Data Research Reveals When Taking a Yellow Cab Is Cheaper Than an Uber

An anonymous reader writes A team of data scientists have come up with a system to identify times when regular yellow taxis are cheaper alternatives to an Uber [in New York]. Researchers from the University of Cambridge and the University of Nanmur in Belgium have compared a broad dataset of both yellow taxi and Uber fares in New York and have discovered that for a trip costing less than $35 Uber is often the most expensive option. The data scientists were able to reach this conclusion by comparing trip and fare data for each yellow taxi ride taken in 2013 and entering it into Uber's fare query system. Prices were taken from Uber's lowest-cost service Uber X and the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission.

Comments

People don't use Uber because its cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

They do it because of the smell.

Re:People don't use Uber because its cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

A driver who speaks fluent English and actually gives a shit about ensuring a good consumer experience is always bonus too.

Re:People don't use Uber because its cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully you get one who won't rape you.

Re:People don't use Uber because its cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't use Uber because its cheaper, it is about the "complete user experience" and the hipster cool cred you get. Everyone around here likes to brag up when they use it like they are sticking it to the man.

Experience

[transcender]

In a yellow cab, you have to deal with often times 25 year old vehicles in poor condition, the dispatcher blaring on the radio the whole ride. You can call a cab, and there is no guarantee one will show up, and not to mention the tip you're expected to bestow. In Uber... you get a new, higher end black car or SUV and you don't have to tip, the cars have always been clean... and unless you were one of the handful of well publicized incidents... the experience is much more classy and high end then an old yellow cab. You get what you pay for.

Re:Experience

[gcnaddict]

In Uber... you get a new, higher end black car or SUV

Reading comprehension issues, much? The study compared UberX, not Uber Black or any of the other higher tier Uber offerings.

Re:Experience

[sirlark]

Or a surge pricing multiplier kicks in while you are waiting your 20 minutes for the car to pitch up, only to suddenly get a cancellation notification... I guess the driver found a better fare.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

You get what you pay for.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of Uber was to be cheaper, no? There have always been nicer services than standard cabs if you want to pay more.

Re:Experience

[alen]

it can only be cheaper all the time if the drivers are willing to work for less $$$$$$$$$$$$

NYC most uber drivers already drive car services and go with a garage. i bet uber is just there to fill in the gaps between fares

Re:Experience

[Holi]

Yeah, you can choose from the multitude of car services that actually follow the law.

Re:Experience

[PRMan]

And don't forget those blaring ads about all the things to do in NYC as a tourist. This shocked me the last time I was in NYC. And the cabbie said he had no way of controlling the volume.

Re:Experience

[Grishnakh]

In a yellow cab, you have to deal with often times 25 year old vehicles in poor condition, the dispatcher blaring on the radio the whole ride. You can call a cab, and there is no guarantee one will show up, and not to mention the tip you're expected to bestow.

This (dumb) article is about NYC, AFAICT. Things there are different. You don't "call a cab" (maybe in the outer boroughs, but my experience is in Manhattan), you stand on the side of the street and raise your arm. And the cabs I've been in lately were fairly new, certainly not 25 years old. You sound like you're complaining about cabs in other cities.

In my experience, Uber and Lyft are great (and in fact, far superior) alternatives to cabs in places which are not NYC, and are not extremely dense like that. I used to live in northern NJ, and the cabs there were indeed pretty bad: you'd have to wait 30-60 minutes for one to show up when you called one, they were stinky, and they were really expensive too. Then came Lyft and Uber and suddenly I was riding around in Mercedes for half the price of some shitty cab, and with a driver who spoke perfect English too (not that all the Lyft/Uber drivers were natural-born Americans, they weren't, but even the ones that weren't were much easier to talk to than the cab drivers).

However, over in Manhattan everything is different. I have no idea why you'd bother with Uber over there, because you can just stand on the street and raise your arm and you'll have a cab in seconds. The cabs there aren't terribly expensive, since you're probably not going that far (thanks to the density), and the cabs are actually pretty nice in NYC these days (unlike other places/cities I've used cabs), probably because of either regulation or intense competition (a medallion is $1M last I heard; why spend $1M on a medallion for a single cab, and then use it on some shitty old car that breaks down a lot?).

Re:Experience

[NotDrWho]

I only respect laws designed to represent the interests of the citizenry as a whole--not the vested interests of one tiny class who bribed some politicians with campaign contributions.

Re:Experience

[bws111]

What a complete and total pile of crap.

The average age of a NYC taxi is 3.3 years. They MUST be replaced after 6 years.

You can not call a yellow cab in NYC. Since you can't call one, your BS about one not showing up is false. You CAN call for a town car, which WILL show up, and has the same age limits as a regular cab, and WILL be a Lincoln Town Car or equivalent.

I don't know where you get your 'facts' from about Uber, but you sure as hell don't normally get a higher-end car or SUV. You usually get a Prius or Camry or something of that ilk.

Re:Experience

[jittles]

I only respect laws designed to represent the interests of the citizenry as a whole--not the vested interests of one tiny class who bribed some politicians with campaign contributions.

You're right. It's not in the best interest of citizenry as a whole to have properly licensed and insured livery drivers. We're much better off when anyone with a smart phone and a car can provide taxi services.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds good. So you'd be behind laws requiring a good driving record for drivers providing car-for-hire, requiring good maintenance for vehicles used for hire, requiring honest pricing, and some sort of way to check compliance with all of these requirements? We could set up some sort of group to keep track of all this information and a system of certification for drivers to show that they and their cars meet these requirements, maybe a license of some sort. And we could set up some sort of commission to coordinate everything, and it would be funded by licensing fees. It sounds like a great idea. I wonder when cities will get on board with something like that?

Re:Experience

[jratcliffe]

Which, at least in NYC, Uber does. It's legally no different than any other car service.

Re:Experience

[NotDrWho]

So you'd be behind laws requiring a good driving record for drivers providing car-for-hire, requiring good maintenance for vehicles used for hire, requiring honest pricing, and some sort of way to check compliance with all of these requirements?

Only if those laws weren't REALLY designed to protect monopolies and money-making rackets for local governments.

Re:Experience

[bws111]

Do you actually have any idea at all what the regulations are for taxis? Here are some of the rules that 'only represent one tiny class':

Cars must be inspected 3 times a year. This includes safety and cleanliness, and accessibility.
Must have a rate card with FIXED (regulated) fares (none of this surge pricing nonsense) that the fares can see
All drivers must have valid Taxicab Drivers Licenses
Must have minimum $200,000 insurance per person
Must provide workers compensation coverage for drivers
Must operate each cab a minimum of 18 hours a day (again, none of this 'I'll only drive if the rates are high enough' crap)
Drivers must be trained for wheelchair passenger assistance (owner of the cab must pay for the training)
Must have braille and raised lettering plaques with the same info as the rate card (fares, complaint line, taxi ID)
Drivers license must be displayed in a lighted frame
Must have accurate taximeter
Must have operable air conditioning

Re:Experience

[SvnLyrBrto]

> I don't know where you get your 'facts' from about Uber, but you sure as hell
> don't normally get a higher-end car or SUV. You usually get a Prius or
> Camry or something of that ilk.

Wrong.

You may get an economy cat like that if you request UberX. However, If you summon an Uber, it will be a Towncar or something similar.

Re:Experience

[ClickOnThis]

In Uber... you get a new, higher end black car or SUV

Reading comprehension issues, much? The study compared UberX, not Uber Black or any of the other higher tier Uber offerings.

As long as we're taking note of higher-tier Uber offerings, let's not forget this one.

Re:Experience

[bickerdyke]

[citation needed]

Re:Experience

[bws111]

The article was comparing yellow cabs to UberX.

Re:Experience

[LoyalOpposition]

Do you actually have any idea at all what the regulations are for taxis? Here are some of the rules that 'only represent one tiny class':

Here's the deal--no matter how good taxis are, no matter how much benefit they confer, no matter how much some people prefer them, there're some people who prefer Uber, or some other service, to taxis. Some people who have a choice choose Uber instead of choosing taxis. That means, to those people, that Uber is better, to them, than traditional taxis would be, to them. Now, the taxi operators and politicians beholden to them don't like that. They want to remove that option, the option that the people prefer, in order to force them to choose taxis, which is what they don't prefer, or to choose nothing, which they also don't prefer. That being the case, it doesn't matter how good taxis are, it doesn't matter how many benefits that taxi operators and owners can tout. It doesn't matter how many benefits that politicians can tout. It doesn't matter how many benefits that shills on Slashdot can tout. It doesn't matter how many benefits that you, if I haven't already mentioned you, can tout. What matters is what people want and are willing to pay for.

I hope I've cleared that up.

~Loyal

Re:Experience

[bws111]

The problem with that thinking is that nothing happens in a vacuum. You make it sound like Uber and the people who chose it have no impact on everyone else. When Uber comes in and gets to cherry-pick only profitable rides, and otherwise lower their price (by not doing all the things that regular cabs must do) that means the traditional cabs are not getting that business. They can't survive with their regulated rates and must-carry rules, time required on the road, etc. if they only get the unprofitable trips. That impacts not only the cab companies, but everyone who uses them, which is a whole lot more people than use Uber (236 million people per year in NYC).

If someone owns a factory they don't get to say 'yeah, everybody else has to obey EPA rules, etc, but those rules are really just to protect the existing factories, and my customers live somewhere else and don't care anyway, so we declare ourselves exempt from the law and will just dump waste into the rivers and air'. This is the same thing.

Re:Experience

[thaylin]

I only respect laws designed to represent the interests of the citizenry as a whole--not the vested interests of one tiny class who bribed some politicians with campaign contributions.

You're right. It's not in the best interest of citizenry as a whole to have properly licensed and insured livery drivers. We're much better off when anyone with a smart phone and a car can provide taxi services.

Well they are insured and they do have a license, so I am not sure your point.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

And the compliance rates with these rules is?

How many times has a fixed rate trip (hotel to airport) been "accidentally" put on the wrong meter setting? What do you do when the driver starts yelling at you for enforcing the rate card? Taxis are awful. Uber is safer. I'd pay 50% more for Uber than for a cab in any of the cities where I regularly travel.

Re:Experience

[GlennC]

In addition, they must pick up any fare who calls for service (none of this "I'm not going into THAT neighborhood" or "I'm not picking up THAT guy" crap).

But go ahead and get in that car with some random person.

Re:Experience

[bws111]

What you do is call the taxi commission, the number of which is prominently displayed (by law), including in braille and raised letters, in the cab. Who do you call when Uber 'accidentaly' charges the wrong rate?

Re:Experience

[GlennC]

Well they are insured and they do have a license, so I am not sure your point.

They don't have a LIVERY license, and they don't have COMMERCIAL insurance.

You realize that there is a difference between standard car insurance and commercial livery insurance, right?

I'm sure you'll be happy to be sued when your Uber driver hits someone while transporting you and neither the driver's insurance nor Uber is willing to pay.

Re:Experience

[Tuidjy]

I do not know about New York, but if you take an Uber car and get into an accident, do not count on the driver's insurance. It was invalidated the second you got in the car, having promised to pay him.

Re:Experience

[Rich0]

How many of those regulations really offer any value in a reservation system like Uber? Why have the license in a lighted frame when you can just display it to the user on their phone or whatever? Why does the user need to see the license anyway?

Many of those regulations herald back to the day when enforcement of the law and recordkeeping was difficult, so they had to try to keep tabs on what was going on and deputize the citizenry.

I see variable fares as a benefit. Why not have reserve drivers who are willing to step in when things get busy for a higher rate? If somebody was paying $500/hr I'd be happy to get in my car and give people a lift, but I'm not going to do it for $10/hr. That is how virtually every other area in the economy works.

Re:Experience

[Tuidjy]

I do not know about New York, but if you take an Uber car In California, and get into an accident, do not count on the driver's insurance. It was invalidated the second you got in the car, having promised to pay him.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like the solar feed in tariff laws.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

>Drivers must be trained for wheelchair passenger assistance (owner of the cab must pay for the training)

Either this is insanely complex training or some cab driver didn't give a shit and a paraplegic threw a fit when the driver couldn't figure out how to appropriately help them. Regardless... maybe everyone should have this training. Who knows when you'll need to help a wheelchair user in a car without pulling them leg first through the backseat as their head hits the door a couple of times.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

... if the number hasn't been scratched off. The cab drivers I deal with just don't care. They get to charge extra if they touch your luggage ... but won't let you put your own bags in the trunk. They take longer paths to get to your destination and charge extra for it. They drive cars with broken seatbelts, or won't wait to let you put them on before taking off. They ignore the rate cards, drop you off on the wrong side of the street in the rain. I saw one smash through a car door at BOS. Inattentive is a mild description. I've had to yell to get a cabbie's attention away from his bluetooth headset.

Nobody would run the headline "cab driver treats patron badly, overcharges." Whenever Uber does something wrong, it makes the news.

Uber has more to lose.

If Uber mischarges, it was out of the driver's control. You contest the charge and perhaps tweet about it.

Re:Experience

[bws111]

The user sees the license so he knows that the person has a valid taxi license. Having a valid taxi license means things like he has not been convicted of a crime.

There is no area of the economy that has a 10x (let alone 50x) fluctation in price during the course of a day. Most areas would not see a 10x fluctuation in price over a decade. And when, by law, 3/4 of the cabs are on the streets at all times, there is no need for surge pricing.

Re:Experience

[bws111]

If the number has been scratched off it will be found at inspection. Same with seatbelts. Trips are recorded and reviewed by the T&LC. Do the things you suggest and get fined. Do it enough and lose your medallion. In NYC there is no charge for luggage in the interior or in the trunk.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

There is more to the world than just NYC, and the cab system in NYC seems to suck less than it does elsewhere. The "pile of crap" you are responding to is actually completely true *outside NYC*.

In the West Coast cities I'm familiar with, you very much *do* call a yellow cab, and nobody really knows what a town car service is. The yellow cab dispatchers universally suck, the cars take forever to show up (45 minutes to an hour), and you are never really sure whether the car is late because it's late or because it's just not showing up at all. When the car does arrive, it's usually pretty janky, generally an old police car with a yellow paint job.

Uber started out by contracting with town car services, so yes, you really would get a shiny new Lincoln Town Car or some luxury SUV, and it would show up in 5-10 minutes, which was absolutely goddamn amazing compared to what we were all used to. The thing you're describing with ordinary cars is not Uber proper, but "UberX", a low-end service intended to compete with Lyft. Uber proper still dispatches you a sleek luxury town car or SUV.

Unless it's different in New York, of course, but you are all weird anyway.

Re:Experience

[bws111]

The article is about NYC cabs and Uber.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true in pretty much every state, unless the driver has bothered to get commercial coverage.

Re:Experience

[TapeCutter]

And the compliance rates with these rules is?

As an ex (Aussie) taxi driver I can tell you that the rules are enforced by the transport cops who patrol the streets doing spot checks on trucks, cabs, and busses. There are heavy fines for both driver and owner, tampering with a sealed meter is considered fraud and can attract jail time. Small yellow lights on the top of the cab tell the cops what rate the meter is charging. Taxi's are also cleaned twice a day and can be put off the road by the transport cops if they are dirty. But hey, if you want to pay 50% more for "freedom" and risk being sued by an insurance company when it turns out the uber driver doesn't have the right insurance, it's your choice.

Uber is safer

In what way? The driver in either situation is much more likely to be attacked than the passenger? No physical protection or panic button in an uber car.
What do you do when the driver starts yelling at you for enforcing the rate card?

You video him with your phone and send the footage to the transport cops. Uber is an illegal scam on uber drivers, desperate people who ignore the insurance risk and run their own car into the ground trying to make a quick buck. Sad truth is they won't make enough to cover the cost of maintenance and fuel, they will end up still desperate but with no car to live in when they can't pay the rent. Courier companies here have already done the same thing to drivers, a rusty shitbox with a "courier" sign slapped on the side is a common sight here in Melbourne. I don't want to see that happen to our (already underpaid) cab drivers, I think uber and companies like it should be shut down, if they are allowed to continue it will be a very fast race to the bottom as the market is flooded with desperate people in rusty shitboxes with the word "taxi" hand painted on the door.

tl;dr - If you want a hair raising third world taxi experience to be the norm, then keep using Uber.

Re:Experience

[Charcharodon]

That's operating under the false assumption that the so called licensed/insured/certified professional will always provide the best and safest service. You can check all the boxes as a cab driver and still come up woefully short compared to the "guy with a car and a smart phone"

Besides there is nothing preventing the pro-cab drivers from participating in the Uber market place. Maybe they need to spend less time whining and more time driving.

Re:Experience

[amxcoder]

That would be great, as long as the licenses aren't made artificially scarce (like the current medallion system), were a reasonable price to obtain (similar to regular permits for things and not millions of dollars), and were open to anyone and everyone that can meet the qualifications and has the couple hundred dollars (or less) for the license and meets background check requirements. That would be a great system, however, that isn't the system that is currently implemented in most cities.

Re:Experience

[jratcliffe]

They don't have a LIVERY license, and they don't have COMMERCIAL insurance.

In NYC, they do, even UberX.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

NYC has good cabs. It is an outlier. No other US city I've been to has cabs as good as New York.

That whole inspection system completely fails in the Boston metro area where you have a dozen local governments all trying to grab a piece of the regulatory pie.

Let the rest of us stop suffering with nastycabs, please. Uber is better than cabs in many, if not most, US cities.

Re:Experience

[jratcliffe]

What you do is call the taxi commission, the number of which is prominently displayed (by law), including in braille and raised letters, in the cab. Who do you call when Uber 'accidentaly' charges the wrong rate?

The TLC, which regulates Uber. In NYC, it's no different from any other black car service (and that includes UberX).

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

The meter problem was with a driver who refused to use the fixed-rate (including gratuity) option when turning on his meter for a run from the hotel to the airport. He tried to over charge using the regular variable rate and then demanded a tip. I normally would tip above the included gratuity, but not after he tried to rip me off.

I've taken lots of cabs. I have NEVER had a better experience in a cab than in an Uber car. Try it once and see the difference.

I'd pay more for Uber to avoid the very possible negative long-term effects you describe. Cabs where I live are unreliable, loud, hot, dirty, and driven by people with no local knowledge. Double the prices if necessary. Cabs here suck.

Re:Experience

[puzzled_decoy]

The way you phrased this make it seem like you think all these things are fundamentally *good*. The reality is they are all just barriers to market entry.

Seriously.

Cars must be inspected 3 times a year. This includes safety and cleanliness, and accessibility.

If you are making money off of your vehicle, the incentive to keep it clean, safe, and accessible is higher than some government mandate telling you that you have to.

Must have a rate card with FIXED (regulated) fares (none of this surge pricing nonsense) that the fares can see

Surge pricing is a mechanism to prevent shortages. Every time the government mandates pricing, there have been shortages (for instance, the housing crisis in New York or the energy crisis in California). Furthermore, what right does the government have to tell an individual they don't deserve to be paid more for risking their safety in poor conditions, or high-traffic environments?

All drivers must have valid Taxicab Drivers Licenses

This is just a mechanism to arbitrarily limit supply. If the person already has a motor vehicle license, they have already shown they can drive. It's just another barrier to entry pushed into law by the existing industry.

Must have minimum $200,000 insurance per person

I think insurance is required for anyone who drives a vehicle anyway. Why should insurance laws be different if you operate a cab? I don't even want to touch mandated insurance...

Must operate each cab a minimum of 18 hours a day (again, none of this 'I'll only drive if the rates are high enough' crap)

This is frustrating. Why not let people drive when rates are high? If high rates encourage more drivers and thus more people can arrive at their destination more quickly, how is this a bad thing? You can even do the math: if you have 1000 people who need rides, and rides are fixed at $10, let's say you have 20 available drivers. Each ride takes 10 minutes. This means every person will arrive at their destination in 8 hours and 20 minutes. Now let's pretend rates can vary. You have 100 drivers willing to operate at $50, 80 drivers at $40, 60 at $30, 40 at $20, and 20 at $10 (keeping in mind that you only have 100 drivers total). Now let's say you have 200 people willing to pay $50, 200 willing to pay $40, 200 willing to pay $30, 200 willing to pay $20, and 200 willing to pay $10. The first 200 people are taken care of in 20 minutes. The next 200 it takes just under 30 minutes. The next 200 take just over 30 minutes. 200 more in 50 minutes, and the final 200 take an hour and 40 minutes. This gives us a grand total of just under 4 hours.

But wait! you say. The rich people got their rides first! This isn't fair!

Holy hell, man, think for a second. First, we just moved all 1000 people in *under half the time it took us before*. Second, not everyone who pays more is necessarily rich, they might just really need to get to their destination- in fact, truly rich people probably aren't using cab services. Third, you are saying you would rather it take longer for everyone to get to their destination, then for people willing/able to pay more to get a ride first. Finally, you would *prevent* the rich passenger from giving more money to the driver- if you do this, you better not complain about the 1%.

Alright, at this point I'm pretty sick of going over these point by point. The fundamental takeaway is they are bullshit, and don't actually help anyone except the entrenched industry.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the parent, but I have been talking to you elsewhere in these comments.

You are right. The article talks about NYC. Ok. You win.

The rest of us have moved on to talking about other parts of the country or even other parts of the world. When you see a dozen comments that are completely false if interpreted via an NYC-centric lens, consider which is more likely: that you are be taking the comments out of context or that everyone else is wrong wrong wrong.

Re:Experience

[diamondmagic]

Dumping waste onto your neighbor's property (even gas, here), without their consent, is criminal.

Offering to give a person a ride at a cheaper rate than the alternative, without misrepresenting your product (and regular Uber users know what the product is perfectly well), with their consent, is not just legal, but beneficial to society as a whole.

If the problem is regulated rates, minimum road time, and so on... how about we fix that problem, instead of creating new ones?

What you're describing is called protectionism and it's been disproven in economics for hundreds of years. If you're going to cry 'Nothing happens in a vacuum' you can't then proceed to talk about only the taxi cab owners/drivers. You have to talk about all of society.

Re:Experience

[thaylin]

http://blog.uber.com/rideshari...

Re:Experience

[thaylin]

You do realized that they do have commercial insurance through uber right?

http://blog.uber.com/rideshari...

Re:Experience

[jittles]

Well they are insured and they do have a license, so I am not sure your point.

In NYC, they do have proper insurance and licensing, yes. But the GP's statement suggested that these regulations existed strictly to protect the interests of taxi drivers and that there was no actual benefit to society. The GP forgets that these laws were introduced with public safety in mind.

Unless Uber is underwriting all of the insurance on their non-professional drivers, I doubt that Uber's policy offerings are of much value to those who may be harmed in an accident. To my knowledge, no one has made a major claim under Uber's policy, so we will have to wait and see how that turns out.

Re:Experience

[jittles]

Dumping waste onto your neighbor's property (even gas, here), without their consent, is criminal.

Offering to give a person a ride at a cheaper rate than the alternative, without misrepresenting your product (and regular Uber users know what the product is perfectly well), with their consent, is not just legal, but beneficial to society as a whole.

When was the last time you went for a ride with an Uber driver who just happened to be going to the same place as you? You didn't. Not once. Ever. Uber isn't a ride sharing service, it's an unlicensed livery service. If you and I are driving from Los Angeles to NYC together and we agree to split gas, then we are ride sharing. If I pay you $40 to take me to the airport after work, then you're providing a taxi service. See the difference? It's perfectly legal for you and I to carpool together. It's legal for me to buy you gas for giving me a ride somewhere. It's not legal (in many jurisdictions) to offer unregulated livery services.

If the problem is regulated rates, minimum road time, and so on... how about we fix that problem, instead of creating new ones?

What you're describing is called protectionism and it's been disproven in economics for hundreds of years. If you're going to cry 'Nothing happens in a vacuum' you can't then proceed to talk about only the taxi cab owners/drivers. You have to talk about all of society.

The people that those regulations listed by the GP are trying to protect are the passengers. Do you think that the taxi drivers want to be out there during unprofitable hours? That they want to charge the same rate at 5pm as they do at 1am? No. So I am not sure how you think those rules are protecting the taxi companies.

Re:Experience

[bws111]

I didn't say anything about dumping on a neighbors property, I said polluting the air and water. And until the last 50 years or so, such polluting was NOT criminal, it was the normal way of life. It only became criminal when a LAW was passed (see how that works). Why was such a law passed? Because it was decided that the right of the population in general to have clean air and water was MORE IMPORTANT than the right of some people to choose to have cheap products, or the right of some people to make a profit/be in a business that they want to.

Similarly, in the past there was no regulation of taxi service. This lead to highly unscrupulous practices (such a rates that change at the whim of the driver), dangerous vehicles (that a race-to-the-bottom inevitably produces), dangerous driving (like trying to beat a competitor to a fare), and just plain unseemly behavior (like cabbies fighting over fares). As such, a LAW was passed. Why was a law passed? Because it was decided that the right of the population to have a safe and reliable taxi service was MORE IMPORTANT to the functioning of a city than the rights of a few people to make a profit.

What you are describing is called unrestricted free market, and it has never worked anywhere.

Protectionism is trying to protect an industry. This is not protectionism, as they are not trying to protect an industry, they are trying to ensure a needed service is available and well-functioning.

I guess you have some reading problems, because I specifically mentioned the 260 million people who USE taxis in NYC each year as being the ones who are affected. That IS 'all of society'.

And before you make some stupid claim that 'things are different now', I would like to point out that Uber already has wildly varying rates (surge pricing, anyone), and has already been caught doing any number of unscrupulous things (like creating fake fares, insisting it is not responsible for what its drivers do, making the drivers responsible for the vehicles, etc). No, a stupid 'review' does not solve any of those.

Re:Experience

[Rich0]

The user sees the license so he knows that the person has a valid taxi license. Having a valid taxi license means things like he has not been convicted of a crime.

And that is necessary for taxis, since as a passenger all you see is a random yellow-painted car pull up which might or might not be a legally-licensed taxi. Also, it is important that they haven't been convicted of a crime, since the driver could shoot you and dump you in a ditch and nobody would know you had even gotten into the car.

With a reservation system like Uber the car that shows up is pre-identified, so you don't need any kind of further validation. Likewise, your trip was recorded in advance, so it would be impossible for the driver to do something to you without being detected, which is a deterrent to crime. Sure, he could do something to you anyway, but anybody driving a car could run you over on the sidewalk too, and we can't regulate everything.

There is no area of the economy that has a 10x (let alone 50x) fluctation in price during the course of a day. Most areas would not see a 10x fluctuation in price over a decade. And when, by law, 3/4 of the cabs are on the streets at all times, there is no need for surge pricing.

I'm sure plane tickets fluctuate in value by factors this large. People can easily pay 10x more/less for the same ticket depending on when they buy it.

I don't get the problem - why wouldn't you want more people driving people around when there is more demand for drivers? If there is an emergency and I have to get out of town, I'd rather pay $100 for a ride that gets me there than try to hail one of the already-in-use cabs for a $10 ride.

Re:Experience

[bws111]

I do not agree in the slightest that your ability to be safe (get out of town in an emergency) should be determined solely by your ability to pay. Maybe we should also let the firefighters decide they don't really want to work today, so if you have a fire we will only work if you pay us extra.

Re:Experience

[Rich0]

I do not agree in the slightest that your ability to be safe (get out of town in an emergency) should be determined solely by your ability to pay. Maybe we should also let the firefighters decide they don't really want to work today, so if you have a fire we will only work if you pay us extra.

Are you saying that individual employees should be compelled under force of law to perform a job against their will?

The $10 cabs that are already 100% saturated will still be around to not give you a cheap ride out of town even if the option to ride uber for $100 exists.

When you cap prices, it inevitably leads to shortages one way or another. The only time it makes sense is in monopoly situations. The whole point of services like Uber is to get rid of the monopolies. There is no reason there can't be 25 other similar competing services, which means that prices will generally reflect market conditions.

And in a true disaster situation, the national guard should be getting everybody out free of charge anyway. I'm referring to situations that raise prices where the national guard isn't giving everybody free rides. Clearly in those situations Uber couldn't charge a lot of money, since who would pay $200 for a ride the government would give them for free?

Re:Experience

[diamondmagic]

When was the last time you went for a ride with an Uber driver who just happened to be going to the same place as you? You didn't. Not once. Ever. Uber isn't a ride sharing service, it's an unlicensed livery service.

So?

If you and I are driving from Los Angeles to NYC together and we agree to split gas, then we are ride sharing. If I pay you $40 to take me to the airport after work, then you're providing a taxi service. See the difference?

So?

It's perfectly legal for you and I to carpool together. It's legal for me to buy you gas for giving me a ride somewhere. It's not legal (in many jurisdictions) to offer unregulated livery services.

So?

The people that those regulations listed by the GP are trying to protect are the passengers. Do you think that the taxi drivers want to be out there during unprofitable hours? That they want to charge the same rate at 5pm as they do at 1am? No. So I am not sure how you think those rules are protecting the taxi companies.

Government rules have strange ways of protecting industries, usually by shutting the door on new entrants to the market. I don't claim to be cognizant of exactly why, but just look at all the taxi cab drivers and owners protesting any relaxation of the above-mentioned rules and you'd guess it has to be benefiting them in some way, probably unfairly since it's the force of law.

Re:Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Offering to give a person a ride at a cheaper rate than the alternative, without misrepresenting your product (and regular Uber users know what the product is perfectly well), with their consent, is not just legal, but beneficial to society as a whole.

Until you get in an accident, and suddenly you find out that you're operating a business without proper insurance or licences, and now you're getting sued by your passenger.

Uber's currently trying to get a foothold here in Edmonton AB, and the complaint isn't that they're a new disruptive internet business model thingy. It's that they're trying to run a business without actually *running* a business. They don't want to pay for business licences, or pay business taxes, or follow any of the rules and regulations that a cab company (or even a charter limo outfit) is required to follow.

Re:Experience

[diamondmagic]

I didn't say anything about dumping on a neighbors property, I said polluting the air and water.

How is that not the same thing.

And until the last 50 years or so, such polluting was NOT criminal, it was the normal way of life. It only became criminal when a LAW was passed (see how that works). Why was such a law passed? Because it was decided that the right of the population in general to have clean air and water was MORE IMPORTANT than the right of some people to choose to have cheap products, or the right of some people to make a profit/be in a business that they want to.

The passage of the law had very little to do with causing cleanliness of the environment and more to do with the fact it became economically viable to have such laws after technology had progressed to the point that cleanliness became economically viable.

Society has been becoming progressively less polluted for centuries. The Middle Ages had lakes so polluted they would CATCH ON FIRE. When's the last time you heard someone shout "gardyloo"? That's unfathomable nowadays.

I.e. such a law didn't get passed sooner because it would have been impossible to enforce. And arguably, it's unnecessary.

Similarly, in the past there was no regulation of taxi service. This lead to highly unscrupulous practices (such a rates that change at the whim of the driver), dangerous vehicles (that a race-to-the-bottom inevitably produces), dangerous driving (like trying to beat a competitor to a fare), and just plain unseemly behavior (like cabbies fighting over fares).

Citation needed. As with pollution, consumer safety was worst at the start and has continuously gotten better, regardless of the legislation.

If what you say is true, that doesn't really explain away Uber, now does it? My Uber market is entirely unregulated by any law or bureaucrat, and I'm not exactly seeing any of the horrible things you describe.

Re:Experience

[jittles]

They are protesting Uber and other services because they cannot compete with them. They cannot compete with them because of the licensing and insurance costs. They want the field to be level, as far as I can tell. I'm all for one or the other - either remove the restrictions on the taxi companies or apply them to Uber. You can't have it both ways. But you have to remember that taxis have these restrictions for a reason. They didn't come into existence out of thin air. The requirements are there to protect the citizens of the city, not to protect the interests of the poor schmuck driving a taxi.

Re:Experience

[Slashdot Parent]

Cars must be inspected 3 times a year. This includes safety and cleanliness, and accessibility.

Fat lot of good that does. The dirtiest Uber I've ever been was is still 10x cleaner than the cleanest licensed taxicab I've ever been it. I guess driving a car for 18+ hours per day takes its toll.

Most of the regulations you speak of are from a bygone era. An accurate taximeter? Try GPS. Braille rate cards? The rider already has an accessible mobile device. You get the idea.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a problem with the standard taxicab experience. If taxicabs were better than Ubers, then there would be no such thing as Uber.

Re:Experience

[Slashdot Parent]

If Uber sucks so much, then no one will use it. And nobody's using it, right?? Right??

Re:Experience

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

I do not know about New York, but if you take an Uber car and get into an accident, do not count on the driver's insurance. It was invalidated the second you got in the car, having promised to pay him.

Don't know the specifics of the case, but Yellow Cab in Chicago have filed for bankruptcy because they are presumably unable to pay damages to a customer who was injured in a crash.

There must be a bit more detail to it, because I would have expected Yellow Cabs insurance to cover it... but just goes to show... something!

It was much cheaper for me recently

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to take a cab from a friends place to O'Hare and I guess Uber was using surge pricing because of the weather (6th of this month). An Uber was going to run $85, while a regular cab cost $35.

Re:It was much cheaper for me recently

[robbyb20]

Dont kill me for saying this but its also only $5 to the take the Blue line. I know I know, its not always easy to get to it and you have to plan ahead. My ex used to hate the blue line and would insist on taxis or uber. I use Uber on a regular basis($50 this past weekend) and get both uberx and taxis with it. I havent tried out curb yet so i cant comment on that. Did you successfully get a taxi when the surge pricing was in effect? That usually means no one is out driving and you will have a heck of a time hailing or calling a cab.

Re:It was much cheaper for me recently

[Anonymous Coward]

$50 over the weekend? Damn.

I don't wanna hear another peep from the loud-mouthed anti-driving twits ever again. I drive everywhere because public transit is crap where I live, and I spend less than $50 a week using a vehicle that averages between 15 and 20 MPG.

Public transit is crap here because it doesn't go anywhere I need to go. Public transit seems to be crap everywhere else because it's fricking expensive. Screw that.

Yes, I live in the midwest... why do you ask?

Re:It was much cheaper for me recently

[robbyb20]

In Chicago, last weekend would have been a bad idea for a lot of people to get behind the wheel. I would gladly spend $50 for taxis than kill/mame/get dui. Also, when parking in a parking garage in the loop costs you $40 for 8 hours, a cheap taxi or uber for $6-15 a ride is a steal.

It sounds like you dont have the same daily obstacles that someone living in a large city faces. Also, calling public trans crap because it doesnt go where you need it to go is a little harsh. Do you call the Oriental Express crap because it doesnt go where you want it to go?

Re:It was much cheaper for me recently

[Anonymous Coward]

See, Chicago is the NYC wannabe of the midwest, and Illinois in general is the NY-state wannabe of the midwest. The rest of the midwest just rolls their eyes and says "that's not representative of us". Especially Missouri, where we have crap public transit.

Really, visit St. Louis sometime, but be sure to bring a car. And when I say "visit St. Louis" I really mean visit the metro area, because the city is a crumbling urban hellhole. And when I say "visit" I mean drive through on an interstate and don't stop.

The public transportation here is crap, which means that it won't go where I want, and because of that, I'm certain to view it as crap. The metro bus system is poorly funded, perpetually late, and overpriced. The light-rail system (Metrolink) is overpriced and doesn't go anywhere near the southern half of the metro area because of all the rich, racist NIMBYs that killed its expansion.

So to summarize:
- St. Louis City: worn out and crappy ghetto
- St. Louis County: full of racists that won't give the ghetto any assistance to maybe help fix things
- Metro transit system: terrible, mostly because of the above
- Missouri state government: mostly overt racists from the sticks (read: republicans), interspersed with a few covert racists from the urban areas (read: democrats)

And it's still better than what Chicago and Illinois put up with because the Missouri Highway Patrol doesn't rule with an iron, but petty, fist like the Illinois State Police does.

Always more expensive?

[JBMcB]

I always thought that Uber was more expensive, the idea being you could usually get an Uber car more easily than hailing a cab.

Re:Always more expensive?

[ottothecow]

Uber X is cheaper than taxis in most markets. Uber Black is more expensive (but you are in a towncar or luxury SUV).

This study seems stupid. They say they used uber's fare estimates? Why the hell would they do that? If they know time and distance (which the NYC taxi dataset provides), they can calculate exact fares. Uber X is priced just like a taxi...flag pull fee for getting in the car plus X dollars per mile and X dollers per minute of time.

NYC is a different market (and for a while, their Uber X rates were higher than a taxi...so...never cheaper) so I don't know the exact prices but the math is easy in Chicago. Is there surge pricing? No? then Uber X is significantly cheaper than a yellow cab. If it is surging, then it depends how much...I think you reach parity with taxi pricing around 1.7X.

This is a god damn algebra problem. They don't need a sample of taxi rides to do the math.

Re:Always more expensive?

[ottothecow]

Upon a bit further analysis, it looks like there is one variable that makes it stop being an easy algebra problem....NYC cabs charge time fares only when the car is not moving. Uber X charges time for the entire ride. So if you had a 10 minute 5 mile car ride, there would be a difference between one where you crawled along at 30 mph and one where you got on the highway and went 60 but spent 5 minutes waiting at lights getting on/off.

Uber also has an $8 minimum fare in NYC...so any trips less than a couple of miles are going to be cheaper in a taxi.

But still, you could calculate exact fares for an Uber using the Taxi sample data. Using Uber's fare estimates when you already know exact time and distance is silly.

Misspelled

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Namur, not Nanmur.

Makes sense

[Registered Coward v2]

Cab fares are regulated and based on distance traveled; at least for most trips. Uber drivers are unlikely to want to drive to pick somebody up for a $5 fare while a cab that drive by will pickup the passenger since they are there anyway. It's an opportunistic transaction for the cabby, that unless they have a more valuable fare they think they will get before dropping off the short trip, it makes sense for them to take the trip even if it is only a $5 fare. In auditor, unlike an Uber driver the cab driver has no way, in advance, of knowing where a fare is going, unless it is a call in, while the Uber driver does. Thus, with more information the Uber driver can eliminate fares a cab cannot; or can charge more in order to be willing to take the fare.

Re:Makes sense

[jratcliffe]

Except that Uber drivers often DON'T know where the fare is going. They only know that if you enter it before pickup, and there's zero requirement that you do so.

Re:Makes sense

[Registered Coward v2]

Fair enough. However, in such cases the Uber driver has the ability not to be available and thus Uber must raises prices to the point drivers are willing to pickup fares; so drivers self select out of the short trips or they cost a lot more.

Re:Makes sense

[jratcliffe]

Huh? How can Uber drivers self-select out of short trips if they don't know where the trip is going? Also, the system doesn't work that was, as I understand it. Drivers hit the on duty button on the app, then they're available, until they hit off duty. If they get an assignment, they can in theory turn it down, but do that more than a few times, and you'll be dropped off the system.

Re:Makes sense

[Registered Coward v2]

Huh? How can Uber drivers self-select out of short trips if they don't know where the trip is going? Also, the system doesn't work that was, as I understand it. Drivers hit the on duty button on the app, then they're available, until they hit off duty. If they get an assignment, they can in theory turn it down, but do that more than a few times, and you'll be dropped off the system.

It's not so much short trips as low paying trips, which normally would be a short trip. If Uber charged near what a cab would for trips they probably would not get many drivers as they pay would be relatively low and thus drivers would simply not make themselves available. I think it has much to do with the business model. Uber bills itself, to drivers, as a way to make money with their car. The drivers are already paying for it and use it for more than making money and thus need a higher level of payment to driver for Uber than a cab driver; who is usually renting th vehicle at a fixed price for a fixed period and thus wants as much traffic as possible so he can cover his cost and make some money. The cab driver is out cash when turning down trips but the Uber driver isn't since they lack the same sense of "this is costing me x dollars per shift" mentality.

Re:Makes sense

[jratcliffe]

Again, in NYC, all Uber cars (including UberX) are commercial vehicles with drivers who have TLC licenses.

Re:Makes sense

[ottothecow]

What?

The driver has no way of knowing how long of a trip you are taking until you get in their car. At that point they can't kick you out (well, they *can*, but if they make a habit of them, uber will fire them).

Besides, short fares aren't bad unless you have to drive a long way to pick them up. Like a yellow cab, there is a flag pull fee just for sitting down in the cab. A half mile ride is worth like 75% of a mile ride. Payment is instant in the app, so its not like you lose time while they fish for money, give change, etc.

Re:Makes sense

[Registered Coward v2]

Again, in NYC, all Uber cars (including UberX) are commercial vehicles with drivers who have TLC licenses.

Which is irrelevent to the underlying economic decision making process. If the same economics drove it you'd see prices converge to cab prices.

Re:Makes sense

[jratcliffe]

If the same economics drove it you'd see prices converge to cab prices.

Except that the operating costs for taxi drivers are heavily driven by the cost of the medallion (at least half of the per shift lease fee for an NYC taxi goes to generate a return to the medallion holder, not cover the purchase and maintenance cost of the vehicle). Uber takes that out of the equation, so that it's feasible to see drivers making more money working the same # of hours.

Re:Makes sense

[Registered Coward v2]

What?

The driver has no way of knowing how long of a trip you are taking until you get in their car. At that point they can't kick you out (well, they *can*, but if they make a habit of them, uber will fire them).

Besides, short fares aren't bad unless you have to drive a long way to pick them up. Like a yellow cab, there is a flag pull fee just for sitting down in the cab. A half mile ride is worth like 75% of a mile ride. Payment is instant in the app, so its not like you lose time while they fish for money, give change, etc.

While a driver may not have knowledge of a particular trip they will, over time, develop a picture of what trips are likely to be and use that to base a decision on wether to be available for assignment. If they do not think they will make enough on trips they simply will not make themselves available; thus Uber, in order to have sufficient drivers, charges more in order to make taking trips, which may be short trips, attractive enough for drivers.If Uber paid drivers closer to what taxi drivers make on a trip it would be a lot harder to get and keep Uber drivers because after some number of low paid trips they would decide it's not worth it.

Re:Makes sense

[Registered Coward v2]

If the same economics drove it you'd see prices converge to cab prices.

Except that the operating costs for taxi drivers are heavily driven by the cost of the medallion (at least half of the per shift lease fee for an NYC taxi goes to generate a return to the medallion holder, not cover the purchase and maintenance cost of the vehicle). Uber takes that out of the equation, so that it's feasible to see drivers making more money working the same # of hours.

Exactly, which is why I said the economics of a cab are different than Uber's. A cab has a high fixed cost and thus the driver needs to cover that cost, even if it means taking 20 short trips instead of fewer longer ones. Short trips may even be better if the driver could be assured of minimal time between them. The driver has a number they need to hit on their shift to cover costs and make money, so they have an incentive to stay as busy as possible. The Uber drive doesn't have such high fixed costs, so their incentive i.e. more likely to make a minimum amount per trip since they are trading time for money. They don't have to worry about covering the cost of a medallion so they have much more flexibility in deciding when and how much to work so Uber pays a premium, over what a cab might pay, to keep drivers available. If an Uber drive is only making say $5 a trip and has to drop everything to d a pickup blocks away they may decide it simply isn't worth it and pack it in; whereas a cab still has cost to cover even if they pack it in.

I think the real concern with cab companies is the threat Uber is to the value of a medallion. If you've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a medallion, and are counting on it going up in value over time, anything that threatens that value must be crushed. If Uber were able to significantly dent cab demand in NYC and cab drivers decided to buy their own car to drive for Uber and not lease a cab, medallions would decline in value and people who have invested in them would lose serious money. Thus, they fight Uber on every front possible to keep it from becoming a serious threat; just like they fight attempts to increase the number of medallions.

Similarly, the app that compares Uber prices to cabs is a threat to Uber. Their user base is already used to using technology and this now gives them a way to compare prices and decide which option to chose; which could limit Uber's ability to charge a premium and make their model work. I would not be surprised to see Uber try to stop the app from getting uber prices by any means possible.

Re:Makes sense

[jratcliffe]

I think the real concern with cab companies is the threat Uber is to the value of a medallion. If you've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a medallion, and are counting on it going up in value over time, anything that threatens that value must be crushed. If Uber were able to significantly dent cab demand in NYC and cab drivers decided to buy their own car to drive for Uber and not lease a cab, medallions would decline in value and people who have invested in them would lose serious money.

100% agree, and it looks like this is already happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

Re:Makes sense

[Registered Coward v2]

I think the real concern with cab companies is the threat Uber is to the value of a medallion.

100% agree, and it looks like this is already happening.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

It'll be interesting to see how that shakes out. I used to be medallion was a way to make a lot of money. What other asset worth hundreds of thousands could you sell to someone with virtually no credit, let alone the assets to cover a note like that? The beauty of it was the medallion was easily repossessed by prying it off the hood and was growing in value as well; and easy to resell. The borrower, OTOH, was likely to pay for the medallion first since they stood to lose everything if it was repossessed. You could get a better return than simply sticking the money in a government bond yet is was almost as risk free. If you did repossess it you were likely to get a better monthly payment than before as well since it was now worth more. As for the borrower, they medallion was a form of retirement savings. Even if yo never paid off the loan and made interest only payments, by the time you retire and resold it you had a nice profit that was your retirement fund; depending on how long you owned it you probably made more on the sale than you did in years of driving a cab. For cab company owners. it's the same deal except multiplied by numerous medallions. That's a lot of money at risk from Uber et. al.Balck Sedans were never that much of a threat because of their pricing and service model, but Uber strikes right at their customer base and is going after the next generation of customers as more and more younger people start working in cities and use cabs or Uber for rides.

Re:Makes sense

[jratcliffe]

Yeah, the big medallion holders (who hold most of the medallions) are definitely hurting.

This guy seems to be in default (apparently, he can't get drivers for his cabs, so they're not generating revenue - next logical step is to start discounting the lease):

http://nypost.com/2015/03/16/t...

Also, check out the chart for Medallion Financial (ticker TAXI). Ugly.

Two year old data versus today's market rates

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly apples to apples there.

All NYC taxi cabs are way too expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

What used to cost $7 in 1999 is now $20.

Re:All NYC taxi cabs are way too expensive

[NotDrWho]

Hey, those $800,000 medallions don't pay for themselves, you know. ;-)

Missing the point

[Just Some Guy]

I don't take Uber (or more often: Lyft) because it's cheaper. I use these services because 1) the car actually shows up, 2) when it's supposed to, and 3) I know ahead of time how much it will cost. Even if it's a couple of bucks more, that's well worth the vastly better customer service.

Re:Missing the point

[shadowrat]

I take it because I know how to pay for it. yellow cabs have weird habits of telling you after you get where you are going that they only take cash. sure, i can say, "well all if have is $5 cash so here you go." but honestly, planing for a confrontation at the end of every ride just isn't enjoyable.

Re:Missing the point

[Just Some Guy]

Why is that? Is it because they want to earn money off the record and credit card transactions are logged?

Re:Missing the point

[alen]

yes

Re:Missing the point

[Em Adespoton]

No, it's because the credit card company takes a cut of card transactions, but you the customer get to pay the same amount... meaning the driver gets less money for the ride.

Re:Missing the point

[jratcliffe]

This used to be a serious problem in NYC, but I haven't had a driver try the "credit card machine is broken" scam on me in at least three or four years. They may try it on tourists, but NYCers have known for years that the law is clear - unless the driver informs you upfront that the credit card machine is broken (before he turns on the meter), then, if he refuses to take a credit card, the ride is free.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I used to live in a "popular" neighborhood of Seattle (Capitol Hill) with a lot of bars and clubs. Every time I called a yellow cab (in the evening), they would never show up because they'd pick up someone along the way and disappear without notifying me. Every single time. The only way I could get a cab was to walk to a major street and try to hail one. Hugely inconvenient with the rain and steep hillside - this is for going out in the evening, so there's a fancy hairdo and high heels involved, and I'm willing to pay to be picked up at my door!

Re:Missing the point

[SvnLyrBrto]

Also, I've never gotten into an Uber and smelt the stink of smoke, vomit, or pee. No Uber driver has whined or refused when I asked to be taken out to the avenues, bayshore, or the outer mission. And I've always been able to get an Uber in those neighborhoods with no more than about a 15-minute wait.

None of that is true of taxis.

Re:Missing the point

[OverlordQ]

> 2) when it's supposed to, and 3) I know ahead of time how much it will cost.

Until it doesn't because the drivers are gaming the surge pricing algorithm.

Re:Missing the point

[Just Some Guy]

No, it's because the credit card company takes a cut of card transactions

I have a hard time with that. An off-the-shelf solution like Square charges 2.75% without negotiation. I'd think a cabbie would rather collect 97.25% of the bill than 100% of nothing.

Re:Missing the point

[Em Adespoton]

Ah; but for most people, it's not "nothing" -- instead, it's cash in multiples of 20. So for a $35 fare, they get $40, keep the change. Sure, they get some that go the other way too, but from what I've heard, many cabbies find that their take is higher without credit cards than with.

Of course, where I live, it's illegal for them not to accept credit, as accepting electronic payment is a requirement to get licensed in the city. Refusing to process it is prosecuted as fraud. All the cabs have credit card stickers in the windows.

Re:Missing the point

[Em Adespoton]

Oh, and one other reason cabbies prefer(red) cash: it's faster. This means they can squeeze in more fares, and make more money. The time spent processing a credit card is time they're not spending making money.

Re:Missing the point

[losfromla]

Or maybe they were somewhat averse to picking up a transvestite? (Assuming you are male because you are on /.)

Re:Missing the point

[mjwalshe]

So is that so much of a problem to carry cash for a cab? or any other low value transaction?

Re:Missing the point

[Just Some Guy]

Yes, when almost everything else from snack stands to food trucks takes plastic and you get into the habit of never needing cash.

You can ride a cab for less than $35?

[damn_registrars]

The last time I rode a cab was decades ago and it was over $25 for maybe 8 miles. Being as gas costs 2.5-4 times as much now as it did back then I figured the fares would have scaled accordingly.

Or perhaps I'm just willing to walk further than some other people...

Re:You can ride a cab for less than $35?

[jratcliffe]

8 miles is a very long taxi trip in NYC - average is 2.6 miles.

Re:You can ride a cab for less than $35?

[damn_registrars]

8 miles is a very long taxi trip in NYC - average is 2.6 miles.

True. But a big part of the total fare is the "flag drop fee" and various fees that add up while you sit in traffic going nowhere. I'm pretty sure those didn't go down in past decades either.

Re:You can ride a cab for less than $35?

[jratcliffe]

Average fare in NYC is $13.40. Initial drop is $3.80-4.30, depending on time of day.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/do...

Re:You can ride a cab for less than $35?

[Anonymous Coward]

True. I wish Uber/Lyft had a meter of some kind, even if it was embedded in the app. A friend would hate that, because they like the "I'm being given a lift for free" feeling of not having to hand money over, but I'm older, and I'm used to watching the meter. If I (for whatever reason, good or bad) don't want to spend more than a certain amount, I like to keep track of how much it's costing.

not here

[Anonymous Coward]

In Houston YellowCab will charge 7 to 10 dollars for a trip that Uber will precharge only 6 dollars for. I believe they both charge 22 cents per 11th mile but for short 1 - 5 mile trips, Uber here is always cheaper.

Plus YC will literally charge you, based on driver if they are an asshole, a rolling fee for traffic or on a time basis. I take a cab, or I used to until the last 3 weeks, literally twice a day every weekday of every month, and last week I actually encountered more than 1 driver literally charging fare for nothing. We were at a left turn lane to get onto a feeder, not moving, and every 10 seconds or so the price was going up 20 cents. Fuck Yellow Cab.

Re:not here

[Overzeetop]

"We were at a left turn lane to get onto a feeder, not moving, and every 10 seconds or so the price was going up 20 cents."

Um, that's how cabs work. Time or distance; the meter switches automatically. You are buying the services of a car, and traffic is (generally) out of the driver's control. Note that they make a lot more when they bill mileage, so it's in their interest to get you to your destination faster.

Been the opposite for me

[redmid17]

Taken more than a few Ubers and cabs in Chicago. Uber has typically been 2/3 to 3/4 of the cost of a yellow cab trip. The only time an Uber has been consistently higher has been during surge pricing. Trips from downtown Chicago to ORD or MDW are almost always cheaper with Uber, usually 10-15 bucks. I try to avoid either during rush hour, as taking buses/trains or walking is usually faster.

I've never taken an Uber in NYC, so their mileage obviously varies. I have taken them in Indianapolis, Nashville, and other places. Seemed cheaper there too but the sample size is much smaller.

Re:Been the opposite for me

[ottothecow]

Uber X in NYC is expensive compared to Chicago. Almost as expensive as a yellow cab and has an $8 minimum so if you are only going a mile or 2, it isn't necessarily cheaper (and uber charges for time the car is moving in addition to distance...yellow cabs only charge time when the cab is stopped). I still don't understand why these researchers used estimates since they could have calculated exact fares for exact rides...their $35 figure seems like bullshit. If there is no surge, it will almost always be cheaper as long as you are going past the $8 minimum. If there is surge, it will cost more...but it doesn't take a team of researchers to multiply a number by 1.75.

But of course half of the reason people use them is because they are clean, the drivers don't smell, complain, or yammer on their phones, payment is handled instantly and automatically and you don't have to step outside to hail one. Uber X fares used to be higher than yellow cabs in NYC IIRC and people still used them.

Re:Been the opposite for me

[Anonymous Coward]

NYer who lives in LA - In NY, cabs are no doubt a better deal, and more convenient. In LA, cabs are more difficult, since you can't hail them. "Ride-sharing" services are much easier. Of course if you can't use a smartphone (age, disability, inclination), then you can only use taxis.

Re:Been the opposite for me

[rahvin112]

And the great thing is if the Uber driver gets in an accident you know with certainty that there is little to no insurance to cover your injuries.

$20k won't cover one ER visit where they have to do emergency surgery. Hell spend a day in the ICU in some metro areas and you could easily top that even without surgery. I had a relative spend 3 days in an ICU in San Fran and bill was $92k.

Uber keeps pricing down by cutting corners on maintenance, insurance and driver wages. That's a wicked combination IMO. One of these days someone is going to get seriously injured in an Uber car and all these problems are going to hit the fan like a sledge hammer. Even if the service is superficially better, is the corner cutting that's eventually going to do them in. Personally I think the medallion systems in most cities should be either done away with or made unlimited. I also believe the taxi regulators have unusually close relationships with the cab companies and as a results have been corrupted into protecting market rather than protecting the public. (not much different than a NCAA that protects schools and earnings above the students they were chartered to protect).

But the answer to the regulatory problems isn't the current Uber or Lyft IMO.

Re:Been the opposite for me

[Slashdot Parent]

From this, it looks like Uber has $1M in insurance during paid trips.

UberX in NYC is Different

[jratcliffe]

Just so folks know, UberX in NYC is unlike UberX in any other market, in that the cars are drivers are all licensed livery cars and drivers with TLC (Taxi and Limo Commission) commercial licenses and insurance. This is unlike the rest of the US, where UberX drivers and vehicles don't need commercial licenses and plates.

Only real difference between UberX and Uber Black in NYC is the quality of the car (usually Camrys or similar with UberX, and Town Cars or big SUVs with Uber Black).

Re:UberX in NYC is Different

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words - UberX in NYC obeys insurance and safety laws, while in other states it manages to be cheaper by skipping around them?

Re:UberX in NYC is Different

[Holi]

Wait, just because they don't have them doesn't mean they don't need them. Here in RI they are required to have them but Uber says no they are "ride sharing".

Re:UberX in NYC is Different

[jratcliffe]

OK, to clarify, then, in NYC UberX drivers _do_ have TLC licenses and TLC-plated cars. In the rest of the country, they don't (whether or not they're supposed to).

Re:UberX in NYC is Different

[Rich0]

So in other words - UberX in NYC obeys insurance and safety laws, while in other states it manages to be cheaper by skipping around them?

They claim they have insurance elsewhere. They're just not licensed with a particular government agency.

I think the safety law issue is a red herring. The reason you need to license cabs is that they make trips without any kind of recording of the event. If I get in a cab and pick you up on the curb, I could kill you and leave you in a gutter someplace and nobody would know you were ever in my cab. Systems that involve reservations are inherently more secure, because there is traceability.

I think that these kinds of systems need to be regulated differently. Applying the same rules as for taxis that can be hailed just drives up costs without providing any real safety improvement.

Re:UberX in NYC is Different

[Anonymous Coward]

If you consider paying to get a new license is a safety issue, sure. Because that's all the difference there is. The taxi driver pays more. He didn't take any additional tests nor learn anything additional. At least, that's the case in Canada, where a recently licensed taxi driver actually ended up on Canada's worst driver (he was blissfully unaware of so many laws, he could never have passed even a written a test).

As for insurance, that's an issue for insurance companies and drivers to deal with. Insurance make no difference to safety.

So, yeah, feel free to skip around them. I'll still feel just as safe, because I am.

Re:UberX in NYC is Different

[DoofusOfDeath]

Hey, I thought I was the only Slashdot reader in RI.

Re: UberX in NYC is Different

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're not. But you go on judging that by how you feel and not on actual risk and I'm sure you'll be fine.

Oh, and pray you're never in a serious injury accident as a passenger either.

Re:UberX in NYC is Different

[ottothecow]

In Chicago, the taxi driver's license is a written test involving things like being able to tell you how to get from the current location to XYZ intersection or a famous landmark. The taxi commission loves to parrot about the fact that their drivers have special licenses like it is a safety feature...but those drivers didn't take any actual additional driver's training or pass any skills tests. They took the same test as the rest of us, and most of them did so with *less* training since they are primarily immigrants (and immigrants often don't have to do any of classroom and behind-the-wheel driver's ed stuff that teenagers do since they get their licenses after turning 21).

Sure, it is annoying when you tell your driver to take you to a major intersection and they have no idea how to get there...but you summoned them with a GPS-capable phone. Now both Uber and Lyft let you type your destination into the app, and it will pop up directions on your driver's phone--you don't even have wait for them to type in your address.

Re:UberX in NYC is Different

[Holi]

Oh no, not by a long shot. You should swing by the Hot Club, I know few on here that stop by there.

Re:UberX in NYC is Different

[DoofusOfDeath]

Oh no, not by a long shot. You should swing by the Hot Club, I know few on here that stop by there.

I dunno... Providence is such a long drive. It would take me like 45 minutes...

(Just proving my RI bona fides :)

First time I took a cab

[Anonymous Coward]

I was new to the Seattle area and a college student, asked to be taken on a mainstream road in Bellevue (148th Street iirc), the cabby claimed not to be able to find it. Mind you this was 17 years ago and was 10pm, I was desperate to meet my roomate while he was still up and get into my new apartment. What should have been a $35 taxi ride cost $105. Gas was $1.16 in the area and I thought it was high compared to my area.

I already knew he ripped me off bigtime and couldn't happen with smartphones today nearly as much, but there you have it. A lot of subsequent rides later, I see taxis trying to rip off a lot in certain areas. Taking longer routes or their meters just not corresponding with reality somehow, maybe an advertised rate and then setting a higher one (my experience not always in America, mind you).

Never used Uber, but if it's one destination, one final price, I'll take it thank you very much.

Re:First time I took a cab

[NotDrWho]

Pretty ballsy for a cab driver to claim not to know how to get to 148th Street.

"Do you know how to get to 147th street, asshole? WELL IT'S ONE BLOCK FROM THAT!"

Re:First time I took a cab

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

Also, just checked, was 148th Avenue, not street. Point still stands. We were on the highway and he missed an entire exit for it that I later saw has "148th Avenue" in big letters.

*sigh* I won't be sad for taxi drivers in any case.

Re:First time I took a cab

[painandgreed]

Pretty ballsy for a cab driver to claim not to know how to get to 148th Street.

Ballsy or just stupid. Despite all the tests they are supposed to have taken on area streets, Seattle cab drivers seem outside their depth when going to anywhere outside of the core downtown and the airport. Several times I've got tired of them consulting road guides and talking to the dispatcher and just start giving directions: "Straight through the light, get on I-5, take the Olive St exit - this one right here!, left at the next light, take a right, stop next to that tree". I've never had similar situations in any other city in any other country (which is good because I can't always direct them).

Re:First time I took a cab

[Anonymous Coward]

Seattle, though mostly organized, is rather complicated if you want to start going to Bellevue or Kirkland or .... I'm from outside the city, and I have no problem imagining that it's a nightmare for cab drivers.

Re:First time I took a cab

[painandgreed]

My first job in Seattle was delivering pizzas in Bellevue. It's pretty much the easiest grid-like part of the Seattle metro and only got hard once you tried to find the specific apartment building you wanted. There are a few gotchas going from once side of 405 to another but the hardest part is asking if the address is for North or South and no knowing the location of 148th is like not knowing where Pine is in Seattle.

Funding source?

[Dishwasha]

I wonder who paid this team of scientists to do this study....

Tipping?

[TFoo]

It doesn't look like they took into account tipping for cab fares. A 15% addition to the Taxi fares would make Uber the clear winner in all cases, I think.

Re:Tipping?

[jratcliffe]

The fare data does include tips. See bullet point #2 on the first page.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.0302...

typo

[Anonymous Coward]

It's spelled Namur, not Nanmur

Re:Yellow cabs are also

[Anonymous Coward]

How can yellow cabs be legal when they're all driven by illegals?

Just use Lyft Line

[TheNarrator]

I have been taking Lyft "Line" around and it's sweet.. They take you just about anywhere for $5. Yes, you have to stop and pick someone else up or drop them off usually but it's so damned cheap! This is one of those too good to be true things that will only last till the end of the tech bubble. Reminds me of getting Kozmo.com to deliver a snickers bar to your door during the last bubble.

Not in LA

[markass530]

I've taken at least 3 dozen Uber/Sidecar/Lyft rides , most expensive one was 28 bucks , i usually take short trips and it's not only cheaper, it's a LOT cheaper, if it wasn't for those options I wouldn't catch a cab because they are prohibitively expensive

Re:Not in LA

[Anonymous Coward]

Same in Nashville. Cab from airport to Midtown is about $30. UberX about $12. A lot of short trips are less than you would tip a valet to park the car.

Screw Taxi Cabs

[Anonymous Coward]

I have not had to take a taxi in a few years thankfully. Some friends of mine and I flew into Columbus Ohio a few years ago, and we had to get a cab to our hotel; our friend who was going to drive us around that trip was not in town yet. The guy at the taxi stand said it should be a $45 cab ride to our hotel. The taxi driver did not speak good english, did not know how to use his gps, took us to the WRONG hotel even after we told him that it was the wrong address, tried to bill us for his mistake, tried to tell us his credit card machine was not working, and tried to extort an "unloading fee" for getting our luggage out of the trunk of his run down P.O.S. crown vic. We called him out on it when one of our guys called the local taxi commission's 24 hour hotline. We wound up only paying $45 for the ride, and made the decision to not take a cab again. We would rather get a rental car for a day as it would be cheaper and more efficient.

Of course, where you live, it is NOT prosecuted

[SuperKendall]

Of course, where I live, it's illegal for them not to accept credit, as accepting electronic payment is a requirement to get licensed in the city. Refusing to process it is prosecuted as fraud.

Sorry, but that is bullshit. In the past I have had cab drivers do MANY things it is illegal for them to do - like demanding I add extra to the fee to pay for tolls.

The simple truth is that cab drivers are immune from pretty much any degree of shafting they care to employ on the customer - and they know it.

Re:Of course, where you live, it is NOT prosecuted

[Em Adespoton]

In many places, this is completely true -- where I live, it's not. Taxi drivers get their license revoked, which pretty much means they have to move (out of a lucrative city) if they want to continue in that profession. Drivers have been blackballed on human rights violations for discriminating based on race, and taxi companies can have their business permit revoked and assets frozen if drivers are shown to be playing with credit processing or length of fare. And it's all on CCTV, by regulation.

I'm always shocked when I visit other places and see what kind of stunts the taxi drivers try to pull. However, they've all accepted my card for the appropriate amount when I make it plain that that's the only way they're getting anything at all out of me. And I generally let them know that I tip fairly well when they don't try things like that.

That's why I use Uber

[SuperKendall]

Cab drivers are way more likely to rape you than Uber drivers.

I offer as proof the same article you linked to. i.e. Nada.

Or, there is this Google Search...

The first hit? "Taxi driver gets 20 years for raping passenger".

So enjoy getting raped in a vomit covered cab.

Re:That's why I use Uber

[righteousness]

The first hit I got was "BBC News - India Uber taxi driver accused of Delhi rape".

The value of Monopoly is you can ignore all that

[SuperKendall]

Cars must be inspected 3 times a year. This includes safety and cleanliness, and accessibility.

I guess inspected does not mean fixed or repaired, based on what I've seen.

Must have a rate card with FIXED (regulated) fares (none of this surge pricing nonsense) that the fares can see

And then they tack on extra fees like tolls that they are not supposed to charge.

Must have minimum $200,000 insurance per person

Uber provides more insurance than that for drivers.

Must provide workers compensation coverage for drivers

How nice, and yet how irrelevant to me as a passenger.

Must operate each cab a minimum of 18 hours a day

Again, utterly irrelevant to me. I don't drive 18 hours a day and I can drive just fine. I only care that they are working when they pick me up. When an Uber comes to collect me they know where I am and where I wan to go, so it doesn't matter how often they drive at other times.

Drivers must be trained for wheelchair passenger assistance

But not every cab can take a wheelchair...

Must have braille and raised lettering plaques

Must they also light a fire with sticks? Using an Uber means you are using an accessible smartphone, not having some useless plaque in braille that was probably printed in the 1950s

Drivers license must be displayed in a lighted frame

With Uber you see the driver before they even get there.

Must have accurate taximeter

Which is often broken. Or is not accurate whatsoever.

Must have operable air conditioning

Uber cars do not need this and other rules like it, because they don't have cars that are such complete piles of shit you must specify rules like this. They just have working AC because WHO DOES NOT HAVE AC IN A CAR.

Uber: the car transport for people with common sense.

I thought Uber was always more expensive.

[jcr]

I use Uber for the superior quality of service. If you call Uber, you get picked up when they say you will. If you call a cab, you can wait an hour before you even KNOW if they're going to show up at all. Add to that, the fact that the Uber cars are clean and the drivers are polite, and I'm sold.

-jcr

Re:Yellow cabs are also

[thieh]

Just not yet. In America you can make a lot of things legal such as polluting the environment or taking bribes if your company got shitloads of money. If you include "not being prosecuted" you can put "crashing the financial market" on the list as well.

It's not "Nanmur", its "Namur" your idiot !

[Anonymous Coward]

don't you verify what you write before posting or are you in such a urge to let the Internet know what you have discovered that scorching the content of the information is secondary ?