Mandating the use of an obsolete technology (taxi meter, when a smartphone + app + backend has the same capability) seems like sensible regulation to you ? That regulation was tailor-made to shut down Uber operations, as a favour to the taxi lobby.
The most popular taxi cheat is to the take the long way around. Meters don't help you there. Also, meters don't show you the full trip price before you commit.
Uber could perhaps fiddle around with map data, but the history would have to show the correct origin and destination, or it would be noticed. It's trivially easy, and free, to audit against Google maps.
I don't trust Uber to be ethical, but cheating in this space would just be corporate suicide...they would easily be caught.
Depends where I guess, certainly in Asia fast-running meters are not uncommon. To say a taxi meter is secure is like doing javascript client-side validation and no server-side whilst disabling right click. And approved by who? Vetted cryptographers?
Those are at least verifiable by 3rd parties - in Uber's case, both the driver's and passengers' smartphones should match up in terms of what route they took. I guess a sophisticated enough malicious driver could set up a GPS spoof in their car, but honestly if they can do that they're working in the wrong industry.
This is Hacker News. I feel like you should at least know that taxi meters are not reliable and the systems that Uber etc use simply are. Using GPS and navigation to ensure fair driving fees is one of the key parts that makes Uber/Lyft literally better than Taxis.
Who cares? Why is this the sort of thing that needs to be regulated in the first place?
When I go to a restaurant and order a 16oz steak it doesn't get weighed on a government approved scale. That's because if a restaurant rips off its customers then people will stop eating there. If Uber overcharged for rides then people would stop using them for rides.
> Why is this the sort of thing that needs to be regulated in the first place?
Customer protection laws are entirely normal in lots of countries. You question the need, I question why you think it shouldn't exist?
For your example, the restaurants are checked by the government. Unhealthy restaurants get warned and eventually closed. Determining if a scale is accurate on e.g. a market is another textbook regulation.
> This is textbook government overregulation.
Seems you're arguing for having companies cheat customers. What's the benefit for a country like Denmark to allow that to happen?
I'm arguing that, when it comes to taxi service (and steaks) customers are perfectly capable of protecting themselves from cheating service providers without government help.
We should have as few regulations as we can get away with as regulations almost inevitably get used in unintended ways with negative consequences. Incumbents use them to drive out upstart competition and increase costs for everyone.
Well it depends where you are. I spent my last vacations in Cuba, and it was a pain to have to bargain with taxis every single time, same distances will cost me anywhere between 25 and 5 dlls. I really missed uber over there, or even a taximeter, and again I'm sure that was because I was a tourist, even though I'm Hispanic myself they were able to spot me as a tourist.
At least in the UK, companies are generally required to use government approved scales for goods that are sold by weight - and Trading Standards do random audits of this to make sure they're in compliance. This has been the case for a long time because rigged scales are a very old swindle.
Yes. Just because the smartphone + app has the same capability doesn't mean that it is the best solution - nor does requiring a taxi meter mean that a government approved app that meets all the requriements of the taxi meter cannot be approved and/or used. Maybe the taxi meters have some sort of feature that makes them more secure. Maybe the government just cannot update the appropriate systems yet to include the tech. Maybe the general public doesn't trust the information of the meter.
The point is that there are multiple reasons this is sensible regulation.
The other thing it mentioned is seat sensors. I'm not sure a smartphone app would be able to do this as well, and I'm guessing the reasoning is because the taxis haven't always acted in respectable ways and is a way to fight against money laundering.
When the network goes down or the app backend has technical problems, the taxi fare meter will still work. It makes sure no-one gets ripped off (the passenger and the driver) and that taxes are paid correctly.
It's not fool-proof of course but I trust my local taxi's meter more than I trust Uber. This varies a lot by country and city, but I'm pretty sure that taxi meters are very reliable in Denmark.
This makes no sense. I open up Uber and tell my destination, and Uber tells me 87₹. I press confirm and that's it. If the network goes down it's still 87₹.
In contrast, a traditional taxi meter allows the cabbie to take a circuitous route with unsuspecting passengers. Before Uber I needed to constantly be on guard against autowales doing this to me (due to my ethnicity I'm prime ripoff target).
> I open up Uber and tell my destination, and Uber tells me 87₹.
If the network is down, your Uber isn't going to open. Yet you can hail a cab and pay with cash (or credit/debit).
Your taxi experiences are probably very different from mine, but getting scammed by a taxi driver is very unlikely where I'm from. And in my experience everything runs like clockwork in Denmark, I'd expect the situation to be very similar there.
Taxi services across the world are very different, so your experiences might be as valid as mine. But where I'm from, Uber doesn't provide anything that a normal taxi service wouldn't.
The network going down should not affect the fare. It's not like the city map changes by the minute, and the last known price per mile is a good approximation.
Smart phones should be fine for tracking fares, even if the network goes down (assuming they were well-programmed). Especially if the customer can run his own "meter app" on his own device to verify the fare.
My objection to Uber: I prefer drivers who have a track record of not being drunk and not on drugs. I don't need the government to regulate that, but I would be willing to pay a premium for drivers who are willing to undergo some kind of occasional testing program for drugs/alcohol.
An Uber driver who gets a single passenger complaint of not having been sober is reviewed. If there are police records such as a DUI ticket to confirm the complaint, he's excluded. This is better than occasional testing.
Nope - I'm not an expert. The point is that I can come up with these reasons, all of which are sensible in my opinion. I'm guessing if you want the actual reason, you'd have to speak to the officials in Denmark.
The other comment, however, gives an actual reason to require them.
Uber's receipt gives you a map with times, distances and a breakdown of costs. A taxi meter gives you a total, but it has a seal of approval. I know which one gives me a sense of assurance.
