generation: a "deregulated" electricity market does not mean that you no longer have to follow engineering standards or safety regulations.

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[Trepidity]

Sweden is pretty capitalist really, in the sense of being very big on using markets as mechanisms. They're just capitalists who also have a strong social safety net (aka welfare state).

Another transportation-related segment where they are more market-oriented than in the U.S. is in public transit. They have a large public transit system paid for by taxes. But, it is operated by private contractors, through an open bidding process. As a result, unlike in most American cities, Swedish bus and train drivers are not government employees.

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[omnichad]

Can you really deny the hilarity of your post? It only said two things - it's deregulated. Here are the regulations.

We're not all in the field of Economics, but yes, I do know what deregulated means. Even If you were speaking only to economists, that irony wouldn't go unnoticed.

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[TsuruchiBrian]

This is a good example of how regulations can stifle the market and have unintended consequences. They all seem like reasonable regulations, but #3 and #4 make unnecessary assumptions about the way taxis work. The spirit of this regulation seems to be to make sure that customers are informed about how much they will need to pay before being obligated to pay it. Uber absolutely follows the spirit of this law, I would argue, even better than traditional taxis. You pay up front because with Uber it can calculate how far the journey will be before actually driving it. This eliminates the need to post rates and to have a meter.

But you are not allowed to follow the spirit of the law. You must follow the letter of the law. The letter of the law would require Uber to follow regulations designed for traditional taxis that for Uber just create unnecessary expenses that then drive up costs for consumers. Many regulations are necessary and work well. It is important to recognize when they become obsolete and to update or remove them. Many times it's better to have fewer regulations if possible, because it makes maintaining them easier and more cost efficient, and therefore more likely.

In many cases when regulations become too complicated, there is a temptation by both citizens and legislators to simply avoid the problems rather than fixing them (e.g. like allowing your garden to become overgrown). By keeping your garden small and manageable, it is more likely that people will be able and willing to keep it maintained.

It sounds like the swedish taxi regulation garden is certainly small enough to manage. So all that is left is to update a few rules for the 21st century. Good job Sweden!

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[Cytotoxic]

Uber works on a fixed price model: I'll give you a ride from X to Y for this amount.

You'd think they could work out something with the government about meters in a case where meters are totally irrelevant.

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[Zironic]

Uber are allowed to run fixed price runs without a meter (For instance the Airport to City and vice versa is a common one) however Uber also runs normal per minute/km prices which require a meter.

In theory their GPS app could get recognised as a meter as long as Uber can prove it won't lie to the goverment.

Re:scabs suck. next you'll skip paying bribes.

[io bus]

I think this makes sense. That way i feel at least quiet safe and can have trust. Well... But i am not a taxi rider most of the time but i am not sure if uber or any other enterprise is better than a regular taxi. Regulation do make sense and i think consumer should be protected so they don't end up with trouble over money or other issues.

If not this...

[suman28]

Something new (i.e driverless Google cars) will come along to threaten their livelyhood. Wouldn't today be the best time to start evaluating a different way to earn a living? How many ways can you possibly protest and keep innovation away from people's daily lives?

Re:If not this...

[funwithBSD]

Start saving for your Johnny Cab franchise today!

Re:If not this...

[funwithBSD]

Sell that medallion now, save the money for a Johnny Cab franchise!

Fighting over horse whip monopoly

[sinij]

Cab drivers are almost thing of the past. Moment automated cars show up there won't be such thing anymore.

200,000 Euros?

[jfbilodeau]

Maybe the problem is not with Uber, but with the cost of being licensed. Is ~200,000 Euros really justified?

Re:200,000 Euros?

[zapatero]

The license and gov't regulation really is the issue of the "fairness" here. The Taxi industry is highly regulated and licensed, in Europe & the U.S... Taxis & Limos that enter an airport area are highly monitored, and regularly fined if it's found by the monitoring police that the vehicle lacks a current license.

Uber side steps all of this gov't regulation, and, say what you will about that regulation, it is unfair to those drivers who are paying the governments the right to pickup and drop-off passengers at the airport. Of course those licensed taxi and limo drivers would be pissed.

One way to make it fair is to drop all the licensing requirements of the taxi drivers.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[Firethorn]

Maybe the problem is not with Uber, but with the cost of being licensed. Is ~200,000 Euros really justified?

200k EU is cheap compared to NYC's $1M medallians.

It's blatently anti-competitive.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is basically a formalized "legitimate" bribe to prevent more competition. The cab companies probably pushed the government to raise their own license fees, impose more and more regulations and limit the number of licenses. The equivalent has happened in many industries where corporations push and push for more and more regulations in order to block competition. Then they complain about all the regulation, but it is only for show since what they really want to say is look at how hard it is to do business only we have all the lawyers and capital and "skills" to do it so competitors need not even try to enter the market.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[dkman]

I agree. That's the point that needs to be looked at.

Also, the idea is that uber drivers do it "once in a while". If someone is using uber to make a little extra money on the side, no big deal. But it someone is using uber to operate his taxi business 40 hours a week, that's a problem.

So perhaps it should be that you need a license if you're taxiing folks more than 4 hours a week.
Or maybe offer some sub-taxi license for those operating less than 10 hours a week that costs 100 euros.

I'm just pulling the numbers out of my butt, but some happy medium should be possible. Of course current taxi drivers won't be happy no matter what because of the "new technology challenges my existence" problem the *AA mafia are still struggling with.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[dj245]

Maybe the problem is not with Uber, but with the cost of being licensed. Is ~200,000 Euros really justified?

200k EU is cheap compared to NYC's $1M medallians.

It's blatently anti-competitive.

No, it is the essence of competition. Every market has rules. The city limits the number of licenses in order to keep the number of taxis reasonable. Many cities also regulate the rates. These are the "rules" of the market. The fact that medallions trade for that much indicates that taxis are still profitable and new players are willing to pay that much for a medallion in order to enter the market. Medallions, in general, are fully transferrable and can be freely sold or traded. New ones are auctioned off periodically. If the market was anticompetitive, the major players would collude and not bid against each other, resulting in lower medallion costs. The fact that people can and do pay that much for one indicates that there is enough competition.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[king neckbeard]

You can argue that these rules are necessary, but don't embarrass yourself by calling it competition.

The fact that people can and do pay that much for one indicates that there is enough competition.

No, it indicates a large disparity in supply and demand. There are lots of potential cabbies that want a medallion, but only a small number of medallions available.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[Firethorn]

The fact that medallions trade for that much indicates that taxis are still profitable and new players are willing to pay that much for a medallion in order to enter the market.

However the medallian trade helps ensure that established players remain established and profitable. Ergo anti-competitive.

My company has a HUGE advantage if it bought the first 1k or so medallions when they were first issues for $10 or so and has kept them ever since.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[mirix]

Then they should revoke them every few years and have a lottery for who gets a new one.

of course companies will be massively butthurt by that, though.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[Darinbob]

If this is true then the solution is to petition the government to change the rules. However Uber and other faux-taxi companies are not doing this and are instead blatantly breaking the rules and claiming it is all ok because the business model is a bit different.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[aberglas]

Here in Australia (and I think the UK) a taxi driver license is cheap. But you also need a taxi CAR license costs several hundred thousand dollars. Nobody wealthy enough to own a taxi license actually drives a taxi. So taxi drivers are dirt poor, usually Indians on dubious visas. But the taxi owners love their right to tax fairs. Currently about 55% of a fair goes to the owner.

Uber is great if it breaks up that nonsense.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[Darinbob]

Well, Uber is based in San Francisco, a city where every driver is already incompetent and driving around in unsafe cars, whether they're taxis or uber freelancers or residents.

Many taxi companies already have uber like services; they have phone apps you can use (the main thing most fans are gushing about). What they don't do however is undercut the competition by hiring incompetent drivers, or have drivers who refuse to pick up passengers who give out bad ratings on the phone apps.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[ColdSam]

If taxi companies had a quality app with the same features as Uber and the same level of skill and professionalism as the typical Uber driver thus providing the overall Uber experience then Uber would never have been created. They didn't do that and now they're playing catch up, but it's probably too late for most of them.

Re:200,000 Euros?

[shutdown -p now]

What exactly is a "reasonable number" of taxis, and why does natural competition not sort that out, requiring some outside regulation?

Unfair Competition Sucks

[globaljustin]

Competition sucks. Gotta keep that privileged access to the market.

Uber is a taxi service that uses a different words to describe itself and phone apps instead of a radio dispatch

Uber is a taxi service that gets to bypass all the rules for taxi services.

Uber gets to do this b/c of hype, idiots like you, and bribery.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[TechyImmigrant]

Competition sucks. Gotta keep that privileged access to the market.

Uber is a taxi service that uses a different words to describe itself and phone apps instead of a radio dispatch

Uber is a taxi service that gets to bypass all the rules for taxi services.

Uber gets to do this b/c of hype, idiots like you, and bribery.

And it is the way it will be. Reality sucks for some.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[Opportunist]

Then do away with the rules concerning taxi services. Very obviously the customer doesn't want them to exist, and he is the one these rules should protect.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

Uber is a taxi service that uses a different words to describe itself and phone apps instead of a radio dispatch

As far as London is concerned, Uber is a Private Hire service, not a Taxi service. Private hire services have always operated via requests made by customers via the phone or in person at their office. These instructions are then radioed as offers or orders to the Private hire drivers. Which is exactly the business model that Uber follows.

The phone ordering, and the offers/orders to drivers may be done via TCP/IP rather than voice, but that doesn't change the model. Uber ARE obeying the rules.

Black Cab taxis on the other hand are allowed to respond to hails on the street, and pick op at Taxi stands. Those are their advantages, and the reason they get away with charging more.

The Black cabs are angry because Uber are competing more efficiently, such that their unique advantages count for less.

The Black cabs are framing their complaint in terms of a third issue. Black Cabs uniquely use taximeters - the machines that work out the fare, given distance and time, and display it to users. Private Hire cars make their own arrangements with their customers. Either an agreed price before the trip, or something based on the odometer reading. The Black cabs claim that the Uber app is a taximeter. The licensing body agree with Uber that it isn't.

It sounds like there are some cities in America where Uber aren't playing by the rules. But that's not true of London, and probably not for the other European cities that have had demos today either.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

The customer DOES want taxis and private hire cars regulated. They want to know that the car is safe, that the driver is qualified and not banned, and hopefully isn't a convicted criminal, that they are covered by insurance, and that they aren't ripped off by the fare.

However that isn't a bar to Uber in Britain who adhere to all the regulations.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[Citizen of Earth]

Uber gets to do this b/c of hype, idiots like you, and bribery.

Uber gets to do this b/c of better service and drastically lower prices.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[Pax681]

Black Cabs uniquely use taximeters - the machines that work out the fare, given distance and time, and display it to users. Private Hire cars make their own arrangements with their customers

NOT TRUE!! !Both private hire and black cabs have metres in Scotland. Black cab rates are a bit higher but both CERTAINLY have metres mandated by law.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

How did you manage to miss the fact that I twice pointed out I was talking about London. I wrote it in the first sentence and the last.

Manchester, where Uber also operates have taximeters in private hire vehicles. But London does not.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

As a customer, I would take an exception to that. It is true that I:

"want to know that the car is safe, that the driver is qualified and not banned, and hopefully isn't a convicted criminal, that they are covered by insurance, and that they aren't ripped off by the fare"

but I don't insist that all taxis in the city comply. What I want is a way to tell whether a particular taxi service is or is not fitting the bill. In other words, some kind of certification that they can pass if they want, and proudly stick a recognizable label indicating as much, that is forbidden for anyone else to use - and entered into the roster of certified taxi services where I can look them up when I'm ordering a cab.

On the other hand, if John Doe next door thinks that he doesn't really need some or all of this is he gets a cheap ride, I don't see why it should be any of my business to tell him that he can't have it.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

On the other hand, if John Doe next door thinks that he doesn't really need some or all of this is he gets a cheap ride, I don't see why it should be any of my business to tell him that he can't have it.

And your (perhaps hypothetical) teenage daughter?You're OK that she chooses the cheap option and is driven by a ex-con rapist with no insurance and a car with defective brakes?

Sorry, but your suggestion is silly. I believe you when you say you want this, but most people don't. They want decent standards upheld without the responsibility for having to monitor it put upon themselves.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

And your (perhaps hypothetical) teenage daughter?You're OK that she chooses the cheap option and is driven by a ex-con rapist with no insurance and a car with defective brakes?

I wouldn't be okay with that, which is why I'd raise her appropriately. I mean, it didn't occur to me to choose such an option, and it wouldn't have occurred to me when I was a teen, either, so I know this is doable.

Sorry, but your suggestion is silly. I believe you when you say you want this, but most people don't. They want decent standards upheld without the responsibility for having to monitor it put upon themselves.

The key words here are "without the responsibility". That is exactly the problem. If you dodge your responsibility, it doesn't go away - it just gets delegated elsewhere. In this case, it gets delegated to some small committee somewhere, with little practical oversight, and the end result is $1M for a taxi license in NYC (and do you think that the process of distributing those licenses does in any way encourage the best drivers to get them?).

As a side note, one kind of regulation that I'd be okay with is mandatory notice when service does not comply with the standards. So you either get certified and get the badge of approval that you can proudly display, or you do not get certified, and have to place a certain note to that effect, of legally mandated size, design and prominence. I do believe in right of people to be informed about their choices, and I'm perfectly fine with state enforcement of that right ("Smoking kills" campaign is another good example). But once fully informed, they have to take responsibility for the choices that they make.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

I wouldn't be okay with that, which is why I'd raise her appropriately. I mean, it didn't occur to me to choose such an option, and it wouldn't have occurred to me when I was a teen, either, so I know this is doable.

So you're advocating a downgrade in standards for other people, that you don't care about. But not for your nearest and dearest. So who is your idea supposed to serve again?

The key words here are "without the responsibility". That is exactly the problem. If you dodge your responsibility, it doesn't go away - it just gets delegated elsewhere.

Absolutely. And it simply is not possible to take personal responsibility for investigating the safety of every single product and service you use. There isn't time, even if you devoted every minute of every day of your life to the task. Even if is was possible, there's nothing noble to being forced into doing so because there are no standards and regulations.

It's one of the glaring holes in the whole libertarian philosophy.

We have governments settling and enforcing standards because that is the most rational thing to do. Have a department who have the knowledge, time and powers to investigate and enforce standards on products and services for us.

the end result is $1M for a taxi license in NYC

People pay that for the same reason they buy a house for $1M. They get to use it for a number of years, then expect to sell it for even more than $1M.

I don't know NY personally, but do you see any shortage of Taxis? In the live TV shots I've seen, it doesn't look like it. All of them regulated. Who gains from them not being regulated, by a proportion being unsafe vehicles with inappropriate drivers? Nobody.

It's a stupid idea from the libertarian loons.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

Absolutely. And it simply is not possible to take personal responsibility for investigating the safety of every single product and service you use. There isn't time, even if you devoted every minute of every day of your life to the task. Even if is was possible, there's nothing noble to being forced into doing so because there are no standards and regulations.

That's precisely why I'm not suggesting that. Let the government investigate the safety of that product, and give you a report condensed down to "it's good" or "it's not" - and require the service provider to prominently state the group to which it belongs. For most people, that's good enough. For a few, they might want to go and look up the definition of "good". Some of that later group might decide that they don't like that standard, and apply their own. But what I object to is the notion that I am forced to use only something that's branded "good" by someone else.

This is not a libertarian approach. A libertarian would tell you that you need to do the research yourself. I'm telling you that you need to make the choice yourself, once you know the result of the research.

I don't know NY personally, but do you see any shortage of Taxis? In the live TV shots I've seen, it doesn't look like it. All of them regulated.

It's not about the shortage of taxis. But the cost of that $1M medallion is factored into the price of service. There's no reason for it to be.

Who gains from them not being regulated, by a proportion being unsafe vehicles with inappropriate drivers? Nobody.

The same argument can be applied to any kind of regulation. This is basically the argument for a benevolent dictator who can run everyone's lives perfectly. The problem with it is that the regulators are not perfect, and tend to be come corrupt, the more power you put into their hands (or, alternatively, that corrupt people are attracted to positions of power - the end result is the same).

Regulation may be necessary at times, but at all times we should use the minimum extent required to achieve the goal. If the goal is safety of customers, then certification to safety standards and a requirement for service providers to clearly and unambiguously declare whether they're so certified or not is sufficient.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

That's precisely why I'm not suggesting that. Let the government investigate the safety of that product, and give you a report condensed down to "it's good" or "it's not" - and require the service provider to prominently state the group to which it belongs. For most people, that's good enough. For a few, they might want to go and look up the definition of "good". Some of that later group might decide that they don't like that standard, and apply their own. But what I object to is the notion that I am forced to use only something that's branded "good" by someone else.

So when bread is padded out with chalk, and pizzas are being served with rat droppings, they are lacking the seal of approval, but still sell to the poor or uninformed, who is being served by that? In what way have you made the world a better place?

You haven't. You've gone back about a century and a half. You've regressed to a less civilised time.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

So when bread is padded out with chalk, and pizzas are being served with rat droppings, they are lacking the seal of approval, but still sell to the poor or uninformed, who is being served by that?

Those who are willing to buy them.

You're basically trying to cash in on guilt here. It won't work, because there's no excuse to be uninformed when the seller is required to clearly and unambiguously inform you by law, and does so. For example, I have no compassion or pity for people who keep buying cigarettes with "SMOKING KILLS" written in huge lettering on them, and then complain that they didn't know that it would have a negative effect on their health once they do get cancer. If they are truly incapable of processing that simple a message, they should be pronounced mentally incompetent, and the appropriate medical institution should take guardianship over them and ensure that they don't harm themselves by buying cigarettes or sticking fingers into meat grinders. If they are capable of processing it but unwilling to act on it, then that is their choice, and the consequences of that choice are theirs to live with. In any case, I don't see why further universal limitations on freedom of all other people should be placed for the sake of those individuals.

As for the "poor" line, the proper response to that is that the society should act to solve poverty in general. In a hypothetical situation of "poor eating pizza with rat droppings because they can't afford the proper one", the problem is the existence of poor people, not the existence of pizza with rat droppings. If you take away pizza with rat droppings, the other kind will still remain just as inaccessible. On the other hand, if the poor are no longer poor, they are no longer compelled to choose the cheaper option (unless they happen to like the taste of rat droppings). The way you do it is by taxing economic rent (such as capital gains) higher, and redistributing it through negative income tax and/or universal basic income guarantee.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

Those who are willing to buy them.

But they are not. Brad with chalk in and pizzas with rat droppings in are not good for anyone. Your underlying assumption that if people buy them then they are best for them isn't true.

For example, I have no compassion or pity for people who keep buying cigarettes with "SMOKING KILLS" written in huge lettering on them, and then complain that they didn't know that it would have a negative effect on their health once they do get cancer.

Even better. You can't argue that smoking is good for anyone. Regardless of if they choose to smoke.

You are raising individual's choice to the one true value. As if people's choice wasn't largely dictated by externals such as advertising or availability, and subconscious animal urges.

I'm glad you have dealt with the poverty issue. But until your wish for that to be eradicated has been fulfilled, your desire for no regulation is a retrograde step.

(It's a retrograde step even if there is no poverty. But we're certainly not going to get to agreement on that.)

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

I just don't believe that I can reasonably know what's best for everyone else. What I can do is figure out what's best for myself. And it annoys me when other people then come in and tell me that what I think is wrong, and they know better, and therefore marijuana should be illegal, and we're going to ban large sodas, and cheese shall not be aged on wooden boards etc.

So yes. I am raising individual informed choice to one true value. To the extent that it is necessary to make an informed choice, I'm okay with regulation that enforces that (mandatory warnings, truth in advertising, social ads etc). But unless my choice has direct negative effects on other people, that's where regulatory power should stop.

So yes, I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

You have a fundamental difference with Basil that will never be resolved, this is crystal clear when he says that smoking is never good for anyone. His philosophy is not only impractical, but hypocritical as almost everyone who espouses such a view takes part in some activity that is not for his own long term best interest or that of society.

However, what you have to acknowledge is the external costs imposed by individual actions. If individuals truly had informed consent and took responsibility for their actions then there would be no issue. But they don't. Take the so called ban on large sodas, for example. It is an imperfect solution, but a reasonable one. If someone really wants 64oz of soda they can still buy two 32oz sodas, it is just slightly more expensive. More importantly it adjusts their behavior to a typically more healthy and sane direction, one that won't cause them long term health costs (which are often subsidized by the rest of us who make better choices).

Likewise, I'd be totally okay with someone who opted out of wearing a seatbelt if they guaranteed the costs of their medical care and were okay with us leaving them dying by the side of the road if their coverage wasn't good enough. Until we're willing to make those hard choices (i.e. never) we do have to put in some limits, simply as a practical alternative.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

Likewise, I'd be totally okay with someone who opted out of wearing a seatbelt if they guaranteed the costs of their medical care and were okay with us leaving them dying by the side of the road if their coverage wasn't good enough.

We don't deny treatment to people with no coverage today, we just make them pay the entire bill (or however much they can of it). I'm perfectly fine with that approach. I'm generally in favor of public healthcare, but I'm okay with it coming with strings attached - i.e. if you don't do X (even after we repeatedly tell you to do X), then you are not covered for Y. Optional private insurance plans can cover people who want to not do X, with higher premiums to cover higher costs.

The other option is to tax. For example, if higher consumption of soda can directly lead to increased healthcare expenses, then tax the 64oz drink higher than the 32oz one, and use that tax to pay for the increase. Ditto for cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs that have known negative health effects.

Prohibiting something should be the absolute last resort. So long as the effects on others are purely monetary, it's better to charge them directly or via taxation than to ban it altogether.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

We don't deny them treatment even IF they can't cover their fair share of the bill, which is why seat belt laws are a practical necessity. I'm okay with people making (what I believe are) poor choices, but I generally don't want to pay for it.

Banning large soda sizes is basically equivalent to a tax. There is no suggestion for a law that says someone can't buy two 32oz sodas if they really want them, but it will almost certainly be more than the current price of 64oz. The ban is a simple psychological trick merely to counter the psychological trick vendors make by offering you a huge discount on the much larger size you don't need and often don't even want. The same could be done for cigarettes or marijuana, e.g. requiring stores to sell individual packs and not offering bulk discounts.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[shutdown -p now]

Banning large soda sizes is basically equivalent to a tax.

Not really, since the extra profit the seller makes on selling them in two smaller containers is pocketed by the seller. With a tax, you would actually use it to offset the increased public costs. That's what makes it okay - it's not just trying to subtly manipulate behavior, it's simply exposing the hidden costs.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

You're right on that. Banning is only equivalent as a deterrent, but it doesn't have the extra benefit of mitigating the external costs that would otherwise be passed on to society. I prefer the taxing approach, but will settle for the "ban" where people have philosophical issues with new taxes. There is nothing wrong with government influencing behavior as long as they do it openly and with the right long term goals in mind - one of many examples is putting disgusting photos on cigarette packages.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

His philosophy is not only impractical, but hypocritical as almost everyone who espouses such a view takes part in some activity that is not for his own long term best interest or that of society.

That's not quite full thought through and so you've been unfair. It's certainly not hypocritical if I am happy to accept the same ban (or tax or whatever) on the activity, the same as everyone else.

For example I'm not a smoker now, but I was for many years, and tried many times to give up. I accepted the escalating punitive tax (in the UK) as a good incentive to cut down or give up. Likewise even whilst a smoker I was happy that smoking was banned in all indoor public places.

It's a fact that smoking's not good for anyone. It's an addiction that people almost universally get into when they are young and impressionable. And so society helping to discourage it is good for everyone.

The other poster mentions cannabis, and that's a more difficult one, as informed scientific opinion is that it's less harmful than other accepted mild drugs such as caffeine and alcohol, non-addictive and never fatal. Government bans seem based on historical prejudice rather than rationality. I obviously don't back regulation where the regulation is anti-science.

Your point about eternal costs is a good one, and also covers regulation on the environment. Those costs are not only monetary ones.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

"who is being served by that?"
Those who are willing to buy them.

I couldn't disagree more.

As for the "poor" line, the proper response to that is that the society should act to solve poverty in general.

Yes it should. But that still doesn't mean that people are well served by harmful goods and services. Even if they buy them.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

That's not quite full thought through and so you've been unfair. It's certainly not hypocritical if I am happy to accept the same ban (or tax or whatever) on the activity, the same as everyone else.

It's hypocritical if you don't call for a ban on every activity that is known to be "bad" for society, that you only want to ban things you personally find "bad."

For example I'm not a smoker now, but I was for many years, and tried many times to give up. I accepted the escalating punitive tax (in the UK) as a good incentive to cut down or give up.

That is not a fair example as that is something you wanted to give up anyway. Your philosophy would ban every recreational drug (including alcohol), non-educational TV, movies, video games and entertainment. It would ban pornography, cosmetic surgery, probably cosmetics themselves, on and on down the line. That would make you consistent and not a hypocrite.

It's a fact that smoking's not good for anyone. It's an addiction that people almost universally get into when they are young and impressionable.

That is absolutely not a fact. Smoking has long term negative health consequences, but it is for the individual to decide if the good they get out of smoking - the pleasure, stress relief, camaraderie, et al. outweigh those long term risks. Your philosophy does not account for the benefits from "bad" habits or activities. I smoke about twice a year and the value I get from those experiences is enormous vs. the added health risk I'm subjecting myself to. Your philosophy would prevent me from making that individual choice, simply because YOU have an addictive personality (at least to cigarettes) and I don't.

And so society helping to discourage it is good for everyone.

It's good for society, in general, certainly not for everyone. Discouragement is fine, within limits, as shutdown (and I) have discussed, but you are talking about absolutes. Like no smoking in "public" spaces, for example.

The other poster mentions cannabis ...

There is almost no doubt that cannabis has negative health effects and many short term costs, therefore by your philosophy it should be banned. If you open the door to weighing the good an individual gets vs. the long term risk (and external costs) in this case you have to allow it in all cases (see "hypocrite" above).

Your point about eternal costs is a good one, and also covers regulation on the environment. Those costs are not only monetary ones.

Absolutely. Those who enjoy the benefits of a "bad" habit should pay for ALL external costs.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[BasilBrush]

I'm afraid your post consists of a lot of statements about what I believe or would or have done, none of which is true. You don't know me, and therefore your post is worthless.

Your claims on me being a hypocrite are irrational and stupid. You can't invent what my opinion is, invest your own reasons for why I should think a different thing, then call me a hypocrite because your two imaginary positions are different.

I enjoy a good discussion. But wild flinging of straw men doesn't make for one.

Re:Unfair Competition Sucks

[ColdSam]

The philosophy you have written down in this thread is inconsistent and hypocritical. You are correct that I have no idea what you really think, but I do know what you have actually committed to paper. You are certainly under no obligation to address those problems with what you have written, to point out the nuance in your thinking that we have overlooked, but don't begrudge me the right to point out those issues.

You say X should be banned because Z. I say that Y is also Z. It's not a great leap for me to assume that you think Y should also be banned. If you want to point out that you really meant that X is Z' (a subtle subset of Z that does not apply to Y) then go ahead or just leave your inconsistent philosophy out there. Up to you.

Horse meet car, car meet horse.

[EmperorOfCanada]

I the UK during the early days of cars they had a law:
Secondly, one of such persons, while any locomotive is in motion, shall precede such locomotive on foot by not less than sixty yards, and shall carry a red flag constantly displayed, and shall warn the riders and drivers of horses of the approach of such locomotives, and shall signal the driver thereof when it shall be necessary to stop, and shall assist horses, and carriages drawn by horses, passing the same,

So basically it limited all cars to the speed of someone walking in front. Oddly enough not much of the early history of the automobile was written in the UK during that time period. What I am waiting for is a false flag operation on the part of the drivers where they pretend to be an Uber driver and then proceed to do the worst trip ever, and then post the results to Youtube. What they are forgetting is that it all boils down to a simple fact, if people didn't like Uber, then people wouldn't use Uber. But at the same time, under their proposed rules; if people don't like London cabs then too bad.

Re:Horse meet car, car meet horse.

[ColdSam]

So basically it limited all cars to the speed of someone walking in front.

You could go much faster than that, you just need more walkers.

Uber is Pushing Clarity

[bill_mcgonigle]

Pro or Con, Uber is pushing the boundaries and bringing some clarity to the old system. Some terms for discussion:

Rent seeking

People are said to seek rents when they try to obtain benefits for themselves through the political arena. They typically do so by getting a subsidy for a good they produce or for being in a particular class of people, by getting a tariff on a good they produce, or by getting a special regulation that hampers their competitors. Elderly people, for example, often seek higher Social Security payments; steel producers often seek restrictions on imports of steel; and licensed electricians and doctors often lobby to keep regulations in place that restrict competition from unlicensed electricians or doctors.

Fascism

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society's economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the "national interest" - that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.

I find it particularly interesting that not only does Uber do background checks on its drivers and allows the rider to rate the cabbie and cab, it also allows the cabbie to rate the rider, potentially increasing safety for the cabbie in ways that the government model does not and can not. Cabbie murder is a real thing and government does not offer a solution. But it's still not surprising that the cartel members are upset that their cartel membership is losing value.

Re:Uber is Pushing Clarity

[DJCouchyCouch]

> it also allows the cabbie to rate the rider, potentially increasing safety for the cabbie in ways that the government model does not and can not.

Rider murdered me in the face. One star.

Re:Uber is Pushing Clarity

[AthanasiusKircher]

Cabbie murder is a real thing and government does not offer a solution.

Interesting that a few of those news stories linked to in Google News have to do with cabbies who HAVE murdered other people (rather than cabbies BEING MURDERED).

It would be useful to see some stats on this, rather than just a generic link to Google News. I don't doubt that being a cabbie is a dangerous profession, but it would be good to see some details on this.

Re:Uber is Pushing Clarity

[david_thornley]

FWIW, the definition of "fascism" you give does not describe either Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany at all well.

Re:Wrong amount

[heezer7]

Following our typed numbers, spaces in your arrays and coordinates makes more sense?

Re:"disruptive" = scam

[Ksevio]

How is it a scam? I can see calling them a taxi company without proper licensing, but they're providing a service people want, not scamming them out of money.

Why does MADD not support Uber?

[lhaeh]

You would think MADD would support deregulation of the taxi industry. Afterall, a big reason people drink and drive is because of the high cost of cabs. It's almost as if they care more about keeping people from drinking them keeping them safe...

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[praxis]

People drink and drive mostly in locations where there are not alternatives to driving. I've not really seen many drunk drivers downtown as people walk to the pub. All the drunk drivers I've seen have been in the suburbs. There, taxis cost the same, but the pub is further. It appears that pub density is the problem, not taxi prices.

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I speak for myself and all of my close friends when I say that yes, price-sensitivity to cabs is the biggest reason people drink and drive.

If cabs were free, nobody I know would drink and drive. Not one of them. And I'm close friends with several people who have been convicted of DUI (and many more who haven't yet been caught).

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[drinkypoo]

Price-sensitivity to cabs is not actually a big reason people drink and drive.

[citation needed]

In fact, people with transportation-related reasons for drinking and driving are generally low-income or even in poverty. I don't think your claim holds up.

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

So, you have money to "bar hop" but not cab fare?

No, I have money for neither, which is why I bought a two-tap kegerator for my apartment.

Should my taxes go towards your "free" taxi service?

$20 can get me properly drunk on shitty beer at a shitty bar.
$20 can get a cabbie to take me most of the way home. Getting there (or getting my car the next day) is another $20.

So, to go out and get drunk, it's roughly 200% more expensive to do it responsibly (ignoring the inconvenience factor as well).
If you're on a budget, that's some serious motivation to drive drunk.
Perhaps you can consider the finer points of how your taxes are spent after a drunk driver kills your friend or family member.

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[ColdSam]

You're assuming that using a taxi actually reduces the number of traffic fatalities. That's not clear.

Although you are correct that they care more about keeping people from drinking than actual traffic safety.

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[Trepidity]

Perhaps if cabs were magically completely free, yes. Oh, and these completely free cabs would have to be ubiquitous and orderable on demand to any location, and not become scarce despite being free. While we're talking nutty hypotheticals, people might also drink-and-drive less if the U.S. has more compact cities, less sprawl and suburban bars, and better public transit.

But back in the case of reality, what price-sensitivity means is more like: if cabs were 15% cheaper, would it eradicate DUIs? I suspect it would have virtually no impact on them.

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I agree, a 15% decrease in cost wouldn't do much when taking a cab adds 200% to the cost of getting drunk. Similarly, nobody would buy cars with airbags if the airbags added 200% to the cost of a car. I'd sooner not drink at bars, much like I'd sooner not buy a car.

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[lhaeh]

I suspect it would be much more then 15%: Speak to any cabbie, they make the vast amount of their money on Friday/Saturday night, but work the rest of the week because the licence owner requires that. If random joe with a car that he uses for other purposes decides to make some extra money on the weekend, I suspect he will be able to charge much less.

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[jxander]

Increase pub density!

It's the only sensible solution. Make sure everyone has a pub (or two) within walking distance, to combat drunk driving.

And as a bonus side effect, you combat obesity by encouraging people to walk more when they've been drinking (beer has a LOT of carbs)

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[dunkelfalke]

In this case, drink at home.

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[Stuarticus]

Uber prices are largely the same as the established operators so this is a bit of a non-argument.

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[Stuarticus]

This sounds more like a problem with the place you have chosen to live than a problem with taxi operators. Live nearer a nice bar with nice beer.

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I think you might be missing the point.

Sure, I could take a stretch limo to a bar that serves Louis XIII de Rémy Martin. Then, as long as I drank at least a single shot, the cost of the limo would be a mere fraction of what I spent on alcohol.

The point was that we're not all fantastically rich, and that while spending more on alcohol will make the taxi account for proportionally less of the night's cost, it will still increase the total cost overall.

The problem isn't with taxi operators either. I used to drive cab. I brought home, on average, about $5 a day. I worked 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week, and I made nowhere near enough money to support myself. Driving cab is not a glamorous job, and it doesn't really lead to great riches. Fares can't really be cut any lower.

The problem is that society won't recognize the broken economics of the "get a cab instead of driving drunk" argument. We moralize about drunk driving while opening bars in areas only accessible by car, then we act surprised when poor people drive their own cars there instead of tripling the cost of their drinking night by taking taxis. This is the inevitable outcome of our actions, so if we're serious about wanting to eliminate drunk driving, we're going to need a different approach. I don't know what that approach will be, but all I can say is that the current one obviously isn't working.

Or, we could, you know, just keep on pointing at the awful drunk drivers, talking about how awful they are. Surely that'll get them to change their ways.</sarcasm>

Re:Why does MADD not support Uber?

[drinkypoo]

We moralize about drunk driving while opening bars in areas only accessible by car

The basic root problem is that we are a nation of the car, but you can't reasonably drive drunk. You can't reasonably get around without a car, because of our poor public transportation systems, a situation which was deliberately created — by rights, GM and certain oil and tire companies should be paying the costs of drunk driving.

€200.000 for taxi licence?

[jonr]

I find that very hard to believe.

Re:€200.000 for taxi licence?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is believable. A taxi medallion in New York City can cost over $1 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/nyregion/1-million-medallions-stifling-the-dreams-of-cabdrivers.html

Re:€200.000 for taxi licence?

[meta-monkey]

It's not a license. It's a medallion, which can be bought and resold.

Re:€200.000 for taxi licence?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I find that very hard to believe.

I agree, that's unimaginably cheap. Over here they're over $1M.

$300k is cheap

[Firethorn]

A NYC taxi medallian can break $1M..

And that doesn't include other regulatory costs, insurance, vehicle, nothing.

Re:$300k is cheap

[drinkypoo]

It also doesn't imply that the driver can drive or anything like that, because the medallion doesn't have to be held by the driver. The driver can be changed out under the medallion by a taxi company. That's why that medallion proves absolutely nothing to the prospective taxi customer, and offers them absolutely no protection.

Re:$300k is cheap

[Cytotoxic]

It also doesn't imply that the driver can drive or anything like that, because the medallion doesn't have to be held by the driver. The driver can be changed out under the medallion by a taxi company. That's why that medallion proves absolutely nothing to the prospective taxi customer, and offers them absolutely no protection.

Well, to be fair, it does mean that the customer will be paying too much for that cab ride.

LOL Uber is competition ?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL if uber is fair competition, then time to give 300,000 H1B visas for some 'fair' competition!

Re:f*ck über

[lhaeh]

Why not give the people the choice? If über is so bad, peopel won't use it.

I'd much rather spend a bit more time in traffic then spend a bunch more money.

reality is what we make

[globaljustin]

And it is the way it will be. Reality sucks for some.

so you agree that it's wrong, and bad for our industry....what Uber is doing..

we can force Uber to play by the same rules as everyone else, any government can, using the same mechanism they use to make Taxi companies compete fairly/safely

you're probably one of those "privacy is dead" people...wake up and start living your life

you've abdicated your own agency in your life choices...you're behaving like a serf w/ the "free market" as your master

you can choose that existence if you want, and suffer and whine your whole life, or you can join those of us who are working to **fix things**

this Uber flap is an easy fix...people like you are part of the problem

Re:reality is what we make

[TechyImmigrant]

>so you agree that it's wrong, and bad for our industry....what Uber is doing..
At some legalistic level. What has become of the taxi industry and the laws applicable to it is worse.

>so you agree that it's wrong, and bad for our industry....what Uber is doing..

Maybe bad for your industry. Not bad for mine and it may be a wash for consumers. Lower prices, greater availability, more convenient interface, fewer protections.

>you've abdicated your own agency in your life choices...you're behaving like a serf w/ the "free market" as your master
Not me. I've never used them. Buy I can see why people would. Taxis in London are daylight robbery and horrifically bad service.

>you can choose that existence if you want, and suffer and whine your whole life, or you can join those of us who are working to **fix things**
How so? How are you fixing the taxi industry? I'm not in this fight. It sounds like you are.

Re:reality is what we make

[meta-monkey]

you're behaving like a serf w/ the "free market" as your master

Wait, what...? You want the government dictating who is and is not allowed to drive people around, but people who want the freedom to do so without government approval are the serfs...?

Apparently freedom is slavery and all that.

Re:"disruptive" = scam

[nctritech]

You'll have to explain exactly how it is that people giving other people car rides for a few bucks is a scam.

Re:"disruptive" = scam

[onkelonkel]

"Scam" Do you know what that word means? A scam is a confidence trick or fraud. How exactly is uber tricking people out of their money?

scam is a scam...target is taxi companies

[globaljustin]

scamming other Taxi companies

a scam is a scam whether they are taking out competition or tricking customers

Re:scam is a scam...target is taxi companies

[CrimsonAvenger]

a scam is a scam whether they are taking out competition or tricking customers

So, Samsung is scamming Apple by selling Android phones that compete with Apple's phones?

My view of the possible has just been expanded...and not in a good way.

Re:scam is a scam...target is taxi companies

[king neckbeard]

If they are doing so by providing a superior product in some way, it's not a scam. It's competition. Competition is generally a good thing.

Re:scam is a scam...target is taxi companies

[Qzukk]

So, Samsung is scamming Apple by selling Android phones that compete with Apple's phones?

Only when they violate Apple's patents to do so.

On a more serious side, if Samsung ignored all the FCC regulations and sold untested phones to save a few bucks over Apple's FCC-regulated phones, then yes.

Re:scam is a scam...target is taxi companies

[Lehk228]

taxi companies dug their graves they can fucking lie in them now.

naive and fatuous

[globaljustin]

see above comment to Ksevio

also, you're being naive and fatuous...."Uber is just giving people rides"

you're practically echoing Uber PR....do you work for Uber PR?

it's illegal to run a unregulated taxi service...that's what Uber is doing and it's unfair...

**thats the cause of the protest**

Re:naive and fatuous

[nctritech]

I'm looking at it from a bottom-up perspective. You're looking at it as "industry exist, industry is regulated, therefore anyone who wants to do something similar should be regulated exactly the same way." I'm looking at it as "why do we need the regulation that exists? What justifies each specific regulation? Are those justifications sufficient to reasonably support the regulation? What is the definition of a "taxi service" and how does it apply to Uber?"

Also, a correction to your statement: Uber is NOT giving anyone a ride. Uber is a middleman service. They don't employ any of the drivers. By your logic, anyone who organizes a carpool is a taxi service and subject to the same onerous regulations that a taxi service is. If that means paying exorbitant amounts of money to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for a "taxi license" then so be it. Don't like it? Don't set up a carpool or vanpool.

Re:naive and fatuous

[j-beda]

Anyone who makes a business of organising a carpool is a taxi dispach service. Anyone who drives a carpool 8+h a day is a taxi driver.

Don't' like it? Don't make a business of it.

How about 4 hours per day? 1? What if I do it once? What if I pick up a hich-hiker and he offers me some cash? To pay for gas? A doughnut? Where-ever you draw the line, the position is arbitrary as all of this exists on a continuum.

Re:naive and fatuous

[Darinbob]

Uber is not a carpool service, it just pretends to be one. When you pay per ride and the driver is compensated by the company based on the number of rides given, then it is clearly and unambiguously a limousine or taxi service. A carpool on the other hand, the driver is actually going to roughly the same location as the rest of the passengers.

Or, one person says "I'm going the same way, let's go together and we'll split the costs", then that's a carpool. Whereas one person saying "tell me where you want to go and I'll take you there for a fee", then that's a taxi or limousine.

Re:naive and fatuous

[eepok]

Bzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing, though! You were a delight.

Uber is not a carpool or vanpool service. They facilitate a distributed taxi service. Carpools and Vanpools are formed wherein the driver and occupants share similar destinations. With Uber and Lyft, drivers are without destination until the promise of reimbursement for wear and tear, fuel, their time, and the facilitator fees is sufficient provokes them to pick up a passenger. That's a taxi service.

The constant attempt to brand these services as "rideshare" or "carpooling" is 100% genuinely deceptive.

Wrong amount

[drummerboybac]

Meet our good friend the pipe
It can be used to, among other things,| seperate values, | Eh|

scamming their competition & taxpayers

[globaljustin]

Uber's targets are other taxi companies and taxi drivers

as I said above scams are scams

Uber is scamming other taxi companies (and taxpayers)...THAT'S WHY THEY ARE PROTESTING

Re:scamming their competition & taxpayers

[beltsbear]

You need to learn what the word scam means. Uber may be breaking laws or violating rules, but so long as they reliably and fairly do what they advertise, it is not a scam.

Re:scamming their competition & taxpayers

[Bing Tsher E]

Uber is scamming other taxi companies (and taxpayers)...

And taxpayers?

Because Uber is breaking the government imposed monopoly that all taxpayers gleefully pay for??

Re:scamming their competition & taxpayers

[king neckbeard]

It doesn't matter if Uber's business was gutting prostitutes on the streets of London, if they are not deceiving anyone, they are not a scam. In order to be a scam, some kind of deception or misleading is required.

Re:Oh NOEEES!

[praxis]

Not a better method! Don't take my JARRRRB. Lets pass laws to keep inefficiencies in the market so I don't have to adapt! Its almost like a whole new MPAA or RIAA. Seriously people. New business models are GOOD.

Either Uber plays by the current laws, or we free the current taxi companies from those same laws. Allowing one group to legally operate under different (and cheaper) laws because they are newcomers is pretty unfair. In my city, both taxis and Uber use a smartphone app to dispatch and have up-front flat rates, yet they are regulated differently and I think that sucks.

taxi? or limo?

[cellocgw]

A couple examples: the slang for rides in NYC is "yellow" for a taxi and "black" for a limo. The limos can pick anyone up but AFAIK can only charge a fixed fee for a given destination. Taxis are metered for time and distance (w/ airport exceptions).

Here in the Boston area, limos are fixed-fee either per hour or per location (airports again), and are barred from being flagged down--they're reservation-only. Taxis can be flagged, but I think they are not allowed to pick *anyone* up if they are outside their designated geographic zone. E.g. pick up in Boston, deliver to Worcester, but not allowed to pick up any ride in Worcester.

So part of the big question is: is Uber a taxi service or a limo service?

Re:taxi? or limo?

[jfbilodeau]

...or is it a third type of service?

Re:taxi? or limo?

[Dynedain]

Neither.

Uber offers 2 services. The one that made them popular was operating as a limo service, but cheap, with fast booking and automated account. All the pluses of limo service, but none of the pains for scheduling, tipping, billing, etc. It's just a modernized towncar service without the legacy overhead.

Uber's second service is UberX, which they introduced to compete with Lyft. Same principal as lift applies, in that it's community ride-sharing with some monetary compensation, but backed by Uber's existing peering infrastructure and billing systems.

It's the second service that's getting them into so much trouble, not the first. The first service follows all the livery laws. The second service has all the uninsured, unlicensed, poor quality drivers. Like Lyft or AirBnB, the peer2peer "Sharing Economy" is fundamentally at odds with the legally-protected and regulated systems currently in place.

London needs Uber

[beltsbear]

I took a taxi in London in 2005, it cost me $80 for a 15 minute trip. Yes, the exchange rate was bad, but I am sure that it is similar in price today. Yes, I took the underground there but it had closed for my return. Uber would bring competition and potentially lower prices.

In related news, hundreds of thousands of Londoners just found out about Uber.

who and how Uber is scamming

[globaljustin]

I've seen 4 comments and 2 downmods in 20 minutes for my comment...

I'm at fault here...I always forget how naive /.'ers are about scams

Uber is scamming ****OTHER TAXI COMPANIES**** and calling it "disruption"

They are taking advantage of bribable or dumb localities that will *let Uber run unregulated Taxi service*

Uber is a taxi service....they are scamming other taxi companies **and taxpayers who pay to regulate them**

Besides scamming taxi companies (or "disrupting" them...) here's an example of what happens when you have unlicensed taxi companies...http://valleywag.gawker.com/uber-driver-arrested-for-kidnapping-a-drunk-woman-1585725711

"Uber Driver Arrested for Kidnapping Drunk Rider"

Re:who and how Uber is scamming

[jandrese]

A Gawker link? Was the National Enquirer too credible?

I really don't see the scam here. One can argue unfair competition because they're not playing by the same rules as existing taxi companies, but they deliver on the rides promised for the fares promised. They don't ask anything of other cab companies. I really can't find the scam angle at all.

The bigger problem for cab companies is that Uber is proving to be a disruptive technology. They are able to offer considerably cheaper fares and service that is just as good or better than traditional cabs. They carry taxi insurance (through Uber), the payment system makes it impossible for the driver to monkey with his meter to gouge customers, it's just more efficient. Their biggest crime is not paying attention to the artificial barrier to entry that allows traditional cab companies to limit competition and charge monopoly prices.

Re:who and how Uber is scamming

[nitehawk214]

She should have paid the $1 non-rape fee.

show me

[globaljustin]

ok beltsbear...

you think Uber is breaking laws about competition but it's not a "scam"

Uber may be breaking laws or violating rules

right...

in money/business when someone breaks laws or violates rules at the harm of others...

it's a scam

if I'm so wrong, show me a definition of scam that proves me wrong

also, it doesn't matter...you agree that Uber is breaking laws and getting away with it...no matter what you're agreeing with my central point...this is entirely a conversation over a definition of a word...you agree with me on the facts

Re:show me

[beltsbear]

I said 'may be'. I do not know. I am not an expert on laws in the UK.

A scam would be someone who takes money for a cab ride but does not deliver it, or someone maybe who charges an undisclosed fee to unlock the doors at the destination. Uber is not a scam. The user is not being defrauded, nor is the provider.

Confidence trick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Con man" and "Scam" redirect here. For other uses, see see Con Man, Confidence man, and Scam (disambiguation).

A confidence trick (synonyms include confidence scheme and scam) is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their confidence, in the classical sense of trust. A confidence artist (or con artist) is an individual, operating alone or in concert with others, who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté, or greed.

Re:show me

[omnichad]

Burden of proof is on you here. Show a definition of scam loose enough to include any law violation.

Re:Wrong amount

[meta-monkey]

It's for a medallion. Holding the medallion allows you to operate the cab, but the medallion can be bought and sold. So you might pay $200k for it, but when you're done being a cabby you can sell it to somebody else, probably at a profit.

I still don't see the difference...

[mark-t]

... between what Uber has set up, and simply giving somebody else a ride, but expecting to be compensated for one's time as well as gas. Is it illegal to carpool if the driver is profiting from it?

Heck, before I got my driver's license, I would sometimes ask my friends who already had their license for a ride somewhere and pay them for their time and gasoline as well. Was that illegal?

Re:I still don't see the difference...

[ledow]

In the UK? Yes, it can be. Ask your insurance company.

And many uses of vehicles, including licenses, are covered by a "not for hire or reward" clause. Not to mention it being standard insurance boiler-plate.

Same for private pilots. Unless you've got a specific "passenger-carrying" licence for your plane/car, you're probably NOT allowed to be compensated for more than the reasonable costs of petrol (i.e. a friend agreement). The other exceptions are things like volunteering for a charity but even then the definition is so close you can't even (legally) take a chocolate from your passenger for the ride.

What the law is on deliberately obstructing a road as a licensed professional driver, I'm guessing is a LOT worse, though.

Re:I still don't see the difference...

[Cytotoxic]

... between what Uber has set up, and simply giving somebody else a ride, but expecting to be compensated for one's time as well as gas. Is it illegal to carpool if the driver is profiting from it?

Heck, before I got my driver's license, I would sometimes ask my friends who already had their license for a ride somewhere and pay them for their time and gasoline as well. Was that illegal?

From what I understand, it is indeed illegal to do this in many locations. The rate used as the cutoff is usually the federal mileage write off rate. So if you charge more than 56 cents per mile, you are a criminal. Hurrah for regulation!

Not SHARING

[gerardrj]

When you share something you don't charge for it. Uber drivers charge so this is a very simple vehicle/driver for hire setup we commonly call a taxi. If they are a taxi then they must abide by the taxi laws: meters inspected by weights and measures, taxes paid, licensing requirements met. (call them a Limo if you want, the term is irrelevant for most all regulation issues)

To be a "ride share" scenario the driver would have to have already been going to, near to or past the place you want to be. You could pay a little bit of money to cover the cost of fuel for the time the passenger is in the car.

This is all pretty well spelled out in the aviation laws already and my guess will be those laws/regulations will wind up as precedent against Uber/Lyft. As a commercial pilot you may charge whatever price you can for flying a passenger to a destination. As a private pilot you may only share a minority of expenses with the passenger and not make any profit. Ex: if it costs $50/hr to fly your plane then you can share that cost with the passenger up to $25/hr. The passenger must also have a common destination/purpose. I suppose you could itemize your charges as $25 for flight sharing, $200 for valet service on the airport ramps but due to oversight and licensing I don't know any pilot that would risk that maneuver.

So let's apply those same tests to the Uber/Lyft services:

Cost to operate a vehicle: in the range of $.12 to $.25 per mile, Uber rate: ~$1.50 per mile, 6 times the actual operating cost:
      cost share: fail
Common destination/purpose: The driver's goal is to get the passenger to the destination, the driver has no business at the destination:
      common purpose: fail

Re:Not SHARING

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Cost to operate a vehicle: in the range of $.12 to $.25 per mile

I don't know where you're getting those numbers from, but the US Government currently reimburses for mileage put on privately owned vehicles to the tune of $0.56 per mile.

Are you even including anything more than fuel, or are you assuming that cars don't have any other consumables and don't lose value from miles driven?

Re:Not SHARING

[Firethorn]

Are you even including anything more than fuel, or are you assuming that cars don't have any other consumables and don't lose value from miles driven?

It has to be for fuel alone. Maybe oil as well.
$4/gallon
40mpg = $.10/mile
30mpg = .13
20mpg = .20
Oil change $100@10k = .01
$15k car depreciation@5 years@15k miles/year = $.20

Re:Not SHARING

[NoImNotNineVolt]

I'd argue that that's a bad deal, and not really a true sharing of costs.

Average fuel economy is 26.4mpg, according to Google. $3.65 per gallon is the current average gas price. That works out to $0.134 per mile, or only 24% of the US GSA's POV reimbursement rate. That implies that fuel accounts for only one quarter of the true cost of driving, and that you've got about $0.426 per mile of costs that must still be accounted for. You suggest oil and depreciation account for only $0.21 per mile, so that still leaves another $0.216 per mile in other costs. Brakes and tires are two more obvious consumables that I'm too lazy to estimate the per-mile cost of. Either way, I think charging as much as $0.56 per mile could easily be considered "sharing", not "selling", since that's what the US Government itself agrees is a fair rate to reimburse someone for putting miles on their own vehicle.

Re:Not SHARING

[ColdSam]

http://autos.aol.com/article/A...

Re:Not SHARING

[Firethorn]

I'd argue that that's a bad deal, and not really a true sharing of costs.

Yeah, I got called away and hit submit before I could make WAGs for more consumables like brakes, insurance*, and what not. Hell, even my $15k worth of depreciation estimate is just that.

Another factor to consider is that the federal reimbursement rate is deliberately fudged a bit towards 'worst case' vs average or median. I think they figure on you having a semi-expensive 20mpg truck paying 'next to airport' rates for gasoline.

Still, even if you have a Tesla Model-S** that you somehow got for free so your fuel&maintenance costs are insignficant, $.56 per mile is only $22.40/hour figuring on an average of 40mph, or about $47k/year. Which is lousy when you figure that you have to pay both sides of FICA on it in addition to the other self-employment taxes, other business expenses, health insurance, etc... Note for others: Any job where you'd be an 'independent contractor', divide the reimbursement by 2 to make it equivalent to a salary/hourly wage job.

*Commercial insurance is more expensive on the idea that you're driving more.
**There is/was a Uber driver who uses his Model-S for ridesharing, read a blurb about him a couple months ago. Extra vehicle expense is balanced against lower fuel cost, insurance is apparently reasonable(the car has excellent safety characteristics), and generates extremely positive reviews from readers.

Re:Not SHARING

[gerardrj]

I used my own car's real-world operations numbers and increased all my costs a bit.
2004 Golf TDI

These are number for operating the vehicle, not owning and so do not include depreciation, payments, repairs, etc. Just the wear and tear on normal service items. Uber does not claim their drivers are professionals or running a business so they don't get to do depreciation for purposes of "ride sharing". If they were taxi/limo drivers they could do that. Yes is costs more than this per mile to OWN a car, but not to drive it.

(all figures are $/mile)
fuel: $.09 [$3.77/gal at a real-world usage of at least 40mpg) (price/gal currently in Phoeinx, AZ)
tires: $.02 [$1,100 every 50,000 miles. I use really nice tires]
oil change: $.008 [$90 every 10,000 miles. includes air/oil filters]
insurance: $.02 [$480/yr at 20,000 miles per year]
miscellaneous: $.01 [washer fluid, headlights, etc. $200/yr assuming 20,000 miles]
Total per mile operating cost: $0.18 or about 5.5 miles per dollar.

Sure if you have an SUV getting 16mpg or a high performance car with really expensive tires or carry boat loads of insurance you can increase the cost per mile substantially, but that is an average car driven by an average person.

So let me do an "average" truck the Ford F150 which is the most popular vehicle in the US line according to a quick search.

fuel: $.17 [$3.55/gal 20mpg average estimated] (again price in Phx,AZ as of today)
tires: $.03 [$970 every 30,000 miles (assuming Nitto 420s) and they are worn down faster than the tread warranty]
oil change: $.005 [$50 every 10,000 miles] ) (10,000 is factory spec. even at 5,000 miles the cost is only a penny per mile)
insurance: $.06 [$720/yr assuming 12,000 miles/ year]
miscellaneous: $.03 [washer fuid, lights, etc. $360/ys assuming 12,000 miles]
Total per mile operating cost: $0.29

Self-defeating protests

[jtara]

While I agree Uber and similar services are skirting and even openly defying regulations, these protests are self-defeating. The public will see the cab drivers as greedy and annoying.

Uber needs to simply sit back and do nothing about it. The less said the better.

In the U.S. these protests won't happen, unless the owners pay the drivers to protest. American cab drivers can't afford to take a day off to protest. The cab drivers are probably making less than the Uber drivers..

Re:Self-defeating protests

[nytes]

Uber needs to simply sit back and do nothing about it. The less said the better.

Actually, Uber took advantage of it by offering discounts in the cities affected. I'm pretty sure Uber gained many new customers today.

Re:Self-defeating protests

[shameless]

Actually, my office is right across the street from Uber's Boston HQ. A couple weeks ago I suddenly heard a mad chorus of car horns. Looked out the window and it turns out the Boston cabbies were staging a brief rolling protest by driving by and honking, handing out leaflets, etc. There was police and a news truck.

I don't know what the situation is in Europe, but in many cities in the US the taxi industry is a victim of its own protectionism. Boston, for instance, has issued a fixed number of taxi medallions. If I wanted to start a cab company, I couldn't simply go down to city hall and get a license; they've all been issued. I'd have to persuade an existing player to part with theirs... which they won't do unless I shell out some SERIOUS cash. As in, mid-to-high six figures. The price of the car itself is down in the noise by comparison.

The secondary market in medallions has turned them into major assets. Thus the city can't simply issue more medallions; that would dilute the value of the ones already out there.

In the end, a policy that Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time has produced a result where there's a fixed supply and growing demand. Until now policymakers just threw up their hands and ignored the issue because there didn't seem to be a good way out of this mess. The introduction of Uber and Lyft suddenly means the issue can't be ignored anymore.

glad you agree?

[globaljustin]

One can argue unfair competition because they're not playing by the same rules as existing taxi companies

They are scamming **other taxi companies**

As I said, /. users are pedantic and naive, so of course they would miss that companies can scam each other

companies scam each other all the time

The problem is that ***you agree*** but don't care to ***fix it***

whether you choose to call this cheating a "scam" or "unfair comptetion" is irrelevant

why you don't want to fix it is the real question

Re:Wrong amount

[HeckRuler]

Jesus motherfucking CHRIST! There's an arbitrary $200,000 investment required to be a cabbie in Europe? What the hell!?

Let me make this clear for you in case you don't understand the problem with this.
1) Most people don't just have $200,000 lying about. Not even for business expenses. So the phrase "you might pay $200,000 for it" is straight up bullshit. No. People go get a loan to buy this and pay the intrest on the loan. Which is a fancy-dancy way of making cabbies rent the privileged of being a cabbie.

2) For ANY sort of investment that ties up money, the phrase "you can sell it to somebody else, probably at a profit." is something you feed to suckers. It's something you say when you're trying to sell.

3) If you can just sell the thing to anybody, without any sort of certification, testing, vouching or anything, then it serves ZERO purpose other than simply being another bar to entry. And I think that was the original intent. To impose a limit on the number of taxis clogging the streets. This system does a really shitty job of keeping up with a growing populace and shifts in traffic needs.

scam is a scam...target is taxi companies

[N1AK]

A scam is a scam when it's a scam. One of the wonders of the internet is that there are a veritable legion of sources you could use to find out that scam clearly doesn't cover this situation.

The Cab Drivers Are Blocking Traffic?

[Bing Tsher E]

Simple Solution:

Take away their licenses. Re-issue them to somebody else who doesn't break the law by blocking traffic.

Re:The Cab Drivers Are Blocking Traffic?

[ledow]

In case you haven't noticed - that already happens, to everyone.

Not only that, if you have a passenger-carrying license, you are given even less tolerance over speeding violations.

The fact that it might take two or three such violations to actually revoke a normal license if neither here nor there - if I was to just stop in a road and do 5 mph, I would be pulled over and penalised. Why not taxis? Just because they are doing it in protest?

If nothing else, it's childish and counter-productive. Nobody uses taxis! So we're going make all the taxis in London participate in a protest that makes them useless and damages other driver's ability to travel! That'll get me on your side, whether I'm a passenger or driver....

naive and fatuous

[N1AK]

see above comment to Ksevio

also, you're being naive and fatuous...."Uber is just giving people rides"

you're practically echoing Uber PR....do you work for Uber PR?

it's illegal to run a unregulated taxi service...that's what Uber is doing and it's unfair...

**thats the cause of the protest**

Accusing someone of being a shill while blindly parroting the taxi driver party line has to be some form of irony. Uber has been challenged in court in the UK and the judge ruled in their favour. Perhaps in Taxi fanboy land that still counts as illegal, but it sure as hell doesn't to most people.

who and how Uber is scamming

[N1AK]

I've seen 4 comments and 2 downmods in 20 minutes for my comment...

I'm at fault here...I always forget how naive

Or maybe, just maybe, the huge number of people pointing out that you couldn't define a scam if one involved punching you in the face, and the absence of anyone else defending your incorrect assertion that a "scam" is whatever you think it is, could be a sign that your wrong? But what's the chance of that, you're clearly never wrong so it must be the rest of the world ;)

Wow, look at you and your example of the dangers of Uber! I bet no taxi drivers have ever done tha.... http://www.express.co.uk/news/... "It included boots worn by a victim of taxi driver Christopher Halliwell, who killed Sian OÃ(TM)Callaghan, 22, after picking her up in his cab outside a Swindon nightclub in 2011. "

Re:"disruptive" = scam

[king neckbeard]

Yeah, I'm not a racist dick. Immigrants are a big factor in letting the US kick ass because it brings in new ideas, new people, and new culture. And in fact, a large share of the problems we have with immigration is because of the regulations that have been imposed on the immigration process.

Re:Wrong amount

[meta-monkey]

Yes. All of those things you said are true. That's the way it works in europe, and the way it works in the US, too. A medallion in New York costs upwards of a million dollars. It is solely a method of limiting the number of cabs on the streets, which is why cab companies that organized and bought into this system are really pissed off about Uber ignoring it.

similar != the same

[globaljustin]

therefore anyone who wants to do something similar

more fatuitousness...stop it

Uber isn't "similar" to a cab company....it ***IS*** a cab company in practice...only rhetoric make it different

Just b/c Uber uses an 'app' doesn't make it different....***CAB COMPANIES HAVE APPS TOO***

NO matter how you parse language, its the same thing

Its like taxi cabs are restaurants selling burgers, and Uber is an *unlicenced* food cart that sells burgers, and they set up right outside the legal restaurant, ****SELLING THE SAME PRODUCT****

and the law allows it anyway b/c of language and you have to buy the burger with an app from the food cart

its cheating, a scam, unfair competition, illegal....choose your language however, the reality is the same

same product...not similar...THE SAME PRODUCT

Re:similar != the same

[nctritech]

You don't even know the difference between a product and a service. You also didn't read anything I wrote past the one word you're trying to latch on to in order to twist what I've said to suit what you want to think. Either you have a logical discussion about the topic or keep enjoying your incoherent, baseless, fundamentally broken monologue. At this point I might as well respond to you with [citation needed] and leave it at that.

I think we're done here.

Re:Wrong amount

[cheesybagel]

If you are talking in the Internet the spaces make little difference. But commas or dots in numbers are onfusing since they have opposite meanings in US vs Europe and most of the rest of the world. i.e. the US uses the ',' as the thousands separator while in Europe its the '.' that's the thousands separator and similar rules apply to the decimal separator.

Just like Polaroid ...

[franblets]

We may not always like it. But this kind of thing happens with technology shifts. In photography it devoured Polaroid and has nearly eaten the film industry. Go to a restaurant. People are passing their phones around not pictures. It will happen to most of the printed media. Why have a pile of magazines when you can just get to this stuff from wherever you are? Who buys physical media with music on it any more? Governments can try to restrict this through laws and licensing, but it is more likely that it will drive it underground. It is probably something that needs to be run through the idea mill a few times. Reduce the licensing requirements for cabs make them part of the Uber network... whatever makes sense. This is more about price and convenience than ruining the cab business. I have a friend who knew a coffee shop owner. Starbucks came to a nearby spot. There was much complaining and grumbling about ruined business. My friend complained as though it was predatory. When I suggested that Starbucks wasn't using predatory pricing and was frequently the butt of the $5 cup of coffee - he suddenly realized that it was the product being offered that was the killer.

Against The Tide

[JimSadler]

The cab drivers do not have a unique issue. I know a used car dealer who feels that only dealers should ever be allowed to sell vehicles as dealers have to pay fees and meet many regulations that private parties do not. Obviously the only function of technology is to eliminate labor, both manual and intellectual. It is simply the cab drivers' turn to suffer the shock of a changing society. School teachers are being replaced by computers in many classrooms. yet we hear no uproar. Bookkeepers, girls Friday,and small office workers have suffered huge loss of employment due to cell phones and tax software. Even surgeons are at risk for replacement by robotics. And the howling will get louder. Commercial vehicle drivers of all types are going to cease to exist soon. The construction trades will take a death blow from 3d printed housing and components as well. This tide can not be held back nor should it be. Humans will be forced to change monetary and social policies in ways that no one has yet dreamed of and it is coming on fast.

Re:How are they not licensed?

[mythosaz]

Black has a higher barrier for the drivers.

Also, a number of "real" drivers use Uber to supplement their otherwise slow days.

Screw Cab Companies, They EARNED Their Reputation

[DroneWhatever]

I hope Uber and Lyft and any other competition puts shoddy cabbies and shoddy cab companies out of business. They earned the bad reputation they have, and that has helped to create the very competition that they now face. I say fuck'em. Maybe they will learn to stop taking people for a ride, stop pretending to be credit card friendly and then giving some excuse about needing cash, and my favorite, not using a GPS of some sorts. They lie about traffic when you insist that they take a certain route... The list goes on and on. Like I said, most cab companies can just fuck right off. If they are so worried about it, where is the outrage about rental car companies and limo services?

You laugh...

[Firethorn]

That's funny, but going by the histories of murderers and serial killers there's generally signs long before they actually kill somebody.

Now it's not 100% by any means, but if you can blackball 90% of cabby murderers before they get around to actually killing you'd make driving a taxi safer than being a cop(for example).

you are arguing semantics

[globaljustin]

your entire argument is based on making distinctions where no differences exist...using language only....you refused to engage with the points I made...because they prove you wrong

rhetoric...marketing words...hype...

these ways of describing something do not change the actual existence of it

what Uber *does* is the *same* as a Taxi company *in practice*

the only reason Uber is able to do this is they got people to believe their hype rhetoric

the only difference is semantic and **YOU KNOW THIS**

Adapt

[nurb432]

Or die.

If they cant keep up, get the hell off the road and out of the way. ( pun intended). Who do they think they are, the RIAA?

Uber Demonstrations Snarl Traffic...

[peacefool]

So, in response to a tough competitor - taxi and limo drivers decided to... make their own service even worse for a day?! Great tactics!..

What else could they do in the threat of Uber coming to town?
Beating their clients might work? Maybe, just being rude?

Re:You signed a waiver. NO LIABILITY!

[swillden]

Did you actually read that waiver? It doesn't waive liability arising due to accidents. It's all about not promising any service level guarantees.

Protest abut something that matters

[GrahamCox]

I can understand the taxi drivers' alarm but they're like Hansome cab drivers in the 18th century - change will come, sorry. But how about getting upset about something more important, everyone? Like the constant erosion of your freedom and privacy by the state? By the constant erosion of your wealth and societal benefits by bankers and other sundry plutarchs? Protest about something that matters, while you can.

If you can't compete, FUCK YOU.

[jcr]

Uber exists because taxi service in San Francisco sucks, big time. Anywhere Uber is catching on, they're filling a public need. Customers are not property: if your competition does a better job serving them, you SHOULD be out of business.

-jcr

resorting to semantics

[globaljustin]

, the huge number of people pointing out that you couldn't define a scam

exactly...you're trolling

here's why: my point is valid whether you call it a "scam" or "unfair competition" or w/e term you want to describe the behavior

for some reason, the truth of Uber's "business model" causes Libertards on /. cognitive dissonance so they attack my argument the only way they can think of: by arguing semantics

it is a scam...but use another term and I'm still right...Uber is at fault here and the protesters are right