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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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

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

[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.

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.

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?

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.

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: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?

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: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

[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?

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!