Mayors of Atlanta & New Orleans: Uber Will Knock-Out Taxi Industry

McGruber writes Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu agree: there will a 15 round fight between Uber and the taxicab industry that currently enjoys regulatory capture, but after a long fight, Uber will win. Landrieu says: "It actually is going to be a 15 round fight. And it's going to take time to work out, hopefully sooner rather than later. But that debate will be held.....But it is a forceful fight, and our city council is full of people on Uber's side, people on the cabs' side, and it's a battle." Mayor Reed of Atlanta also expressed how politically powerful the taxi cartels can be: "I tell you, Uber's worth more than Sony, but cab drivers can take you out. So you've got to [weigh that]. Get in a cab and they say, 'Well that mayor, he is sorry.' You come to visit Atlanta, they say, 'Well that Mayor Reed is as sorry as the day is long. Let me tell you how sorry he is while I drive you to your hotel. And I want you to know that crime is up.' This guy might knock you out. I want you to know it can get really real. It's not as easy as it looks."

Comments

Good?

[Kenja]

Not really seeing a downside if the industry is this fragile. It's like claiming that lemonade stands will "knock out" the snapple industry.

Re:Good?

[Archangel Michael]

Any industry that can be replaced by technology, should be.

Hopefully we start evaluating laws that exist solely to prevent competition (Taxi cab franchise badges).

Re:Good?

[Archangel Michael]

Further, UBER is just a first shot across the bow. The next one will be automated "city cars" built by Google, that will pickup and drop off people at work and take them shopping and whatnot. The end of the taxi is coming.

Re: Good?

[TWX]

I expect that many of the regulations that apply to existing livery vehicles will be applied to uber services if the drivers or cars are used for more than a certain number of paid trips per year, or miles per day, or hours operating per day.

Many laws covering livery vehicles exist for important reasons. Too many vehicles on the road congesting the streets. Extra danger from drivers that aren't even recorded as providing livery service making followup after-the-fact difficult to impossible. Vehicles that are unsafe due to poor design or poor maintenance. Vehicles that have reliability problems.

A central system to purchase rides is not a bad idea, especially if the passenger either doesn't care who provides the service so long as the prices are competitive, or if the passenger is specifically looking for the lowest fare and can see such. I could see taxi services going from renting the cars to the drivers, providing radio dispatch, etc, to simply renting the cars and letting the drivers use the service to find fares, but I don't see many of the 'lessons learned' laws governing private paid transportation going away simply because someone offers another method to find a ride.

Re:Good?

[Vellmont]

This isn't replacing the taxi industry with a technology, it's pitting a highly regulated industry (taxi cabs) with an unregulated variant. Taxicabs pay huge amounts of money to run a taxicab. If you want to loosen regulations on taxis, fine. But Ueber is an attempt to create an unlicensed, unregulated market where a licensed regulated one exists. It has about zero to do with technology.

Re:Good?

[TechyImmigrant]

Further, UBER is just a first shot across the bow. The next one will be automated "city cars" built by Google, that will pickup and drop off people at work and take them shopping and whatnot. The end of the taxi is coming.

It will be a subscription based 'private club' service to get around taxi regulations.
Wealthier and frequent flyers will all sign up and get whisked efficiently to where they are going, Taxi operators will go bust. Hapless families on their once-a-decade flight get left waiting for a bus.

This is the normal filtering effect of the travel service industry. It serves to physically separate the savvy and/or wealthier travelers from the great unwashed.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

UBER is a dispatch & logistics company. They will be first in line to run fleets of automated vehicles...and not just for transporting people. Freight is a much bigger market. What UBER is doing now is not what they have in mind for the future. All they care about now is getting brand recognition. Picking fights with taxi companies and getting news articles is just cheap advertising.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

That only shows how bad and harmful such regulations are, and the best way to get done with them is to put it in competition the regulated service with something non regulated and let people vote with their wallets about what they prefer.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. But the Ayn Rand capitalists cannot see beyond the dollar signs. I'm in favour of taxis and for-profit travel services being heavily regulated, not for the sake of preveting competition, but for safety, vetting, someone to sue should something go wrong, tradition, and a whole host of additional reasons. I would not get into a car driven by someone who just throws a mustache on their ride and says they know the city. I agree with the stringent requirements London has for taxi drivers. I think this should be a requirement. You should be able to tell me at least three ways to get to any one place -- without a map, without GPS, without tech aids. Can't? Then you have no experience as a driver and I should, by default, not trust you. Uber drivers don't know the cities like taxi drivers do. Some shortcuts will get you killed. Experienced taxi drivers know where to not take their charges. Uber doesn't. I'll take experience and tradition over newer and faster, thank you. Novelties often equal heresy. This is one of those times.

Re: Good?

[Shakrai]

By skirting the regulations, uber is worth billions. They have siphoned those billions from those who have lost their jobs and are struggling.

If we held back technological advances because of job losses we'd still be tipping elevator operators and routing our calls through Ethel at the local central office.

Re:Good?

[joshuao3]

You mean, kinda link a limo service does now? In other words, there's already a "private club" service that let's the wealthier and frequent fliers get whisked efficiently to where they are going.

Re:Good?

[tipo159]

Where are mod points when I need them?

Re:Good?

[Archangel Michael]

I'm sure they will. But so will anyone with capital to buy fleets of automated cars. This is going to change the transportation industry (not just cabs)

Re:Good?

[Jeremy Erwin]

As Lawrence Lessig mused "code is law". We don't need governments to try in substitute their feckless ancient law for our code. Imagine-- millions liberated by the promise of technology to start building their societies on Python, Perl, Malbolge and other industry standard codebases instead of leaving those sorts of decisions to outmoded, inefficient, and frankly just embarrassing artifacts of the so called democratic revolution. We live in the 21st century, people, and it's time we stopped paying homage to 18th century political philosophers and their devotion to the clockwork universe.

Re:Good?

[Archangel Michael]

"Hapless Families" will adjust. They will figure it out. And those that don't will be few, and far between. However, I'm sure that people like you will no doubt take up the cause, in an effort to assuage your guilt over using these services.

Besides, I don't understand why a full size Tesla doesn't pick them up, and drive them to the airport, with all their luggage. Or the occasional "huge" family getting picked up in a Van or Limo that seats 10-14 people.

Unless, of course, you're speaking for yourself being "hapless", since it is clear you can't figure out even the simple solutions to the imaginary problems you see with technology.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a huge difference between the two business models and regulations.

Uber, from a consumer's perspective, has more regulation. You know who your driver is ahead of time, you have an added sense of security. Especially if you are a young woman in the city, just getting into a random taxi isn't always the safest thing. Sure, there have been some incidents with Uber, but at least there is non-repudiation and the offenders are easily caught.

Also, from a driver's perspective, it is also much safer because there is implied regulation of the customers. Again, because you know who you are dealing with, and because there is no cash involved, it's a lot less likely you're going to pick up someone and get a gun shoved in your face for all your cash which you need to keep on hand. And you KNOW you're getting paid. And if someone damages your car or vomits in it after a night on the town, there are mandatory fees for that, which the driver will get reimbursed for automatically -- unlike a normal taxi.

And from a minority perspective (young black males, latinos, etc.), the regulations on the books which are not enforced are automatically, via technology, enforced. How many taxis stop for random young black males in the city? How many even go to bad neighborhoods? They are technically supposed to, but you'll always get a response "oh, sorry, I'm off duty now"...can't do that with Uber.

Taxi companies are failing because their business model is outdated, their service is deplorable, and they're simply not safe from the driver's or the consumer's perspective. Not because of over-regulation. The technology and business model makes most of the regulation moot.

Re:Good?

[geekoid]

No they won't. There will be services for one off; which is a lot of people.
IF not, well then create a service. You could take thousands of 'hapless families' to a major airport everyday. The last time I went to the airport I used a service that ONLY picked up seldom fliers. That had many cars and according to the owner, were doing very well. He then offered me a job.
SO, I suspect those people will be ale to get to the airport.
Seriously you're just making up problems.

Re:Good?

[iluvcapra]

The next one will be automated "city cars" built by Google, that will pickup and drop off people at work and take them shopping and whatnot.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, such a car has yet to be demonstrated. Google's demo vehicles are incapable of taking riders anywhere apart from a set track of stops, like a Disneyworld people-mover ride.

There's still probably a need in some cities for street-hail livery, which is what classic yellow cabs are -- in NY you can wait 5-10 minutes for the Uber or hail a cab in 30 seconds, and frankly the cabbie will be less of a pain -- my experience with Uber drivers in Manhattan has been a pretty mixed bag. As long as humans are doing the driving it might still be advisable for the drivers to get background checks and have commercial licensing and insurance, such things are prudent and won't kill the magic free market pixies that flutter about e-hailed car services.

As I understand it, city governments have a few simple problems with Uber-

1) Ubers can avoid poor neighborhoods at will, and there's really nothing the city can do about it. I live in LA, and if you live in, say, Watts, you must call a cab if you want a car, no Uber will find you there, because it's "the ghetto" and there's never an Uber within 20 minutes. Taxis can be and are required to pick up from all parts of the city, and their statistics are closely monitored by regulators to make sure they do.

2) Uber's trip pricing structure is very free-markety but it conflicts with most city's basic taxi regs, wherein a trip's price is a fixed formula of distance and time, no special charge for time of day or pickup/destination location. Uber can't provide this, because they use rate premiums to recruit drivers. Again the system is completely open to various kinds of discrimination, and the pricing process is completely private and not open to any sort of public accountability or scrutiny -- even they drivers, who are nominally the service providers ("Uber is not a transportation company"), can't control it.

3) These of course lead to the more philosophical dispute, namely, Uber handles the hailing, transaction processing, driver and rider ratings, and branding of the interaction, but whenever there's any sort of trouble, Uber can vehemently claim they have nothing to do with the driver or the ride, that it's none of their business, and governments and harmed parties must direct all their laws and lawsuits at little sole proprietors. This is a little too clever by half for some people and while following the letter of the law tends to skirt the equities a little too close.

All of this is totally fine as long as e-hail livery is a "premium" service, but some cities rely on taxis as a critical part of the transport infrastructure, and that's when price disparities and availability blackouts start to be problematic, politically.

Re:Good?

[Maxo-Texas]

While I tend to be pro-link and pro-uber, it's clear to me that taxi's are required to serve bad areas and less profitable areas while link and uber are not.

Part of the process of transitioning to link and uber may eventually require percentage of service of these types.

Otherwise, we'll end up with great competative service in the profitable areas and poor to no service elsewhere. Which will be a failure of the public transportation system.

Re:Good?

[butchersong]

Welcome to the internet my friend, disrupting oligopolies and weaving communities from strangers for over 20 years now ;)

Re:Good?

[tmosley]

They're just blaming Uber for what they themselves have done to the taxi industry. It should cost NOTHING to start a cab company, aside from the price of your cab and fuel. But government intervened on the side of big cab companies to force them to pay huge amounts for permits to decrease the competition.

If Snapple had lobbied to force other drink companies to pay a million dollars for each distribution truck, you can bet that whatever drink companies were left would be charging outrageous amounts, and would probably try to ban people from drinking tap water. Such an arrangement would certainly be taken down by a series of lemonade stands.

Uber has just pointed out the inefficiency and waste that has been created by government interference in the transportation industry.

Re:Good?

[westlake]

Any industry that can be replaced by technology, should be.

Every industry has a technological base and a social reason for its existence.

Taxi services have a long history of abuses which the geek conveniently chooses to forget. Perhaps because for him the taxi is a convenience and not a necessity.

In a neighboring city, black and poor, the only accessible, affordable, suburban sized supermarket is a cab ride midtown.

In the hospital district.

Re:Good?

[whoever57]

it's pitting a highly regulated industry (taxi cabs) with an unregulated variant.

Unregulated versions have existed in many cities for a long time -- for example, private hire cars in the UK. In the US, the equivalent is not unregulated (limo services) but it is much less regulated than taxi services. People were prepared to pay more for the convenience of a taxi.

What Uber brings is the convenience of a taxi combined with the advantages of existing unregulated services. That's where technology comes in -- it provides the convenience.

Taxi services are now suffering because of a combination of historic greed and anti-competitive actions. By that, I mean the sale of medallions, which brought in revenue to cities (greed) and made it difficult or impossible for people to start a taxi business (anti-competitive). However, those medallions are a huge cost of running a taxi which is not incurred by services such as Uber.

Re:Good?

[un1nsp1red]

You seriously don't think this happens already? Taxis are "required" to do lots of things they don't (like take credit cards). See how many taxis will pick you up or drop you off in a shit neighborhood. Hell, I've been denied taxi service to good neighborhoods just because the cab driver didn't feel like going that direction. Oh, and taxis are not part of a public transportation system.

Re:Good?

[Penguinisto]

Hapless families on their once-a-decade flight get left waiting for a bus.

...or they'll just call up a private airport shuttle service, like anyone with a brain in SanFran does now (because the airport shuttle services only cost you $30 from Mission to OAK, whereas a taxi will cost you around $60-$80 for the same distance.)

Oh, and most decent hotels have complimentary shuttles on top of that, throughout the country.

You don't get out much, do you?

Re:Good?

[Dr. Evil]

Taxis need regulation so that you don't have flocks of angry seagulls fighting over fares, or criminals picking up marks.

Given that the fighting still happens, and the conning still happens, I'd rather trust a website with a reputation based system, than a taxi driver.

Re:Good?

[slew]

Hopefully we start evaluating laws that exist solely to prevent competition (Taxi cab franchise badges).

Are you willing to go so far as minimum wage and immigration laws? Most folks have a line to draw somewhere. Depending on your politics...

Usually when the paycheck of one's friends/neighbors line gets crossed, opinions start to shift. When it finally gets to your paycheck, that's often a bright red line for most folks... The mentality is like this: first they came...

Re:Good?

[taustin]

And it's only a matter of time before organized crime smells the opportunity to take over the entire taxi industry, without regulation.

Re:Good?

[Cajun Hell]

I agree with the stringent requirements London has for taxi drivers. I think this should be a requirement. You should be able to tell me at least three ways to get to any one place -- without a map, without GPS, without tech aids. Can't? Then you have no experience as a driver and I should, by default, not trust you. Uber drivers don't know the cities like taxi drivers do. Some shortcuts will get you killed.

Would you favor a more general raising-of-the-bar for drivers licenses for all drivers? The stuff you're talking about sounds pretty important and I can't think of any reasons that only people who do it for pay would be affected by it. And plenty of them do have passengers (or other cars' drivers and passengers!) in their hands. I doubt anyone would be able to make a connection between money and the safety issues that you bring up.

BTW, I loved your bit about how anyone who wants to save a few bucks on cabs, is now an "Ayn Rand capitalist." I know a whole bunch of drunks who are going to be very amused to learn that about themselves. Half of them probably mistakenly think they're on the left end of the political spectrum.

Re:Good?

[ganjadude]

ok. heres a simple solution then.

Lets taxis keep running, and people like you who want the "security" of using the tried and true method can. but allow uber to exist, so other people can make a decision on their own, do i want to save money but potentially get in the car with a maniac? or go tried a true and still get in a car with a potential maniac, although the chances are slimmer with that option

win win solution for the people, only ones bitching are those who run taxis who now get slightly less profit.

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

Unless, of course, you're speaking for yourself being "hapless", since it is clear you can't figure out even the simple solutions to the imaginary problems you see with technology.

Those who are truly hapless are the ones who don't understand that you don't know whether new, hyped solutions will actually work or whether they will have unforeseen problems until you actually try them out for a while and see what happens in reality.

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

Any industry that can be replaced by technology, should be.

You can replace butter with saturated corn oil.

You can replace your doctor with a touch-tone phone where you answer questions on a key pad, and a computer tells you what to do.

That doesn't mean the replacement will be as good as the technology it's replacing.

Re:Good?

[Just Some Guy]

I live in LA, and if you live in, say, Watts, you must call a cab if you want a car, no Uber will find you there, because it's "the ghetto" and there's never an Uber within 20 minutes. Taxis can be and are required to pick up from all parts of the city, and their statistics are closely monitored by regulators to make sure they do.

I live in San Francisco and you won't be getting a ride from the cabbies who are hypothetically required to take you. Dispatch will accept the call, but no one will ever show up. Maybe you hail a cab, but when they find out you're going to a sketch part of town they'll suddenly remember that their meter is broken.

Taxis are required to pick you up and take you wherever, now. A fat lot of good that actually does you when the driver would rather be somewhere else.

Re: Good?

[ganjadude]

yeah, and those knocker uppers really got it bad. wont someone think of the knocker uppers???!!!!!?!?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knocker-up

Re:Good?

[Just Some Guy]

So you'd rather pass laws requiring all of that cultural information to be individually memorized and kept in short supply, rather than those allowing it to be distributed to anyone who wants it. That's interesting. Bizarrely Luddite and a touch racist (because you prefer discriminating against places "everyone knows are bad" rather than ones that can be objectively demonstrated as such), but interesting.

I'll take newer, faster, and scientific, thank you. Fetishizing tradition often equals heresy, and this is one of those times.

Re:Good?

[Jawnn]

That only shows how bad and harmful such regulations are, and the best way to get done with them is to put it in competition the regulated service with something non regulated and let people vote with their wallets about what they prefer.

A more ignorant reply I can not remember seeing here on /. Unless, oh, I see. You don't give a shit about "the little people" for whose protection the regulations were enacted in the first place.

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

While I tend to be pro-link and pro-uber, it's clear to me that taxi's are required to serve bad areas and less profitable areas while link and uber are not.

Part of the process of transitioning to link and uber may eventually require percentage of service of these types.

Otherwise, we'll end up with great competative service in the profitable areas and poor to no service elsewhere. Which will be a failure of the public transportation system.

One of the problems that we had with the taxi industry in New York City is that they had a difficult time carrying wheelchairs. New yellow cabs being phased in have to carry wheelchairs.

If Uber drivers are private cars, then only a small proportion of them will be able to carry wheelchairs. If they follow the free market, they will charge more. So instead of getting a $20 cab ride to the doctor or a theater, a wheelchair rider may have to pay $50 or $100.

I don't know if that will happen. I'd like to see what happens in a city that had Uber working for a year or two.

Will the free market fairy really solve all problems, or will she kill off the weak and helpless as she's done in the past?

Re:Good?

[TechyImmigrant]

Unless, of course, you're speaking for yourself being "hapless", since it is clear you can't figure out even the simple solutions to the imaginary problems you see with technology.

Those who are truly hapless are the ones who don't understand that you don't know whether new, hyped solutions will actually work or whether they will have unforeseen problems until you actually try them out for a while and see what happens in reality.

Amongst travelers, the hapless are those that didn't know they should plan ahead. They get stuck in middle seats, separated from the people they are travelling with. They don't have access to the lounges. They get on the plane last and then have to check their bags because their's no space left. They end up in a long taxi line, rather than having a pre-arranged pickup or other transport option. They wear shoes with laces.

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

I've been denied taxi service to good neighborhoods just because the cab driver didn't feel like going that direction.

In regulated New York City, I would report that driver to the Taxi and Limousine Commission, and he would have to take a day off and explain himself at a hearing.

(I would too, but enough people have been pissed off enough to file complaints in the past that taxi drivers don't pull that much any more.)

Re:Good?

[TechyImmigrant]

>You don't get out much, do you?

My frequent flyer card says I do.

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

Those who are truly hapless are the ones who don't understand that you don't know whether new, hyped solutions will actually work or whether they will have unforeseen problems until you actually try them out for a while and see what happens in reality.

Airline deregulation gave us lower prices.

It also took away a lot of service to smaller cities that had depended on air service.

Then for a while it gave us an increase in accidents, until the federal government stepped in.

It also destroyed a lot of formerly-well paying jobs among airline mechanics and support staff. All those loyal employees, who worked hard, did everything right, never took shortcuts, drove to work in the snow, and thought their employers were going to be loyal to them in return, found out that the darwinian free market means that the weak and sick die soon.

It also turned a lot of financial wheeler-dealers into multi-millionaires.

Now the prices are back up again. They seem to cost about as much as they did during regulation. I know a shuttle to Boston costs me a lot more.

New solutions have winners and losers. I just want to know who the winners and losers will be.

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

Oh, and most decent hotels have complimentary shuttles on top of that, throughout the country.

You don't get out much, do you?

I went to the Grand Hyatt Denver last time and they didn't have any complementary shuttle from the airport.

Now that I think of it, when I stayed at the Ritz Carlton, they didn't have a complementary shuttle either.

Re:Good?

[PrimaryConsult]

If Uber drivers are private cars, then only a small proportion of them will be able to carry wheelchairs. If they follow the free market, they will charge more. So instead of getting a $20 cab ride to the doctor or a theater, a wheelchair rider may have to pay $50 or $100.

The solution to this is for a company to start up that only caters to disabled passengers, charges the same rates as the other companies, and gets a subsidy from the city. The point is largely moot anyway: many cities already have something like this (though you usually have to call a day in advance), in the form of paratransit services which offer door to door for slightly more than a standard bus fare.

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

If Uber drivers are private cars, then only a small proportion of them will be able to carry wheelchairs. If they follow the free market, they will charge more. So instead of getting a $20 cab ride to the doctor or a theater, a wheelchair rider may have to pay $50 or $100.

The solution to this is for a company to start up that only caters to disabled passengers, charges the same rates as the other companies, and gets a subsidy from the city.

That's the problem with free market solutions. A lot of them require a subsidy from government. And subsidies can disappear the next time a politician is under pressure to cut taxes.

That's what happened to Medicaid. And the Obamacare market, which is only a good deal if you qualify for the subsidy.

Whenever entrepreneurs try to sell you on a free-market solution to a government-run or -regulated service, you should ask them, "How much of a government subsidy will you need?"

The point is largely moot anyway: many cities already have something like this (though you usually have to call a day in advance), in the form of paratransit services which offer door to door for slightly more than a standard bus fare.

Yes, there is a paratransit, and it varies around the country. In New York City, it's only available to people who have below a certain income, and they can't give you a precise schedule.

It's not the same as a wheelchair-equipped taxi, that you can pick up on the street fifteen minutes before a doctor's appointment or a movie.

Change isn't necessarily bad, and it's not necessarily bad to have winners and losers, but I just want to know who the winners and losers will be.

Re:Good?

[NotDrWho]

The downside is that cities like New York will have to figure out how to replace all that revenue that comes from charging taxi companies as much as $1 million for a single taxicab license.

Re:Good?

[TheRaven64]

At least in London, there are inspectors who pose as members of the public and take taxi rides. If they are refused or the driver doesn't take the most direct route, he can lose his taxi license.

Re:Good?

[TheRaven64]

I tried taking a shuttle to the Minneapolis Hilton on my last trip to the US. I was told it would be there in 20 minutes and would take 25 minutes. For a tenth the price, there's a light rail service that runs every 15 minutes, takes about 25 minutes, and stops 5 minutes walk (or, for the exceptionally lazy, a short free bus ride) away from the hotel. I arrived at the hotel at about the same time as the shuttle. Given the price of the flight and the room, I'd have been happy to spend the money for the shuttle if it had got me there faster, but paying ten times as much for no time saving (and to sit in a more cramped form of transport - the light rail had loads of space, the shuttle was packed) didn't appeal.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, it's more expensive to have vehicles specifically for wheelchairs. Honestly, they should cost more IMO. I'm all for helping people with disabilities out, but if it costs more, it costs more. Either on the customer end or through subsidies on the backend.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. The free market solution is to let disabled people pay the adequate fee to make transporting them profitable and attractive, in which case there will certainly be willing and capable to do the job.

Subsides are only necessary if you do not defend the free market and think it is more moral to FORCE non disabled people to pay for disabled people's problems.

Re:Good?

[Archangel Michael]

"That's the problem with free market solutions. A lot of them require a subsidy from government in order to provide government mandated services."

FTFY.

Free market doesn't exist in most places any longer. Government regulation creates artificial barriers and expenses in order to "facilitate" helping disadvantaged. But the costs are never measured. It might be cheaper to have select few people outfitted properly, and pay them very well, than it is to have everyone outfitted the same way, for a relatively small percentage of people who use Wheelchairs.

My solution is to figure out how many of these people actually need the service, figure out how often, and charge all the Cab companies a "surcharge" to opt out. Pay someone from that surcharge opt out fund enough to get the upgrades and service these people. Guess what, you'll have free market results, that probably work better than if you did it the "government mandated way".

My guess is that everyone would end up getting the right kind of vehicle and servicing people of all types, but it wouldn't be "mandated".

Change isn't good or bad. Reasons for change are good and bad, and you can even have the wrong change for the right reasons (Obama is not GWB) but I digress

Re:Good?

[Archangel Michael]

By all means, avoid the "new hyped solutions" until they are proven. That way, you'll always be on the trailing edge and seem hapless.

Or, you can evaluate "new hyped solutions" and see if they measure up to the hype, and if that hype is something that works for you. I once made the mistake of saying "I don't get it" with a new technology, because I was thinking too small. I will never make that mistake again. Interesting thing about that particular tech, is you cannot even get one any longer, as it has been replaced probably twice or three times over.

Re:Good?

[Maxo-Texas]

And when the services screw over 51% of the population, the next election cycle the population tends to push back.

If Uber and Link kill taxi service and enough of the populace is screwed- they will face government compulsion because the "government" is really just the will of the winning voters.

As for your solution, Nothing is ever as as simple as you think. It's good to think up ideas. Yours is interesting. But you have to presume

* adverse selection
* active opposition
* regulatory capture

The government goes bad over time. Things start off fair but go down hill over a couple decades due to the above.

But privately held companies go bad *very quickly* compared to the government. We have a long history of privately held companies doing very evil things (even releasing products they knew would kill lots of people).

At the least we need a strong government, harsh penalties, and strict enforcement to keep private companies in line. The government needs to be a couple orders of magnitude greater in size than the largest corporation.

And in the end-- the above factors will still apply and things will end bloody. Always have. Always will.

Re:Good?

[Wraithlyn]

I am awaiting the day I can order a car2go and have the closest available one simply drive itself to my door.

Re:Good?

[Maxo-Texas]

It's really more of an insurance situation.

Christopher Reeves was fine until he was a quadraplegic.

Most of us start off healthy and some of us "lose" and become crippled.

We can take a harsh attitude and basically consign the losers to misery and death to avoid paying an extra .002% higher taxes (probably less) or slightly higher taxi cab fares (maybe a few cents per trip for all the healthy passengers).

Personally, on moral grounds- I'd prefer to help the downtrodden and the ill. And on a "risk" basis, I'd prefer to pay infinitesimally more taxes and slightly higher prices on the off chance that I have the bad luck to become disabled.

Even more so when you consider that there is like a 90% chance you'll become disabled when you are over 80. If you live- you will be disabled- and it will be at the worst possible time.

Re:Good?

[jwbales]

Think of all the families of farriers and buggy whip makers who were ruined by the automobile. Did they all sit on their butts and starve or did they find more productive lines of work? I think the latter.

Re:Good?

[Xaedalus]

That's what happens in a nation that believes in the prosperity gospel.

Re:Good?

[Anonymous Coward]

No free market solution requires subsidies. The free market solution here is to let the disabled people pay enough for the special service they need to make it attractive for people to do the job, and it is a very good and fair solution.

Re:Good?

[nctritech]

It might seem awful Reddit of me, but [citation needed]. You can't get away with arguing the regulations protect "the little people" without citing a source that shows that they actually protect said people. Most of the regulations look to me like they're there (A) to erect a huge entry barrier for the taxi industry so the taxicab companies can have an effective monopoly, and (B) to extract extra tax from people who take taxicabs.

Make no mistake, cities fight this so vehemently because it hurts their revenue stream.

Re:Good?

[Vintermann]

I shake my head at the ingress text: "the taxicab industry that currently enjoys regulatory capture"

Some things people should know about Uber: It's backed by Silicon Valley venture capital and Goldman Sachs, to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars.

Yet, it's the self-employed, unskilled labor in the cottage industry of driving taxis that "enjoys regulatory capture". Yeeeeah, right.

The taxi industry is regulated to protect consumers, not drivers. All Uber is, is some rich people who decided that they'd become powerful enough to simply ignore regulations on driving people for profit. When the reality of why that regulation exists comes crashing down. they count on their ideology/PR department to smooth over it, and write new regulation tailored to give them a monopoly.

Re:Good?

[dwye]

Mod Parent Insightful

Re:Good?

[Vintermann]

I'd rather trust a website with a reputation based system, than a taxi driver.

Ah yes, a taxi service (in all but name), with all the reliability and safety of Ebay and PayPal.

Currently existing reputation systems are junk. Companies like Ebay find it more profitable to just sit on their network-effects based hegemony and smooth over the worst failures with PR, rather than making an actually useful reputation system. Reputation systems are much like airport security - to make you feel safe, not actually make you safe.

Re:Good?

[pepty]

I don't know about now but when/where I was growing up it cost about half as much to take a limo home from the airport as a taxi.

Re: Good?

[SternisheFan]

I suppose that taxis will eventually need to go to a credit card system. If you order a cab via uber, cancel when the driver is close or is at the pickup location, your account will still be debited the cost of the trip.

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

My solution is to figure out how many of these people actually need the service, figure out how often, and charge all the Cab companies a "surcharge" to opt out. Pay someone from that surcharge opt out fund enough to get the upgrades and service these people. Guess what, you'll have free market results, that probably work better than if you did it the "government mandated way".

My guess is that everyone would end up getting the right kind of vehicle and servicing people of all types, but it wouldn't be "mandated".

Those free-market results don't work. That's what we have in the private health care system. Most people are healthy, and don't need much health care. A few people are sick, and need a lot of health care.

Most other countries have a government-run system where doctors decide who needs what and give it to them -- yes, a "mandated" way. It has its problems but it works pretty well.

In our country, we make everybody responsible for buying their own health care. That works well for most people, because most people are healthy. Insurance companies are happy to sell them insurance, because they pay a lot and hardly cost anything.

But for the people who really are sick -- like somebody with asthma -- the insurance companies don't want them. Different states try different schemes, including some like you describe. Some states have "high risk" pools, but the premiums are so expensive people can't afford them. The conservatives want to give them "vouchers" to pay for private insurance, but they still don't meet the gap and the people who are sick can't afford that either.

There are lots of "market-based" schemes that sound good, but when you try them out in the real world, and the insurance companies actually have to offer plans, and people actually have to pay the premiums, they turn out to be too expensive for people to afford. There are lots of people dying in America because they can't afford simple things like asthma medication for children.

And of course one of the problems is that we have one of the lowest tax rates in the developed world, so our government doesn't have enough money to actually follow through and pay for these schemes.

That's why, whenever somebody comes up with a bright new "disruptive" idea, I say, "Show me someplace where it's working successfully." (Like Canadian health care.) Until then, you're just smoking opium. Or in Ayn Rand's case, benzedrine.

Re:Good?

[MichalInator]

Hear hear!

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

We have a long history of privately held companies doing very evil things (even releasing products they knew would kill lots of people).

When has that ever happened?

Besides tobacco.

And asbestos.

And lead paint.

Re:Good?

[guises]

I can't see where you got that impression. Most taxi regulations are about pricing: prices are fixed, mostly so they can't gouge customers or rainy days or at other opportunities; or licensing: taxi licenses are limited to ensure that taxi drivers can still make a decent living despite lost revenue from the first point; or universal service: taxis are required to operate even in those parts of town that are less savory or less profitable.

If your objective is to set up taxis as an alternate means of public transportation, something to complement a subway system, for example, than all of these traits are not just desirable, but necessary.

Re:Good?

[mbkennel]

| If/when uber and other private entities take business away from public services,

How does that work?

I see additional taxi-limo-driver-like services. If prices for transportation go down, does that

a) help
b) hurt

people?

Is the problem that Uber et al might get so convenient and inexpensive that people will use it instead of the public buses? Is that really going to be a problem?

Re:Good?

[Vellmont]

You've missed the point. The system can't survive with a regulated and unregulated market. The regulated market will have higher costs, and have to charge higher fees. So the regulated market will become smaller and smaller, and likely more expensive. Do you really want the choice where the safe, knowledgeable driver is extremely expensive, and your only alternative is some guy in his shitmobile who barely knows the city?

only ones bitching are those who run taxis who now get slightly less profit.

I don't run a taxi service. I don't know anyone who runs a taxi service. I rarely take taxis. I'm bitching.

Re:Good?

[Vellmont]

That's simply not the same thing. The private limo industry is NOT a taxi service. Limo services aren't point to point, they're hiring a private car for the day or night. They're also FAR more expensive, and rely on reputation of the limo company.

Taxi services are normally dispatch services, with the drivers operating independently. It's VERY different from a limo service in about every way.

Taxi services are now suffering because of a combination of historic greed and anti-competitive actions. By that, I mean the sale of medallions, which brought in revenue to cities (greed) and made it difficult or impossible for people to start a taxi business (anti-competitive).

If cities want to eliminate the medallion program, stop the sale of them, etc, that's totally fine with me. But creating an unregulated industry to compete with a regulated one is simply unfair, and frankly possibly even unconstitutional. You can't make the laws apply to one set of people and not another. Uber is clearly a taxi dispatch service. Why should the law not apply to them, but apply to everyone else?

Re:Good?

[recharged95]

Wealthier and frequent flyers will all sign up and get whisked efficiently to where they are going,

Of course, if Google also builds their own roads. Otherwise, we're sitting in the same traffic.

It's not about the service, nor the cars. It's about the infrastructure they are both running on.... the roads and whos going to really pay for them. Who uses the road more maybe a compromise (in fees). Otherwise, someone could be getting a free lunch in taxes that is...

Re:Good?

[sl149q]

You can replace your land line phone with a flip cell phone.

You can replace your flip phone with a "smartphone" (well they did call them that at the time...)

You can replace your smartphone with an iPhone or an Android.

Do you think that we really would want to go back to what was the standard phone service in the 70's and 80's?

Or TV service (all 3-4 channels) of the sixties?

Taxi service has not changed all that much. There is a bit of automation in the dispatching. But the basic model of a regulated (medallioned) driver getting hailed or dispatched by radio (now computer) is essentially the same as it was 50-60-80 years ago. And really that was little changed from the horse drawn equivalent in larger cities in the 1800's.

It is seriously time to look at new models of service.

Re: Good?

[sl149q]

No because the elevator operators and Ether would still be tilling the farm. Even those jobs where "new" in the early part of the last century. And allowed by improvements (read technology) in farming that freed up workers for those "new" jobs.

Re:Good?

[PapayaSF]

I live in San Francisco and you won't be getting a ride from the cabbies who are hypothetically required to take you. Dispatch will accept the call, but no one will ever show up.

Very true. I once tried to get a cab from one part of downtown to another, in the middle of a workday. No cab ever showed up. I've heard they don't want to miss out on a more lucrative run to the airport.

Re: Good?

[PapayaSF]

Yeah, because the private companies that benefit from this had nothing to do with it, right? It's all the government's fault and only the government's fault.

You are missing the point. When legislators decide to regulate buying and selling, the first things bought are legislators. Taxi cartels are prime examples of this.

Re:Good?

[superwiz]

Nah, that one will be much easier to fight. NYC, for example, made segways illegal despite being the best market for it and having a lot of bike lanes which can be used by segway users. It's easy to outlaw a technology which can be visually identified (police can ticket its users). It's much harder to enforce a ban of technology based purely on information.

Re:Good?

[Cyberax]

I'm a socialist. I think that some government regulation and redistributive taxes are generally a good idea. However, taxis are an example where this approach fails spectacularly, in theory taxi regulation should protect consumers and provide a decent living wage for drivers. In practice, taxi companies pay cities (in form of taxi licenses) to bar competing companies.

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

Do you think that we really would want to go back to what was the standard phone service in the 70's and 80's?

Or TV service (all 3-4 channels) of the sixties?

Today, I get a lot of calls where I can't understand the person. In the '70s and certainly the '80s, all the calls had a clear connection. So it's worse in some ways. I would still choose the mobile phone and cheaper service of today, but I realize I may be giving some things up.

Taxi service has not changed all that much. There is a bit of automation in the dispatching. But the basic model of a regulated (medallioned) driver getting hailed or dispatched by radio (now computer) is essentially the same as it was 50-60-80 years ago. And really that was little changed from the horse drawn equivalent in larger cities in the 1800's.

It is seriously time to look at new models of service.

You could always call for a cab on the phone. That's what Uber does. Now, when I call, I have to be prepared to wait at least half an hour for a cab. If Uber could give me the same service without waiting, I'd like that.

However, cab drivers have to undergo police checks, and pass a test. They have a cab license, which can be revoked for bad behavior. Their cabs are inspected and insured. I think they have $1 million in liability insurance, which is about what a major accident, like amputating a tourist's leg, would cost.

Uber doesn't do that. They ignore the law. That's their business model. They openly say that they will defy court orders. Their drivers get whatever insurance, police checks, and safety inspections that Uber feels like.

Some places have medallions and some places don't. When I take a medallion cab in New York City, they always have a working seat belt. When I visit my cousin in Levittown and take a cab from the Long Island Rail Road station, they never have a working seat belt. Long Island has less regulation, and their cabs aren't as safe.

If the medallion taxi industry disappears, and I'm left with Uber, what are the tradeoffs? In what ways will I be worse off? Will the cars and drivers be as safe?

Waving your hand and saying, "Innovation is good, regulation is bad," is not a rational answer.

Re:Good?

[jmcvetta]

NSA already knows the location of my personal tracking device. The city taxis in SF all have a (mandated?) bug eye style night vision camera watching the passenger. I'd be kinda surprise if that data isn't getting run thru facial recognition algos.

Re:Good?

[germansausage]

What Taxi owners enjoy is a system of "Supply Management". It artificially creates scarcity, eliminates competition and keeps prices high. The owners of the medallions make a fortune, the taxi drivers make less than minimum wage, and the consumer gets a bunch of problems including waiting far too long for cabs at peak times (bars close or cruise ships arrive). As with many things done with good intentions and counter to market forces it has the opposite effect of what you claim is intended.

Re:Good?

[jmcvetta]

Yet, it's the self-employed, unskilled labor in the cottage industry of driving taxis that "enjoys regulatory capture". Yeeeeah, right.

It's not the drivers. It's the taxi companies, often said to be affiliated with organized crime, who own the monopoly (taxi medallions) and make the big money. The drivers get shafted, like all workers who do not control the means of production. There are a few independent cabbies who own their own medallions, but they're exceedingly rare.

Not only does an independent driver need to buy a fabulously expensive medallion (probably from the mob), but he also needs to buy a city-spec taxi. Around here taxis are required to have all kinds of expensively-proprietary looking hardware attached. Uber/Lyft/etc use ordinary cars owned by their drivers. So already their workers own an important part of the means of production. They still don't own the dispatch system, but when there are several competitors they must compete for drivers as well as passengers.

I recently spoke with a taxi driver who was taking me to the airport (in a yellow city cab). He said he also drives for both Uber and Lyft. In his opinion he preferred Lyft, because he made the most money. To him it was all the same work, just different employers and different pay.

One good thing the current taxi medallion regime in SF does provide is a sort of indirect retirement system for the drivers. Don't recall the exact details - heard about it from another cabbie. Apparently after working a long career, a driver is given the opportunity to buy a taxi medallion from the city for rather less than its market price. The driver can then sell it or rent it out. So in effect it is their retirement plan.

Re:Good?

[fafalone]

1) Ubers can avoid poor neighborhoods at will, and there's really nothing the city can do about it. I live in LA, and if you live in, say, Watts, you must call a cab if you want a car, no Uber will find you there, because it's "the ghetto" and there's never an Uber within 20 minutes. Taxis can be and are required to pick up from all parts of the city, and their statistics are closely monitored by regulators to make sure they do.

Yellow cabs in NYC absolutely do this. Yes, they have to take you to your destination, but that's it. There's nothing requiring them to drive around looking for passengers- hence why the green outer borough cabs came to be. Even in parts of Manhattan, you'd have to wait 10-15 minutes, or more during off-peak, before seeing an available taxi. If you walk a few blocks, they're all over the place again. I used to frequently visit a friend in the Lower East Side public housing; for her cabs were so rare she would always call black car services, which cater to the area with cheaper prices than a regular taxi.

Re:Good?

[dgatwood]

And 50+ years of trans fats. (The dangers were discovered way back in the 1950s.)

Re:Good?

[Maxo-Texas]

Wow- would have expected GM to be on the list.

Dozens of deaths and the knew all along their products were killing their customers and they threatened relatives of some of their customers with lawsuits to shut them up when the customers died.

But aye!

Re:Good?

[Maxo-Texas]

Wow... it's neither very good (since many disabled people have incomes under $15,000 per year- that's WAY under the poverty line because companies won't HIRE them (increased insurance costs, don't cha know).) nor is it at all fair (in the sense of "morally right".

You must be posting from opposite land!

I'm not religious but here's some quotes to remind you about "fairness" in the morally right sense.

Proverbs 31:9
Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Ecclesiastes 9:11
Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all.

Peter 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.

Mark 12:28-31
And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, âoeWhich commandment is the most important of all?â Jesus answered, âoeThe most important is, âHear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.â(TM) The second is this: âYou shall love your neighbor as yourself.â(TM) There is no other commandment greater than these.â

Quran
Those needy ones who are wholly wrapped up in the cause of Allah, and who are hindered from moving about the earth in search of their livelihood especially deserve help. He who is unaware of their circumstances supposes them to be wealthy because of their dignified bearing, but you will know them by their countenance, although they do not go about begging of people with importunity. And whatever wealth you will spend on helping them, Allah will know of it. (2:273)

Allah does not love the arrogant and the boastful, who are niggardly and bid others to be niggardly and conceal the bounty which Allah has bestowed upon them. We have kept in readiness a humiliating chastisement for such deniers (of Allah's bounty) (part of 4:36 and all of 4:37)

Give to the near of kin his due, and also to the needy and the wayfarers. Do not squander your wealth wastefully; for those who squander wastefully are Satan's brothers, and Satan is ever ungrateful to his Lord. (17:26 - 27)

Re:Good?

[Archangel Michael]

I would dare say that Insurance isn't like anything in the "free" market at all. Most of the "chronically unhealthy" people I know, are that way because they have unhealthy habits. Eat too much, too much fat, too much soda. They don't exercise enough. They get into an unhealthy pattern that is hard to break because it requires a hard change in lifestyle. They are twice (or more) the weight they ought to be, and will remain there expecting others to take care of them when they are sick.

IF insurance worked the way it should, it should be used only when catastrophic illness or injury occurs. But that upsets the sensibilities of the liberal crowd that thinks "responsibility" is "punishment" ... as in ... "Why do you want to punish people for being fat?" I don't want to punish people for being fat, I want them to want to get healthy and have a better life.

Re: Good?

[andymadigan]

It's worth remembering Uber started in a city with one of the worst Taxi systems in the country - San Francisco. Regulatory capture from the taxi cartel meant the city had far fewer medallions than it needed. Even in the densest commercial districts it was difficult to get a cab. In residential areas it was impossible. It was in the medallion owners' best interest to keep it this way, because the medallions can be sold and will keep their value better if the supply is over-restricted.

I hear they're auctioning additional medallions, probably because the cabbies realized SF residents would gleefully allow Uber to destroy the taxi cartel. After waiting 30 minutes in a dense area of SOMA for a cab over a year ago I've never taken a cab since. They don't patrol near my apartment anyway, but Uber drivers do.

In my experience every part of Uber works better than Taxis. They're easier to hail, easier to get to where you want to go, and easier to pay. The taxi industry could and should have done this too, instead thry decided to dig their feet in and demand the government defend their bad service and luddite attitudes. They're already paying for it dearly in SF, which is no better than they deserve.

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

I would dare say that Insurance isn't like anything in the "free" market at all. Most of the "chronically unhealthy" people I know, are that way because they have unhealthy habits.

That's a common misconception. I saw a pie chart in the New England Journal of Medicine, which estimates that disease was 1/3 genetic, 1/3 behavioral, and 1/3 environmental.

Behavioral is mostly smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, not wearing seat belts, and obesity.

The doctors who treat these people tell me that "personal responsibility" isn't a useful concept.

When someone with schizophrenia takes an anti-psychotic drug, their weight goes up, sometimes by 100 pounds, and in fact one of the risks of the drugs is diabetes.

You have someone who weighs 180 pounds, who takes an anti-schizophrenic drug, and a year later weighs 280 pounds. Case after case. Did they suddenly lose their "personal responsibility"? Or is there a biological mechanism causing it, which is beyond their control?

Re:Good?

[NulDevice]

Yeah, they went and got the disability, so they should be willing to pay for it. /sarcasm

Re:Good?

[MaxVT]

> You should be able to tell me at least three ways to get to any one place -- without a map, without GPS, without tech aids. Can't? Then you have no experience as a driver and I should, by default, not trust you.

That describes most taxi drivers, who will happily punch the destination into the GPS and drive according to the instructions. The age of "the Knowledge" is gone.

Re:Good?

[jwhitener]

Why can't a city force Uber to follow the same rules as taxis (serving all areas)?

Re:Good?

[jwhitener]

1) Ubers can avoid poor neighborhoods at will, and there's really nothing the city can do about it. I live in LA, and if you live in, say, Watts, you must call a cab if you want a car, no Uber will find you there, because it's "the ghetto" and there's never an Uber within 20 minutes. Taxis can be and are required to pick up from all parts of the city, and their statistics are closely monitored by regulators to make sure they do.

1. Why can't a city require Uber to solve this issue if they want to work in the city? Uber could ban drivers for a month if they refuse 3 'bad neighborhood' trips per month.. or whatever works. It would be up to Uber to make itself compliant.

All of this is totally fine as long as e-hail livery is a "premium" service, but some cities rely on taxis as a critical part of the transport infrastructure

Like other things considered infrastructure in a city, couldn't the city just take over ownership of that aspect of the economy? All 'for pay' transit would be owned by the city. I would assume that would be a net positive for revenue and the city could invest the profits in even better public transit.

I'm unsure why people feel that cities have less options regulating Uber than they do regulating electrical lines attached to houses, water lines, etc..

Re:Good?

[bleckywelcky]

I'm a bit hesitant to let Uber etc just run free and amok in the market. I feel like there should be publicly available registration and verification data on all vehicles and drivers. There are very few, if any, other businesses that are free to run completely unchecked. Restaurants, gas stations, contractors, dentists, day cares, grocery stores, truckers, etc, etc, etc all have some degree of oversight, registration, verification for the purposes of trying to track and root out issues. Part of this could be tracking wheelchair accessible vehicles.

Alternatively, if the free market does succeed, and prices are higher for wheelchairs, then you might find people that specifically outfit their vehicle to cater to wheelchairs. And they might roam the city looking for wheelchair fares to optimize their revenue, potentially provided superb service (albeit at a higher cost).

Re:Good?

[nbauman]

There are special services that transport people in wheelchairs, but they're expensive (about $50 a trip, with wide variations). They usually have vans, that set up a schedule a day in advance. The elderly and handicapped people who use them could never afford them, and they're subsidized by local governments.

It's nothing like a cab. If you used to travel around freely, and you suddenly became wheelchair-bound, you'd never again have the freedom of being able to spontaneously decide that you want to go to a movie or restaurant that evening.

Nobody has ever developed an affordable wheelchair-accessible taxi service in the free market, to my knowledge.

OTOH, the NYC buses were required by federal law to become wheelchair accessible. It does take some expensive equipment, but now people with wheelchairs travel on the buses (and some trains) all the time.

The free market had its chance, all around the country (and the world). A free-market solution to the problem of handicapped transit didn't appear. It only worked with government regulation.

This isn't about taxis. It's an ideological debate over the free market and government regulation. The free market just can't provide transportation services to the handicapped.

This is one of the fundamental limitations to the free market. If you think back to the ideological justifications for the free market (and I used to read the Wall Street Journal editorial page), they argue that the efficient operators will survive and the inefficient will die, just like in darwinian evolution. That means that the free market can't accommodate inefficient buyers, like the handicapped. It's supposed to work that way. The darwinian struggle is supposed to kill off the weak and the helpless. That's how it gets so efficient.

Let them prove it. Let Uber start a service for the wheelchair-bound handicapped, and let's see if that "premium" service will be affordable. They haven't done it yet and I don't think they can do it. And if they take over taxi service in New York City, that will be the end of wheelchair-accessible taxis.

Re:Good?

[Meski]

Hmmm, Hey Googlecar, just drive around for 20min while we have some fun on the backseat.

Threats?

[TechyImmigrant]

Is Mitch Landrieu threatening to have Taxi cab drivers assault customers if Uber prevail?

Re:Threats?

[pspahn]

I am utterly confused about that whole statement. Uber is worth more than Sony? People getting knocked out? I'm not sure what we're talking about right now.

I sort of get what the article is about based on the summary, but it is not appealing enough to warrant clicking on something (I have no idea where that link has been) that would explain the confusing summary.

Re:Threats?

[alta]

I know how you feel. I was ok through the first half but by the time I was at the quote near the end I was lost.

Author Fail
Editor Fail

Re:Threats?

[alexander_686]

I believe it is a disingenuous statement to mislead. It is technically true. However, there is an important but subtle distention between the value of a company and market capitalization.

Sony is a much larger company. However, from accounting 101, Assets – Liabilities = Equity. If we use assets as a proxy for company size (which is not quite true but good enough for this post), as one increases liabilities, equity gets smaller. Sony has lots of liabilities, so its market capitalization is much smaller than it size.

In addition, market capitalization does not care about the companies' current profitability (which is actually a better term than size) but its future profitability. Sony is a big average company. Because of its size it would need multiple home runs to really change its probability. Uber offers the prospect of large growth and large future profits. It is that tempting hope that makes Uber more valuable than Sony. That being said, maybe Uber is not worth 17b. For some hard numbers, see

http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

Re:Threats?

[pspahn]

That's fine and dandy and all, but what does Sony have to do with anything? Why is he comparing Uber to Sony as if they are analogs?

Re:Threats?

[alexander_686]

You want rationality in fear mongering? o.k. – I will try.

Sony feels big. Everybody knows them and almost everybody has bought a Sony product at one time or another.

You want to make it look like it is big bad corporation against the little, helpless, city hall. So you want Uber to look as big as possible. Using market cap, as discussed, is about as distortive as one can get.

But people have a hard time knowing what a 17b dollar company looks like. How big is that? So you find some other company to compare. What other companies are out there that are also about 17b in size? One could use Dollar General or Chipotle, but they don't feel that big. Could Dollar General really take down city hall? One could use Omnicore but who the hell knows about them?

Re:Threats?

[jwhitener]

Uber is worth more than Sony?

Imagine Uber is the number 1 'taxi-like' service in every city in the world. It could happen. It's already in 39 countries and has raised over 20 billion in investment revenue last time I checked.

I love getting into strangers' cars

[iamacat]

I am sure drivers are perfectly law abiding and safe without any background checks and drug testing. It is completely impossible to have part time and internet enabled taxi drivers who are still checked out and issued a license.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[mi]

I am sure drivers are perfectly law abiding and safe without any background checks and drug testing.

The ratings-and-feedback systems maintained by Uber and others is more efficient at flagging bad drivers, than any government-run certification authority can be.

It is completely impossible to have part time and internet enabled taxi drivers who are still checked out and issued a license.

What's with this obsession with licensing? Why must engaging in more and more activities be turned from a right (which only the Judiciary can suspend after a trial) into a privilege (which the Executive may or may not grant on a whim)?

Serving alcohol? Must have license (100 years after the "Dry Law" was abolished). Serving "hard liquor"? Need another license. Performing in costume? Need a license for that... Wish to keep and bear a weapon — something explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as a right — need a license... Where do you, Illiberals, get off?

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[tipo159]

What's with this obsession with licensing?

The skills that one has to demonstrate to get a commercial drivers license is higher than to get a regular car drivers license. Same goes for a motorcycle license. Why shouldn't one need to demonstrate a higher level of skills in order to be allowed to get paid to drive other people around.

I don't trust Uber to verify that their drivers have the skills needs to drive me around safely. Uber's background check that somehow missed one of their drivers was a sex offender.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[geekoid]

A) Reviews have some inherent issues, and should rarely be trusted.
B) Reviews depend on after the fact; which is pointless if you are dead.
C) Licensing came about AFTER abuses. Every. Single. One.

"..you, Illiberals, get off?"
This isn't an liberal / conservative issue. How does it feel to turn every issue into a liberal/conservative issue? TO rephrase: "How does it feel to be Fox's cum stained bitch?"

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[mi]

Why shouldn't one need to demonstrate a higher level of skills in order to be allowed to get paid to drive other people around.

Why must one be allowed to get paid in the first place? And why must "higher level of skills" be a requirement — even for the customers, who are perfectly satisfied with average level of skills?

Uber's background check that somehow missed one of their drivers was a sex offender.

So what? Plenty of locales allow (ex-)felons — including sex-offenders — to drive taxis today.

If you want to be driven by above-average drivers only, you can request a higher-rated driver from Uber (and pay more per mile) or — if Uber's vetting process seems insufficiently rigorous to you — go for a different company altogether. But don't try to impose it on the rest of us.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[mi]

Reviews depend on after the fact; which is pointless if you are dead.

One of the dangers, that the GP is afraid of, is being driven by a sex-offender. I — an ugly middle-aged man with portbelly — have no fear of being raped and no prejudice against known sex-offenders trying to work for a living. Why would I be any more "dead" driven by such a person, then by somebody else? And why shouldn't I be allowed to be driven by such a person, if that's 1 cent cheaper per mile or if he can get to me 3 minutes earlier? What safety — permanent or even temporary — is gained by depriving him and me of this essential liberty to engage in a mutually-agreed upon business transaction?

This isn't an liberal / conservative issue.

Requiring a license for more and more activities reduces our freedom to engage in them — sometimes in direct and obvious violation of the Constitution even. This makes such requirements illiberal and people, who advocate them — whatever they call themselves — illiberals.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[taustin]

The ratings-and-feedback systems maintained by Uber and others is more efficient at flagging bad drivers, than any government-run certification authority can be.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to those who are the reason for those bad ratings. You know, the people who get ripped off, kidnapped and held for ransom (I need another $500 or I'll just dump you here), or worse.

And the cops will be less than enthusiastic about chasing those bad drivers down, when there isn't a multi-million dollar a year company to fine the hell out of.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[itzly]

There are plenty of big cities where taxis aren't driven by multi-million dollar companies, but by single owners.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[mi]

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to those who are the reason for those bad ratings. You know, the people who get ripped off, kidnapped and held for ransom (I need another $500 or I'll just dump you here), or worse.

Well, those felons, whom taxi-licensing (unlike Uber's lax policies) would've prevented from ever becoming a taxi-driver in the first place, have killed/kidnapped/or held for ransom somebody else before — while doing something, that did not require a license, such as walking on a sidewalk.

Should we allow anybody to do anything without one? Why should walking down a street be allowed without a license, but not driving a cab?

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[ganjadude]

who does the ensuring though? I trust people who have drivin with the driver over a document that says he spent an extra 5 hours in a classroom, therefore he DESERVES it

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[meustrus]

If you want to be driven by above-average drivers only, you can request a higher-rated driver from Uber (and pay more per mile) or — if Uber's vetting process seems insufficiently rigorous to you — go for a different company altogether. But don't try to impose it on the rest of us.

This statement, I think, is the defining difference that the Internet will make on public policy. It used to be that if you wanted a higher quality, you had to find a quality brand you could trust, and if the market doesn't favor lots of competition for whatever reason, a quality brand just wouldn't exist without government intervention. After all, why would a rational profit-seeking corporation do anything right if it put them at a cost disadvantage against other corporations already doing quite well by doing it wrong? So we got ourselves lots of government regulation to force companies to provide a quality product.

But now with the Internet, a brand like Uber can effectively sell us the quality we're willing to pay. The taxi market is traditionally so monopolistic that the only way to make good quality available is to legally require it from everyone. But the Internet makes that obsolete. What follows is a "15 round fight" not just over Uber, but about every industry touched by the Internet. The worst part is that many people will fight for obsolete leftist/rightist ideologies in which they are already emotionally invested, even though the issues were never that simple anyway.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[SternisheFan]

In eastern Long Island, N.Y., Uber charges 3X as much or mor than a local cab company.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[jmcvetta]

I gave an Uber driver a bad rating because he didn't know where he was going and took a long route. Uber refunded the the difference between a reasonable route's fare and what I had been charged. I thought it was pretty good service. Not sure if that's what you mean by "ripped off" since there's no driver-passenger money transaction.

I bet if the driver had mugged me (while on the clock working?!) Uber would have cooperated with the cops to catch him. Not that SF cops would have given a shit or made the slightest attempt to solve the crime, but I digress...

Now if Uber itself started ripping people off... well there's a big fat $17B target for the class action lawyers.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[meustrus]

I didn't say Uber is perfect or doesn't require regulation. I just said it makes existing rules obsolete. Although if it charges "3X as much or mor [sic] than a local cab company", then either the business model has failed in that area and will soon collapse, or there are some sneaky economics involved such that a higher charge makes sense for enough of the market that it works.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[mi]

It used to be that if you wanted a higher quality, you had to find a quality brand you could trust, and if the market doesn't favor lots of competition for whatever reason, a quality brand just wouldn't exist without government intervention. After all, why would a rational profit-seeking corporation do anything right if it put them at a cost disadvantage

The only reason you might not be able to find something of higher-quality is because not enough others want it. Internet or not, if demand exists, it will be fulfilled — glory be to our Free Market (whatever is left of it).

Internet may be making the market more efficient by facilitating information exchange, but it is not required. Nissan created Infinity and Toyota — Lexus before there was Internet. Cognacs are available in different (standardized) quality-levels — and have been since 1800-eds, when even telephone did not exist.

The taxi market is traditionally so monopolistic that the only way to make good quality available is to legally require it from everyone

It is monopolistic, because there are virtually no repeat customers — even if you really liked the guy, who last drove you, you will not be waiting for him, when you need a cab again. You'll just hail whoever drives by. The tips are supposed to compensate for this absence of incentive, but aren't doing it, because many people tip — out of politeness — regardless of the service-quality.

But you are right that the feedback forums — which can make or kill a particular maker/seller/service-provider — are changing everything. For the better.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

And why must "higher level of skills" be a requirement â" even for the customers, who are perfectly satisfied with average level of skills?

Well, the customers are not the only ones with skin in the game. The rest of us have to share the roads with these "taxis" as well. The major reason that other commercial drivers (or air line pilots for that reason) isn't that they'll necessarily will kill their passengers, but that they will kill a bystander or other motorists. The rules for getting a bus driving license and a heavy truck driving license are the virtually the same, here in Sweden at least, and in one of those cases we're clearly not worried by the safety of the passengers.

It's the same at sea and in the air, if you want to transport paying passengers you have to show a higher level of competence. One reason mentioned in those cases is that you for example have to have the wherewithal to be able to stand up to a pissed off customer when you deem conditions to be unsafe, something that's more difficult (legally/financially) than when you have another passenger.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[mi]

The rest of us have to share the roads with these "taxis" as well.

You have the same amount of "skin in the game", whether the man is driving a paying fare or giving a free ride to a friend.

The rules for getting a bus driving license and a heavy truck driving license are the virtually the same

May be, but that's not, what we are discussing here.

One reason mentioned in those cases is that you for example have to have the wherewithal to be able to stand up to a pissed off customer when you deem conditions to be unsafe

The wherewithal comes simply from experience — not from a license.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

You have the same amount of "skin in the game", whether the man is driving a paying fare or giving a free ride to a friend.

No, frequency and other conditions are different. It's not an accident that you can bring your friends with you in your small aircraft with just an ordinary (sport) pilot license. If you want to take a paying passenger then you need a transport pilot license.

Same with boats.

Why are taxis different?

The wherewithal comes simply from experience --- not from a license.

And that's (drum roll) one of the conditions of a taxi (i.e. commerical) license in my country. Having sufficient experience that is. The license is there to (among other things) show that you have that experience.

Re:I love getting into strangers' cars

[mi]

No, frequency and other conditions are different.

Well, if it is the frequency, that concerns you, then, perhaps, you may wish to require additional qualifications from those, who travel more than a certain amount of kilometers per year — regardless of their reasons for doing it. But singling out people, who are trying to make a living — that's not fair and there is no justification for it.

If you want to take a paying passenger then you need a transport pilot license.

That it is so currently is not in itself evidence, that that's, how things ought to be... Why should I need a government's permission to earn money doing, what I am allowed to do for free?

The license is there to (among other things) show that you have that experience.

The experience comes from driving — not from driving for hire. A young driver, who passes the test for "commercial" license is still much less experienced, that a middle-aged one — even though the latter has never taken money for giving somebody a ride.

Bottom line is, business is viewed by everyone with suspicion — and that's why governments world-wide impose unfair and uncalled-for regulations on them. Especially the democratic governments, because business-owners, however beneficial they may be to the society and however large their taxes may be, still have only one vote. It has gotten so bizarre in the last 50 years or so, that people can post nonsense like "you need permission to be making money" — and aren't escorted to a mental institution after saying it...

Taxi Medallions

[adisakp]

Uber, Lyft, Sidecar etc. all avoid the enormous cost of Taxi Medallions (which are hundreds of thousands of dollars and in some places pushing 7 figures) -- PER CAB !!!!

However, circumventing medallions is not necessarily a bad thing considering the downsides of medallions.

Re:Taxi Medallions

[adisakp]

Also, a bit of the "customer roulette" is removed in the ride sharing apps since Drivers can rate their Passengers. With Lyft, if a driver gives you a poor rating, they will never get you as a customer again.

Re:Taxi Medallions

[adisakp]

And with Sidecar, you actually have to enter where you are going before you request a ride so drivers don't have to take customers that would make them drive somewhere they didn't want to go.

Re:Taxi Medallions

[mveloso]

Taxi medallions are so expensive because medallion owners want them that way. By restricting the medallions, they restrict the competition.

Has this resulted in better service? In NY, ask the people in the outer boroughs if they can get cabs.

Re:Taxi Medallions

[Primate Pete]

And this is why Sidecar, Uber, etc. will not put cabs out of business. Riders want to go where they want to go, not just where someone else is going. You will always need a cab to get to a bad part of town from a nice part of town because yuppies won't drive you there, but taxi drivers (usually) will.

Re:Taxi Medallions

[taustin]

After the customer leaves the car, there is no record of their behavior in the taxi.

Given that most cities require video and audio recording devices in all taxis, I find your source less than convincing.

Re:Taxi Medallions

[taustin]

Unless you just sign up for a different account every time.

Re:Taxi Medallions

[MozeeToby]

You will always need a cab to get to a bad part of town from a nice part of town because yuppies won't drive you there, but taxi drivers (usually) will.

So what you're saying is... people will use Uber for 90% of their needs and only call a taxi when they want to go somewhere that is almost by definition unprofitable for said taxi. And you don't think they're going to destroy the taxi industry?

Re:Taxi Medallions

[jmcvetta]

Here's a fun exercise: Go to your nearest big city. (I'm gonna guess you're not somewhere that you actually ever ride in a cab.) Do a little research, and find a neighborhood that is both A) reputed to be poor and violent, and B) a long way from downtown, the airport, or anything else interesting. Then hail a cab, and before you even hop in, tell the driver where you're headed. See how well that works out for you.

Re:Taxi Medallions

[jmcvetta]

In NY, ask the people in the outer boroughs if they can get cabs.

Hell, ask the bankers in the UES if they can get a cab headed downtown during morning rush...

And good riddance!

[mi]

Taxis exist not to provide income to drivers or tax-revenue to medallion-issuing locales. We want them to get around. If a better way to do that arises, great. Have them disappear the way horse-drawn wagons got "knocked-out" by the automobiles.

Re:And good riddance!

[meta-monkey]

Sure, but I think things like Uber and AirBnB are sad. Middle class people didn't used to have to drive strangers around or rent out rooms in their homes to make ends meet. I see these as sad signs of the times, not as innovation.

Re:And good riddance!

[wcrowe]

That's along the lines of just what I was thinking. I feel like Hari Seldon in Asimov's Foundation series. You can see little signs that things are falling apart all over the place. For instance, I was in Lowes yesterday and I noticed they now sell booklets on how to raise chickens and goats. Apparently there are so many suburbanites doing this that they rate their own book sections. Last month I set a recliner and couch out at the curb for the monthly bulk-trash pickup. I left home for a few hours, and when I returned, I discovered two guys with an old pickup parked in front of my house tearing into the furniture to get the metal out of it (the springs, recliner base, etc). They didn't want the furniture, they just wanted the metal. They promised me they would not leave a mess, and they were good on their promise. They worked pretty hard to get the metal out, and I tried to imagine any situation whereby the metal would be worth more than earning wages at a minimum wage job. But then, there probably aren't as many minimum wage jobs to go around as I was thinking. I drive around at night and I see a lot of streetlamps out, and business signs that are only partially lit. Little signs of decay everywhere. And I live in a state that is "booming" with (supposedly) only 4% unemployment.

Re:And good riddance!

[meta-monkey]

I get what you mean about Hari Seldon.

There is a cycle to history. It's Polybius' anacyclosis. Within that fits Strauss–Howe generational theory.

It happens every 80 years. 1776. 1861. 1941. 2021? This is the end of oligarchy. There is no faith left in institutions. Congress with its approval rating at 8%, lower than North Korea and cockroaches. Every regulatory agency is captured, the SEC, the FCC, the patent office. Colleges are ripping students off and the government is profiting from their debts. Roads and bridges are falling apart.

Just like in psychohistory, there is no one actor (the Mule notwithstanding) that's caused all of this. But the collective actions of previous generations have inexorably led us to where we stand now. We're at a turning, and whatever event sets it off will happen within the next decade. The good news is in the anacyclosis after oligarchy comes democracy, so we've got that going for us, which is nice.

Re:And good riddance!

[wcrowe]

I agree we're at a turning. I'm not sure I'm convinced that democracy necessarily has to follow oligarchy, but that would be the best possibility. The bad thing is that there will be a period of instability in between, and that is worrisome.

Re:And good riddance!

[WrongMonkey]

Funny, I look at your examples of collapse and see them as signs of progress. New technology is allowing more people to become self-employed. More people are taking an interest in hobbies that increase self-sufficiency. Recycling is now economically viable.

Re:And good riddance!

[meta-monkey]

That's how the anacyclosis works. You start out in anarchy (dark ages), then a rough feudalism develops as people band together. A strong ruler unites/conquers smaller states and establishes a monarchy (William the Conquerer. Charlemagne). The king's descendants are spoiled and monarchy degenerates into despotism (George III). Other powerful people get sick of the despot and oust him, establishing an aristocracy (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson). The descendants of the aristocrats game the system in their favor until the system breaks, degrading into an oligarchy (what we have now). Institutions crumble, only faith in individuals remains and the individuals oust the oligarchy and establish a democracy. Then the democracy is destroyed by demagogues and returns to anarchy and the cycle starts all over again.

It's the force of history. I don't think anything will stop it.

Re:And good riddance!

[Sentrion]

When similar events occurred in Europe in the 1930's, faith in individuals led the individuals to oust the oligarchy and establish a fascist dictatorship. Social democracy took place only after fighting armies destroyed just about everything, and the fascist rulers were either hung at Nuremberg or at an Esso gas station. The people had to rebuild from scratch with a whole new set of leaders that weren't entrenched with the political establishment.

Re:And good riddance!

[jwhitener]

Part of taxi regulation is to make taxis extend and enhance public transportation. Like requiring them to answer calls in 'bad neighborhoods'.

Uber drivers can just ignore requests to 'bad neighborhoods'. (Although I'm not sure why a city couldn't require that of Uber...odd).

Cities can allow for-profit companies in on the transportation game and regulate them to serve the public fairly. This assumes you want people all over your city to be able to get a ride some place equally at all times. That is one (of many good and some bad) reasons that taxi companies became for-profit monopolies in cities. Kind of like cable companies.

The other option, would be if the city took over all paid transport as part of the public infrastructure. No private taxis, no uber. 100% owned by the city taxis, buses, etc.. The more profitable areas of transport that uber and the taxi companies were profiting from, would then go to the city, which could use it to further enhance public transport.

Re:And good riddance!

[mi]

Uber drivers don't have to, and will almost certainly not take fares to sketchy neighborhoods.

Why not? If they know, they are picking up a known Uber-user and also know, where he wants to go — and may even be paid extra for going into such a neighborhood.

Which has the end result that some of the poor with the most need to "get around", won't be able to.

Why do you deem it more fair, to compell the cabbies (themselves hardly "rich" by any standard) to go, where they'd rather not go, than to charge people wanting to go to a sketchy place extra?

some cabbies won't pick up a black fare just on the off chance that they'll have to go to a rough neighborhood.

Oh, so you are afraid, Uber will introduce a problem, that already exists with the official taxis?..

Re:And good riddance!

[mi]

Cities can allow for-profit companies in on the transportation game and regulate them to serve the public fairly.

Why is it more fair to compel a driver to go to a dangerous neighborhood, than for a passenger, who wants to go there, to pay extra? Because an Uber driver may choose to accept the higher risk in exchange for higher pay — whereas for an ordinary cabbie that's not a legal option.

The other option, would be if the city took over all paid transport as part of the public infrastructure. No private taxis, no uber

Not in a country, that still has any pretense of being free.

So what if cabbies vent

[bugs2squash]

London cabbies have a history of spouting right wing horseshit continuously as they drive you along, it doesn't seem to have the lasting effect on the passengers that the mayor fears.

Was that quote from Mayor Reed?

[sanosuke001]

The quote at the end of the summary sounded like it was from an illiterate nutjob; was that from Mayor Reed? I feel sorry for Atlanta...

Trust

[ADRA]

I'm not really following what the guy's saying, but it all comes down to trust.

In the US, I assume you need to have a certain level of certification to both open a cab company as well as be a driver in said cabs (insert rude jokes about cab drivers here..) and Uber is the laizez faire of cabs. Anyone can become a cab at any time, sort of like a car share, but on demand, and most likely participants who don't know one another (like cabs).

The problem comes from trust. When you step into a cab in the US, you have the assumption of not being ripped off, driven around the block, driven dangerously fast, robbed blind, etc.. If lets say I pull up into the Airport and see "NY Taxi Service" or "NY Economy Taxi Service", "Or NYC Taxi's" all posted on their cars, I have no idea if this is a legit signage from a company that has long ties to the area, or a fly by night that is going to take me for a ride.

Try going to countries that have any less enforcement and you get all people trying to look out for you to AVOID xyz because they'll take you for a ride, and maybe they won't and the helpers are just paid by a competing taxi service. Losing an industry that may be fat, but is forced to follow stricter rules for the public good seems like a justifiable trade-off, but I'm open to hearing other opinions on the matter.

Re:Trust

[tibit]

When you step into a cab in the US, you have the assumption of not being ripped off, driven around the block, driven dangerously fast, robbed blind, etc.

This is the funniest shit I've read in a while. I hope you're not serious. So, how many cab rides a day do you take, and where exactly?

Re:Trust

[taustin]

Uber drivers, as a rule, don't have insurance. There have already been lawsuits over it. Your private insurance will not cover you if they find out you're driving someone for money. Your private driver's license is not good enough, either. So, in most states, when you use Uber, you're riding in an uninsured car with an unlicensed driver, and if there's an accident, you, the passenger, are 100% responsible for whatever medical expenses you have (because the driver will be spending all his money to avoid prison).

Re:Trust

[MozeeToby]

Uber has coverage for all of their operators, see here for a full run down.

Re:Trust

[drew870mitchell]

Taxis outside the very largest cities in the US are a consistently miserable experience. I encourage Uber, Lyft, and all other comers to dance around the rules and legalese in whatever way they need to, because in my experience they are night-and-day better than the ripoff taxis we had become inured to.

Re:Trust

[King_TJ]

There is no "trust issue" using a service like Uber, at least here in the U.S.

To be honest, I'm far less trusting of the established taxi services.

Let me give you just one example:

Here in the Washington D.C. area, you'll have a really difficult time if you live in Maryland or Virginia and you need to catch a cab back home from D.C. Why? Because cabbies realize they're not allowed to pick up new fares from those adjacent states. If they have to drive you back to MD or VA, then they're stuck driving back to D.C. again before they can make more money. The law says they're not allowed to refuse you once you're in the cab and the vehicle is in motion ... but it presents an awkward situation where those "in the know" are often forced to hail a cab, and then purposely stall when the driver asks "Where to?", until he/she begins moving. Then they spring the news that they need to go back to an address in VA or MD.

With the online competitors, everything is up-front and clear, before you ever have to interact at all with a driver. I know I'd feel much better with an online confirmation that my ride is one the service accepted and the driver won't have any hard feelings about the arrangement once I'm in the vehicle.

Furthermore, I don't see why there's any real reason to believe a cab driver working for the established taxi services will be a more honest, straight-forward guy than someone working for a service like Uber? Many of Uber's drivers come from the industry in the first place. (It's a popular way for limo drivers to earn some extra money in their downtime, for example. With limos, people often pay to be taken someplace where the driver then has to wait HOURS for them to come back out to go to the next place. Why not take an Uber fare or two, nearby, during that time instead?) Cab drivers, by contrast, often feel entitled in a sense.... working for a powerful unionized group. They regularly play games like claiming a credit card machine in the cab is broken, because they'd rather take the cash .....

I work IT in the taxi industry.

[Anonymous Coward]

If uber and lyft and the likes carried the same insurances and had the same background checks our drivers had then I welcome the competition but they don't. My company has multiple smartphone apps, GPS tracking, text to ride, and a fully staffed call center to handle bookings and complaints. We do have a logistical advantage that has made us the leader in our metro area. Lyft is here and not making a dent in our sales at all. The only complaint we have made is follow the laws that are in the books. Run meters and carry commercial passenger insurance.

Re:I work IT in the taxi industry.

[taustin]

And what happens when a passenger makes unreasonable demands - "Hey, I need to stop here and do some shopping, so you just wait here, and BTW, I only have half the money, so you won't get paid what I agreed to pay." - and then threatens to give the driver a bad rating if they complain about it, what mechanism is there to address that deliberate libel once it's posted publicly? Sure, the driver can give the passenger a bad rating, too, but that won't help him any.

And that is the failing of relying solely on a reputation system. There's no protection against liars.

Re:I work IT in the taxi industry.

[Darinbob]

But if you don't have hipsters driving other hipsters, then it's still old-economy stuff.

Re:I work IT in the taxi industry.

[Darinbob]

You seem like the sort of person who believes the Yelp reviews.

Re:I work IT in the taxi industry.

[theIsovist]

Part of what makes Uber (and the like) so attractive is that money is handled through the app itself. I cannot tell you what the company does to ensure that the driver is paid, but the payment is secured through the system itself. Once your ride is completed your card is charged through the system, eliminating the "I don't have enough cash" issue that cabs deal with currently (I've seen this happen unfortunately more than once just from riding with friends who don't carry cash). As the driver is paid through the company itself, there's a mechanism in place to ensure he can't be stiffed. This is assuming the company is proactive here, but that's the same with all companies.

As for the rating system, I've also seen the company - Lyft in this case - change a rating for both a driver and a passenger. The company quickly reverted an accidental low driver rating without issue, and the driver removed a flag on a passenger when there was a miscommunication on pick up location due to a gps error.

These are anecdotal, but show that the system can be and has been purged of improper records. As with all jobs, the driver is ultimately punished by the company that hires him, which means that his reputation inside the company will likely be weighed against any complaints.

Re: I work IT in the taxi industry.

[Anonymous Coward]

I will admit we are adding in app payment to our smartphone apps. A good company learns from other companies and "borrows" the good ideas. We have had a system in place for over ten years to block drivers from customers according to feedback from either. Any company with autodispatch should be able to do this.

Re:I work IT in the taxi industry.

[tibit]

Here the reviews are a result of a transaction that took place and come from the parties to that transaction, not from random people who just want to vent. Every review has a grain of truth to it - if nothing else than to the state of mind the writer was at the time of reviewing it. Sure, some people get pissed by the littlest of things, and that character trait of a passenger is useful to prospective drivers, for example. So, I'd say that the review system works just fine, you just can't be a doofus when reading the reviews and taking everything at face value.

Uber should be stopped

[wytcld]

Uber is abusing its drivers. It advertises "1 million dollars!" of insurance. But that insurance only covers your passengers and victims, and only if you're at fault. It doesn't cover you, or our vehicle, or anyone at all if you got struck by another vehicle, perhaps one without insurance. And your private insurance on your car will not cover a thing if you're driving the car for hire.

There are perfectly good reasons for regulating taxis. As well, there are good reasons for building solid mass transit options so taxis won't be so needed. Allowing Uber to operate puts the public, and its drivers, at risk for no reason beyond the desire to drive down pay below the already barely-subsistence rates that taxi drivers earn. If you don't have a commercial drivers license, and you're not driving a licensed commercial vehicle, and you don't have full commercial insurance, you shouldn't be taking fares. If you are, that's criminal in many places, as it should be. Uber's executives should be arrested for criminal conspiracy.

Re:Uber should be stopped

[MozeeToby]

If you're driving a car for a living and don't understand the difference between liability insurance and collision/comprehensive insurance, you probably need to pick a different career path. Incidentally, in March or so Uber did in fact add $50k of collision and comprehensive insurance so... yeah...

Re:Uber should be stopped

[reanjr]

But you're driving your own vehicle, no? Shouldn't you already be insured (as is the law in many states)?

Re:Uber should be stopped

[rhodium_mir]

Human society MUST NOT be free. It must only be sold at fair market value.

Good

[argStyopa]

Protected garden industries occasionally need to get overturned.

Now, I disagree with them. The first time someone books with Uber and gets murdered/raped/whatever, the formal, licensed taxi services will enjoy a renaissance.

Right now, however, they simply don't appear to justify their premium - particularly when so many cabs are disgusting, greedy*, etc.

*note: I personally believe that taxis THEMSELVES are rarely as greedy as they appear, and this leads me to my main point: the cities are more concerned about their monopoly license REVENUE than any industry per se, and to that extent, fuck them.

holy english language batman.

[nimbius]

This summary reads like a stroke victim. im willing to assume the mayor of new orleans is probably drunk, but are we sure the mayor quoted from Atlanta isnt from, say, Atlanta Nicaragua?

Re:holy english language batman.

[kruach aum]

I think this is how you spot people who don't read.

Re:holy english language batman.

[T.E.D.]

They read to me like they were live one-on-one verbal interviews. Nobody speaks the same way they write, you know. (For instance, you can tell I'm writing here because no profanities were used).

What he said?

[oldmac31310]

Anybody understand what he said?

Coming soon: self-driving cabs

[seven of five]

Self driving cabs will eventually displace both traditional taxi drivers and Uber. The drivers can make as much fuss as they want, but they've only got another 20 years tops before they all become irrelevant.

Sam

[Anonymous Coward]

Ride-sharing is a fraudulent transportation model. It profits on blatant refusal to comply with regulations, on non-payment of municipal business permits,
on evasion of local taxes and regulatory fees. This failed model has been tried before. Self-regulation of public transportation services by private,
and in this case - a private offshore(!)-based corporation, is dangerous, irresponsible and just doesn't work.

Just a few days ago - a young woman was kidnapped by a "well"-rated Uber driver:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/trending/uber-driver-arrested-kidnapping-drunk-woman

Consumer protections?

[Berkyjay]

For those who are knowledgeable about this subject. What sort of legal protections does a rider have in the case of an accident in an Uber/Lyft vs. a registered taxi service?

How ironic for Atlanta to complain.

[sethstorm]

While I have my own misgivings about the randomness of non-taxi service, it's ironic that Atlanta's complaining about something being stolen from them - especially when their "economic development" department solely exists to steal companies from the North.

I'll take a regular cab, thank you.

[wcrowe]

I don't know why anyone would want to hop in a car with someone of dubious character, who may or may not have proper insurance, who may or may not have a proper driver's licence, who might be driving a jalopy in any sort of condition, but hey, people hitchhike all the time so to each his own.

Meanwhile, Uber will do fine until the first woman gets raped by an Uber driver, or until the first few Uber drivers get robbed or killed.

Re:I'll take a regular cab, thank you.

[jmcvetta]

I don't know why anyone would want to hop in a car with someone of dubious character, who may or may not have proper insurance, who may or may not have a proper driver's licence, who might be driving a jalopy in any sort of condition

Wait I'm confused. Are you talking about the city taxi system or Uber/Lyft? The average licensed cabbie 'round here is way more dubious of character than the average Uber driver. Cabbies are also way crazier drivers, again on average. That said, because they drive crazy/aggressive/fast/dangerous, the cabbies usually get there just a bit quicker.

Re:Review system

[iamacat]

Dead passengers don't rate. Driver's former cellmates do.

Oh they are worried...

[nitehawk214]

The only thing the Mayors are worried about is the fact that it is a tax revenue stream for them. Regulatory capture allows taxi companies to charge extortionary fees, which are payed in taxes and "campaign gifts" to local politicians.

While I am not against Uber and Uber drivers paying their fair share of local taxes, all these local chieftons are worried about is their paycheck.

Re:Mike

[nitehawk214]

I am sorry, how is it that your cities are entitled to this money? Aside from bribing politicians and ensuring fat paychecks for taxi companies, how does it bring any benefit to the people using public transportation?

So you are either shilling for taxi companies or politicians. Either way you failed to explain why this is a problem.

Re:This will not end well...

[nitehawk214]

Are you going to trust someone from Uber to drive you home from a club at 2am in the morning?

What kind of normal, reputable, people are awake then?

It is one thing to hitch a ride during the day from A to B, but at night, especially late at night?

The kind that know that a busy time for taxi services is when bars/clubs close?

How does it make Uber different from any other taxi service? They show up when there is demand.

Define sex offender

[tepples]

Uber's background check that somehow missed one of their drivers was a sex offender.

So what? States define "sex offenders" too broadly anyway, including (literal) piddly things like public urination.

huh?

[jsepeta]

I can see from the statements above (which are difficult to decipher) that the powers in charge are pretty much brain dead. Taxis provide a ton of licensing money to cities, but my experiences with Uber were much better than taxi experiences. The drivers always showed up, the ride was cleaner than a taxi, and although it was expensive it still costs less than owning a car and paying for maintenance and insurance. Even if they ban "uber" there's no way to prevent private citizens from trying to earn a little scratch.

No it won't calm the hell down

[gelfling]

It's another slice of the market going to a new competitor. It's not going to "kill" the cab industry. Why? Lots of people won't use it. It's not all that reliable and as it increases in scope it will include people who shouldn't be providing that service. So calm the hell down, take your bribes and shut the fuck up.

Nobody for the taxis are for the people!

[King_TJ]

Each and every time I watch a city get into this "cabs vs. Uber" war, it plays out pretty much the same way. Every single potential user/customer of the services I hear voice an opinion is happy to see the competition and often has something positive to say about Uber, specifically.

Everyone who speaks out against it is some kind of government official or union member of the protected cab cartel.

Oh, you *might* get some talking head on the TV news who claims to take an interest in "public safety", telling you how unsafe it is to get in some stranger's vehicle when he/she isn't a licensed cab driver ... but at the end of the day, I think we all know they're just shills for the establishment.

I've tried Uber myself and frankly, I was amazed at how much more organized the experience was than hailing a cab. Among other benefits, I immediately received an email receipt documenting the trip's total mileage with start and end points, and even how much fuel was used. Regarding safety? Uber's app even showed me a photo of the person who would be picking us up as soon as the ride was ordered, making sure I wasn't getting in the wrong person's vehicle. No cab service I've seen can do that.

A better mousetrap has been built!

Taxi industry lobby....

[dtmancom]

Is this why we are not yet traveling in tubes, because they would threaten the taxi industry?

Evolution

[nurb432]

Adapt, or die out.

who will regulate

[Archfeld]

and ensure the cars are safe, registered, and are not ripping people off ? "Haven't we been around the park already driver....?" While I agree cabby licenses DO restrict who can run a cab or taxi, without some regulation you will soon be riding in a car you'd see on the road in India. I've been a cop and inspected cabs for the county. The owners and drivers of cabs would do without insurance, seatbelts, windows, doors, tread on tires, ANYTHING to make a buck.

To be fair....

[mark-t]

... if a person *is* driving other people to places for purposes of commercial gain, then they should probably have to get a special kind of license to do so... just like a cab driver.

And of course, there's the issue that even if you weren't making a profit, as long as you are giving rides to complete strangers, then technically, you are really just picking up hitchhikers.

So yeah.... I can kind of see the problem that they might have with something like Uber.

Re: To be fair....

[mark-t]

Pizza delivery boys don't drive passengers for profit

Re:To be fair....

[jmcvetta]

Why should they need a special license? What kind of special skill is required when driving with a passenger, that is not required when driving solo?

I suspect that our onerous licensing requirements lower the quality of taxi drivers, by reducing the pool of candidates to those willing to jump thru obnoxious hoops.

Re:To be fair....

[mark-t]

Why should they need a special license? What kind of special skill is required when driving with a passenger, that is not required when driving solo?

The context of your question, and in particular, what you state immediately afterwards about the reason suggests to me that if you were to ask the DMV that exact question (who could give you a much more enlightening answer than I could... my own speculation is that it probably has something to do with insurance), you would probably suspect the DMV to be lying to you in whatever actual answer they gave anyways, or even at best just default to the assumption that the answer is just a cover for the notion that the different classifications of drivers licenses are actually just a money grab on the DMV's part.

Of course, they make the rules. So even if it is a money grab, the law is still on their side. If that is the case, then perhaps instead of focusing on the Uber issue, one should be investigating the underlying factors that influence it... since as long as they are in place, there's going to be a conflict.

Re:To be fair....

[jmcvetta]

Actually I don't really see it as a money grab. The big effect of most professional license regimes is to restrict an individual's freedom to earn a living. It's not enough just to be a person who is good enough at driving to freely attract willing passengers. No - one must be a cabbie - it's more than work, it's caste. This is a small part of a vast cultural trend moving toward neofeudal servility.

Re:To be fair....

[jmcvetta]

the law is still on their side

Fun fact: most genocides throughout history have been considered "lawful" by their perpetrators. (No, professional licensing is not similar to genocide. Yes, lawfulness is always an unpersuasive argument.)

Re:To be fair....

[mark-t]

It applies equally to anyone who drives people around for profit... not just taxi drivers. Limo drivers and bus drivers are in that category as well.

Re:To be fair....

[jmcvetta]

Depending what you mean by "limo" - is it a regular black Lincoln Town Car, or is it one of those 50ft long behemoths? - some special skill may be required. Certainly I imagine driving a city bus would be rather more challenging than driving an ordinary car.

Re:To be fair....

[mark-t]

A professional chauffeur needs the same kind of special license.

It's not really a big deal when it's a one-off kind of thing, but if a person is doing it regularly, then it starts taking on the appearance of being a profession.

Ask your DMV why a special license is required to drive people for profit... they'll give you a far more informed answer than my speculations could (I think it has something to do with insurance, personally).

Re:To be fair....

[jmcvetta]

It's not really a big deal as a one off thing, because any damned fool who will open his eyes can see no special skills are required to drive passengers in an ordinary car. The function of the professional license in this case is to restrict employment mobility, nothing else.

FWIW, I don't plan on asking my local DMV. There's a 4-hour line to do anything there... and I'm 99% sure after waiting in that line, they'd tell me they don't know or care why a professional license is required. Either that, or they'd tell me there is another 2-hour line to wait in if I want someone to tell me they don't know/care. SF DMV is a texbook example of government inefficiency, sloth, and intransigence.

Re:To be fair....

[mark-t]

The function of the professional license in this case is to restrict employment mobility, nothing else.

That's the spirit... who needs facts when you can just form your own opinions without substantiation? It's so much easier, after all, to believe in whatever you want to think than it is to think that there are actually simple explanations. I gave you just one possibilty... but again, why should you let perfectly reasonable ideas get in the way of forming conspiracy theories?

the most important one is missed out

[mbkennel]

| taxi licenses are limited to ensure that taxi drivers can still make a decent living

But in practice it doesn't work that way, taxi drivers still make a crap living working for owning companies who actually own the licenses, who make a great living.

And that's where the noise is coming from. Why else are the licenses/medallions, bought and sold on the free market, so expensive? Because they're profitable.

Uber drivers keep substantially more of their fare.

What's special about taxis that doesn't apply to grocery stores? Why aren't there a limited number of Grocery Store Medallions to be auctioned? People need to eat even more than they need a taxi.

Re:the most important one is missed out

[guises]

That's nice and all, but beside the point. Uber isn't competing by paying their drivers more, Uber is competing by skirting regulation. You can say that taxi drivers should get a larger share of the earnings, and you'll get no argument from me, but this argument exists because Uber isn't on a level playing field with existing taxi companies. Whether it's the companies or the drivers who are profitable doesn't matter, someone has to be making money for a private business to operate.

That regulation exists to make sure that taxis, whether the drivers or the companies, are making enough money to keep operating. This is done because they are seen as a vital part of the operation of the city. If there was any danger of the grocery stores going away you can bet your ass there'd be some regulation in place to prop them up.

If Uber can come in and abide by existing taxi regulations and still pay their drivers more than existing taxi companies do then great. Everybody wins. That isn't what's currently happening.

He has the sexual batteries of a teenager

[tepples]

Perhaps you need Cialis to recharge your sexual batteries.

"Safe, knowledgeable" taxi drivers

[PapayaSF]

Do you really want the choice where the safe, knowledgeable driver [...]

"Safe, knowledgeable" taxi drivers like this guy or this guy? And that's just two cases I know of in San Francisco.

Re:"Safe, knowledgeable" taxi drivers

[gnupun]

So you are using those examples to show why less regulation is okay? FYI, those madmen could have been uber drivers since it's less regulated.

Re:"Safe, knowledgeable" taxi drivers

[PapayaSF]

I point to those examples to show that regulation doesn't necessarily make things better, and thus less regulation doesn't necessarily make things worse.