Getting Over Getting Over Uber: Tim O'Reilly Does the Math

Susan Crawford yesterday published at Medium a critique of Uber and similar ride-coordinating services, in the form of a kind of paean to the American taxicab. Though she didn't start out with negative feelings for Uber, Crawford writes, her sentiment has swung away from objections to taxis (such as that they seek unfair protection from competition) to an extravagant defense, though it comes with a long list of "shoulds": "[Cities] should be focusing on making their taxi services better," she writes. "Taxis should be more accessible to everyone. Taxi fares should be low, predictable, and uniform. Taxi geographies should be wide. Taxis should be clean, fuel-efficient, driven by trustworthy, well-trained drivers, and available for frictionless electronic hailing." Even with the flaws that list implies, Crawford's description of how well taxis work now is more positive than I've found to be true: "Their rates are regulated and set; their pricing is transparent and can be double-checked (just look at the meter, which is itself regularly tested); they look like a uniform fleet; they are subject to very strict licensing and safety requirements. With rare exceptions, they don’t employ surge/congestion pricing schemes."

Tim O'Reilly has written a response, calling Crawford's arguments "puzzling and unconvincing." O'Reilly dissects some of the math behind the business of driving others for money, as it applies to both conventional taxi drivers and "gig economy" drivers, as well as some of the qualitative effects of ride-dispatch services; surely some readers will take issue with his figures and examples, but they provide a plausible case for doubting Crawford's rosy picture of taxis and dark view of modern app-dispatched rides. O'Reilly writes: "Regulation is not a good in itself. It is a means of achieving public goods. And so far, it is pretty clear that Uber and Lyft (and in particular, the competition between them) are improving the transportation options in American cities. Regulators should be using the opportunity to revisit the old way of doing things rather than trying to make the new conform to outdated rules that no longer serve their purpose."

Comments

Re:The fuss over Uber

[KGIII]

Umm... I believe both sides of the House are controlled by Republicans. Obama is center-right by any real definitions. How much further right do you want us to go before enough is enough? You realize that extremism isn't a good thing, right?

And this is from a guy who doesn't really like Uber because I don't think a business should just be able to ignore laws they don't like - that's a bad precedent. Why is it okay when Uber violates the law but we get irate when Microsoft does it? That's not acceptable nor does it make sense. "Well, we like them and don't like the law so it's okay if they break the law." How about when someone on the right doesn't like the environmental protection laws and feels it's okay when BP dumps a bunch of oil into the Gulf? It's nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

Get the laws changed and then operate your business. Breaking the law to make money is not acceptable no matter who does it AND no matter how bad the law is. That's not civil disobedience, that's criminal behavior. Regardless of how you interpret the Citizens United, corporations are not people - they don't do civil disobedience, they just break the law when they operate unlawfully. There's no altruism here, just greed - and you're helping them.