Does anyone honestly believe that the innovation and disruption caused by Uber and its competitors would have happened without ignoring laws that supposedly protect the public?
"Licensing to carry passengers" is definitely something I want to see disrupted. There is no value to me, or others, from having the the driver "licensed to carry passengers."
It certainly doesn't provide any assurance of quality (as indicated by the horrible drivers and customer service one gets from Taxi Drivers on the Peninsula).
I think it's entirely reasonable to require Insurance, Background Checks, Car Safety Checkups (from a third party), Drivers Valid License - Basically anything that is in place to protect consumer safety, instead of there to protect incumbents market ownership.
For example - in London, acquisition of "The Knowledge" is not there to protect consumers, it's there to reduce the amount of competition. I would absolutely not require "The Knowledge" prior to anyone becoming a Lyft/Uber driver.
And, as one who has taken thousands of taxi-rides, I can tell you that Uber/Lyft are not just innovation, they are mind-blowing revolutionary disruptive innovation to this industry. They are a much bigger deal for cab rides, than the iPhone was for the smart phone.
> There is no value to me, or others, from having the the driver "licensed to carry passengers."
The value is in that the license can be taken away if the owner does not comply with the appropriate requisites for the activity. The relationship between a taxi driver and their passenger extends way beyond the mere act of driving, so the driver's license is not enough.
> There is no value to me, or others, from having the the driver "licensed to carry passengers."
> I think it's entirely reasonable to require Insurance, Background Checks, Car Safety Checkups (from a third party), Drivers Valid License - Basically anything that is in place to protect consumer safety
You contradict yourself.
> I would absolutely not require "The Knowledge" prior to anyone becoming a Lyft/Uber driver.
The Knowledge is not for delivery; it's for picking people up on the street (which is many times preferable to ordering Uber on your phone). I don't want my taxi driver to spend 2 minutes blocking the road while he enters the destination into the navigation app, nor doing it while s/he's driving.
Lots of places have a "License to Carry Passengers", and the purpose of that license is to prevent new drivers. It's not to protect passengers. I'm fine with requirements that protect passengers. I'm not fine with requirements whose sole purpose is to prevent new drivers.
Regarding the knowledge (yes, I know it's for black cab hails) - if you think that's useful, and are willing to pay the increased rates that result from the higher level of service (and as one who has taken London Cabs, I can attest it's a wonderful service, just not one I would be willing to pay for), then you should be free to pay for that service, in the same way that others should be free to provide and advertise it.
But don't make it a requirement to run a service like Uber/Lyft.
It's not useful/a service; it's a way of ensuring order on the road. You can't (legally and safely) use mobile phones while driving; and when taxis stop on the side of the road, they should resume driving ASAP, not wait until they finish typing the destination.
Regarding "app" services, I agree, it's not necessary as they can map the path in advance, but they can't replace the existing "taxi" service (i.e. hailing taxi) that way (and I feel it's reasonable for cities to protect that service to a certain extent).
The major reasons why Uber/Lyft changed my life when ordering taxis:
o Single Contact point - I don't have to power dial a bunch of different services, or try and find out who is currently picking up in my region.
o Always, Always, Always a driver available. There were so many times when I just could never get a pickup on the peninsula. With Uber/Lyft, no matter how busy it is, or what concerts are playing, I can always get a ride. 100% of the time. (And yes, I know surge pricing makes those rides pricey, but I would much rather pay 3x or 4x and have a ride in 5 minutes than spend an hour to 90 minutes waiting for a cab. )
o When the driver/dispatch claims they are on the way - they always show up. Not only do they always show up, they show up reasonably on time. And, better yet, I can see if they are moving in my direction. That real-time car location technology is a major innovation.
o The feedback mechanism means I haven't been picked up by one psycho, or in one half-broken down vehicle yet. I'm not claiming they haven't existed on Uber/Lyft, I'm certain they have. But, those types of drives will be downvoted so quickly they'll cease to be a driver very quickly. With Taxis, I had a ton of drivers on the peninsula I dreaded being picked up by. One of them was frequently undergoing some weird psychotic episodes which had him shouting out to voices. Another was just an asshole. I frequently got into old cars with non-working windows, and often doors that would not open from the inside.
o No screwing around having to "pay through an app" - you don't pay - you just book your ride and get out at your destination. Particularly when you have a bunch of bags and stuff - that's awesome.
These are just a few of the reasons why Uber/Lyft changed everything. I can't believe anybody who frequently took taxis on the Peninsula would claim otherwise. Price is about #7 or #8 on the list.
> "Licensing to carry passengers" is definitely something I want to see disrupted. There is no value to me, or others, from having the the driver "licensed to carry passengers."
So you're cool with just getting in any old stranger's car? Really?
First, they are an Uber driver, so presumably they have at least filled in a form or applied. I know my Lyft drivers frequently have applied to be Uber drivers but haven't been approved, so there is clearly some type of process.
But, more importantly - how familiar are you with Taxi Drivers on the Peninsula. Many of them are very new to the valley, many of them have just started driving, and quite a few of them are scary, psychotic, or just plain mean. I have yet to have that experience with Uber/Lyft, and when I do, I expect my, and others feedback, to correct that situation immediately rather than have to deal with it for any prolonged period of time.
Also - think of the hundreds (thousands?) of people a day for the last 10 years who carpool over the bay bridge. In that situation, you truly are getting into an absolutely random strangers car. People don't seem to have any issues with that - and there is ZERO background check, tracking, or awareness of those people.
The world is not as scary as people seem to think it is - In terms of risks, the most dangerous thing is likely not your driver, but the fact that you are in a car in the first place. They kill 30,000+ people a year.
> First, they are an Uber driver, so presumably they have at least filled in a form or applied. I know my Lyft drivers frequently have applied to be Uber drivers but haven't been approved, so there is clearly some type of process.
If taken to their limit(including sharing of trips), the economics would work so well that we could be talking about something that could replace the personal car in many many cases.
Yes - mind blowing. Perhaps because I've taken thousands of taxi rides, that even a hundred Uber/Lyft rides later, I still can't comprehend how wonderful it is to just push a button and see a car pull up. I wasted so much of my life waiting for taxis, many of whom never showed up, many of whom showed up 30 minutes late, and sometimes were never available - that Uber/Lyft just continue to blow my mind. Easily the most exciting use of my iPhone.
I trust ratings by the general public a lot more than I trust some authority that I've never heard of deciding some person is fit for driving a cab. Corruption is a thing that happens with authority figures and while you can bribe the general public, it's not like the person bribing the public won't recognize their own benefit to just being a better driver.
There is much more incentive to not suck when you have daily ratings as opposed to whatever the limit is for taxi cab drivers.
Yes..? Yelp has some great reviews. I'm looking at pictures of dishes from my local restaurants and the scenery around them right now from a reviewer.
Which appointed agency would you rather have tell you what food is good/bad? The local health boards?! Don't make me laugh, I worked in a sit down restaurant for years and every single inspection was a quick walk through followed by a free meal we'd give the inspector and a high rating.
This wasn't one store. This is every single store I worked at in multiple restaurants across three different cities and two different health departments.
I don't agree with Yelp reviewers' taste in restaurants, but they host reviews of lots of other services too, and their reviews of the service has been somewhere between "not correlated" and "inversely correlated" with the actual service I've had.
No, by disruption he probably means becoming a multi-billion dollar business, not to an anti-regulatory stance. Could Uber have succeeded if they had tried to follow all of the regulations like Hailo did?
And by innovation, he probably doesn't refer to the slur that you did by calling their workforce "gypsies" but to the resource locality problem solved by an app.
FWIW, "gypsy cab" is a general term for illegal cabs.
I would argue that the use of the word gypsy is actually a slur against Romani people. I'm a little confused by your comment as you seem to be implying that a gypsy is a bad thing and it's thus offensive to the drivers to be called gypsies.
I hope I'm misinterpreting because that's like getting mad at Alice for calling Bob a n*, not for using a racist slur, but because it compares Bob to a black person.
When someone uses a slur in a negative connotation like pico did it is usually considered offensive. I really don't get how lhnz calling out the ugliness of that comment is bad on him.
I agree, it is offensive. It wasn't clear to me that lhnz was calling out the ugliness of pico's comment. The way his comment was worded sounded different to me. Like he was saying "how dare you insult someone by calling them a gypsy", not "gypsy is an insensitive slur". I'm having a hard time articulating that properly. My comment was meant to ask clarification, not as an accusation.
Uber's innovation was in removing a hails requirement for a mutual line-of-sight between the passenger and a cab. This increases the number of cabs accessible to a user. It also allows cabs to move towards users, which is analogous to providing an index to speed up a locality of reference problem in a computer [0].
It is an innovation that works on purely economic grounds.
He was insinuating that Uber's innovation was cheap workers and then slurring these as "gypsies". It's easier to point out somebody's smear than it is to describe their misunderstandings related to innovation and domain knowledge, so my attack was on his method not his content.
Edit: You can't honestly downvote me based on a discussion from first principles of why something was innovative or can you? Sigh.
As a response to your original post, I would argue that the term gypsy is widely considered derogatory, and that I was not saying "how dare you call somebody a gypsy". I was saying that I felt that he was purposefully using it as a derogatory smear. I think it's fair to assume that he was using it as a smear and I think it's interesting that you wish to defend him by accusing me of the same thing that I accused him of.
You're perverting my intention which was to point out that he was normalising a smear as a negative externality to defending his anti-Uber beliefs and that this isn't okay.
Sorry, that was absolutely not my intention (and I didn't downvote you). I was trying to figure out your intention because your phrasing confused me. As I said, I hoped I was misinterpreting your sentence, and I was. Your intent is now clear and thank you for clarifying.
The term gypsy is widely considered derogatory, but it is also widely used and accepted as normal by people unaware of that.[1] I don't think it's fair to assume pico was using it as a smear, but in the ignorant casual sense that people refer to illegal cabs as gypsy cabs, or say they got "gypped". Still insensitive, but I don't think he was trying to use a slur.
I'm not trying to defend his usage. You're right, it's not okay. But I think there is a distinction to be made in educating someone as to the history of a word vs. assuming they used it intentionally.
[1] In Conan O'Brian's documentary, there's a scene where an attendee of his show says to him something like "we got jew'd", to which Conan says "you know I'm part Jewish, and my producer over there is Jewish?". And the guy says "sorry...we got gypped" and then everyone carries on like it's normal. Meanwhile I was like "wait, that doesn't bother you in the exact same way?".
> Uber's innovation was in removing a hails requirement for a mutual line-of-sight between the passenger and a cab. This increases the number of cabs accessible to a user. It also allows cabs to move towards users, which is analogous to providing an index to speed up a locality of reference problem in a computer [0].
That's not Uber's innovation, since livery cars are not allowed to accept hailed fares in most places anyway. The only difference is an app instead of traditional voice.
So in other countries you can only use Uber to pay and not to hail? Are you sure this isn't just a weird exception.
I didn't know that "gypsy cabs" was a legitimate term of description to use to describe unlicensed cabs. I think it still sounds offensive, but I guess that would mean that he wasn't the instigator.
What I mean is in most US cities (I don't pretend to know about anywhere else), there is a large class of livery services that, unlike cabs, cannot accept fares hailed from the street, but will come pick you up and give you a ride if you call them. Uber is basically an extension of that concept, except, instead of you calling a person on the phone, you use a smartphone app.
Taxis in the SF bay area have always been a joke. The few times I've called them they often say they have no drivers in the area, or they claim they will send the driver but he never shows up, or they send one and it takes an hour. Hailing one in the street like NYC has never worked for me. There is no penalty to a driver if he picks someone up on the street before he gets to you, so they usually don't get to you. In Uber their rating would drop and eventually they would get fired. Not to mention Uber lets you order the cab without a call detecting your location, watch the car come to you on the map, communicate with the driver the entire time, and handles all the payment. So the innovation over taxis is enormous.
I'm appalled that Uber had to go over the route of breaking laws to essentially have the same kind of service that we got here in Brazil with "taxi apps". They've been around before Uber started I think and have some critical mass now, around 2 years after they started.
It's basically Uber but for cabs, I think that's why I've never been over-the-top thrilled by the Uber concept, it's something that already happened and didn't have to break any laws to get the same convenience while not fucking with the cab drivers (who are people too).
In Manhattan there are taxis everywhere. Sometimes I'm lucky and get the first cab I see, otherwise I may have to wait a few minutes. If you're clever about where you try to hail from, you won't have to wait long.
you clearly live in a privileged location most cities don't have cabs roaming all over the place and you would have to walk numerous blocks through unsafe areas to get a cab on a major through fair.
What exactly is the innovation in question? It's impossible to even table this question as you phrased it. "The innovation and disruption caused by Uber" could easily in part be trivial and legal, and in part be non-trivial and more complex to think about (politically, legally, and socially).
>If you mean "disruption" - lowering the prices of a cab by bypassing regulation - not really.
they bypassed the regulation artificially limiting supply - medallions. Such limit of supply has nothing to do with public interests/safety/etc... and in many cases actually goes against the public interest.
Uber doesn't replace taxis as a service - if my phone is dead, I can only use a taxi, not Uber. To keep the price sustainable, cities limit the supply of taxis. In exchange taxis need to obey some rules (e.g. can't reject people).
It possible that the regulations are too strict, and I don't support medallions, but I don't support Uber breaking a number of other regulations - e.g. surge pricing, insurance, drivers that actually know the city (in e.g. London).
What I don't understand is that in my locale (Atlanta, GA) the licensed regulated taxis are absolutely awful and attempt to rip you off in every way possible. They take for ever to show if you call, if they even do. They never will take a credit card without a huge fight, and often if you hail one late at night they will demand $xx in cash up front or just drive off. The drivers are rude, cars horribly maintained, you have to watch the route they are taking like a hawk or they will take the long way or even literally drive in circles to run the meter up. (Had that happen, pointed it out, got in to an argument over fare until I threatened to call police.) The entire experience is awful.
My worst Uber experience is better than my best cab experience. I don't know anyone who's tried Uber here who would go back to using cabs except as a last resort. I don't understand why people would prefer a random almost untraceable taxi (Unless you memorize or document the license # of every driver, assuming it's even legit) over a known GPS tracked Uber. Perhaps things are different in other cities.
> drivers that actually know the city (in e.g. London)
Does any other city have such a strict knowledge test as London? Certainly it's not common.
With that in mind, if you support the Knowledge requirement in London: do you think that other cities should have their own Knowledge? Or that London is a special case? Or do you think the Knowledge itself is too strict, but something like it is good? Or...?
Yes, I think that every city should have it. For some cities, e.g. New York, it would obviously be easier to pass. I think that if a cab picks me up on the street, the driver should know where I'm going, and the best way to get there - without typing it into the mobile phone, and constantly pressing the buttons while s/he's driving. Eventually it's going to be replaced with apps, but there are quite a few more pieces missing (e.g. real-time traffic information, frequent updates of road works, and (probably most important of all) perfect voice input/search/commands).
> To keep the price sustainable, cities limit the supply of taxis.
Would you mind elaborating on the idea of sustainable pricing?
I ask because it sounds not too far away from, for example, "With the goal of artificially inflating the price of transportation, for the benefit cartel members, we will constrain the supply". See OPEC. This type of collusion is typically considered to be anti-competitive, and not in the best interest of society overall, or of the market counterparties. Silicon Valley's "No Hire List" conspiracy is another example of cartel action to manipulate market price for the cartel's benefit - in that case, illegal.
Why should the government support a specific type of private business (taxi companies) in this way? Competition is a good thing - we ought to encourage taxis and other transportation companies to compete with each other and offer the lowest price. I don't in general want my government to prop up businesses that cannot survive on their own (moral hazard, among other reasons), especially if society can solve the same problems with businesses that thrive naturally. To make this claim, there needs to be an objective way to define what a "sustainable price" is. Can such a thing be defined? (except as follows)
The fair market price is the sustainable price. Anything else is unsustainable and will only persist as long as artificial constraints are applied, such as arbitrary limitations on supply. This is not healthy, and harms the market and the consumer (deadweight loss). A functioning market balances supply and demand naturally through the negotiation of price.
Do other forms of transportation such as long-haul trucking or air travel require limitations on the number of trucks or planes in order for their markets to function effectively? It seems as though they don't. We expect airlines and trucking companies to compete with each other in order to offer the lowest price, and these days consumers select airlines largely on price. Why is regulation to artificially constrain supply necessary for taxis but not trucks or airlines?
It seems to me that such regulation is in fact not necessary, and not in the best interest of society; but is rather regulation that has resulted from "regulatory capture", and protects certain vested interests, at the expense of other transportation companies like Uber and Lyft, as well as the general consumer.
Surge pricing is a good thing, and if regulations prohibit it, then that's another example of undesirable regulatory intervention in a market. Surge pricing is another concept that's effectively standard and well-accepted in air travel: if you travel when it's busy, the fare will cost more. I discussed surge pricing in a previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8720969 The consumer protection issue of fixing taxi fares so that people don't get taken advantage of by unethical cabbies does not apply to Uber.
I am not sure about the insurance issue, but I agree that Uber ought to be required to provide whatever insurance is conventionally required by vehicles in that category. Perhaps that's taxis when comparing to UberX, and private towncars when comparing to Uber.
I see public transport as a public service, like an utility, and I think it should be regulated.
The problem with markets is that they optimize only on profit/price. However, there are things that I (and I believe the population at large) value that cannot be optimized using simple market dynamics with no regulation. For example, I expect there to be taxis on the road, even if the demand is very low. Another is, as I mentioned previously and you agree, insurance. Yet another is cooperation - it is beneficial for a city to mandate that there is only one app/protocol for hailing taxis, whereas for private companies it makes sense to each create its own walled garden and prevent new competition from entering.
Of course, all of the above could be created by carefully-constructed regulation (or appropriate economic incentives), but simply limiting the supply of taxis along with a small number of rules is the easiest way to do it. Ideally, we'll get better regulation; while Uber will probably make us reach that goal faster, I hope the end result is not like Uber.
I'm divided on surge pricing, but I definitely see no reason for surge pricing on "predictable" events, such as Friday night. Even for "unpredictable" events, such as rain or even a hockey game, I think it would be better if people would be able to hail taxis on the street, or on a first-come-first-serve basis. On the other hand, I realize that surge pricing can increase supply, but the very existence of surge pricing can also lead to market manipulation - suppliers waiting until surge pricing is in effect, so that they get a higher fare. In effect, (if I understand correctly) since surge pricing is not momentary (when it starts, it doesn't end until sometime later), Uber is creating a free market distortion itself.
Cabs are not public transport. They're private. I'm paying the cab driver directly to take me from point A to point B. It's not a city bus or a subway.
Your argument about a unified protocol is weird. It's not like there's a central place I can call to get a cab. There are many cab companies with different numbers. There is very little difference to me between having to look up a cab number and using an app to call a cab. And how is it even beneficial to have one app/protocol for hailing a cab? Beneficial to who? I would rather choose the service I prefer over time based on my experience with them and my preferences. The city doesn't need to dictate that for me.
For the record, I strongly dislike Uber's business practices. I think there should be regulation for stuff like background checks of drivers, insurance, etc. Just as the food industry has regulations for health and safety.
But the taxi business overall has no reason to be regulated in terms of limiting cabs on the road or how they're accessed, just as there is no regulation on how many restaurants there can be in town, when they're open or whether you can make a reservation or not.
> I'm divided on surge pricing, but I definitely see no reason for surge pricing on "predictable" events, such as Friday night. Even for "unpredictable" events, such as rain or even a hockey game, I think it would be better if people would be able to hail taxis on the street, or on a first-come-first-serve basis. On the other hand, I realize that surge pricing can increase supply, but the very existence of surge pricing can also lead to market manipulation - suppliers waiting until surge pricing is in effect, so that they get a higher fare. In effect, (if I understand correctly) since surge pricing is not momentary (when it starts, it doesn't end until sometime later), Uber is creating a free market distortion itself.
My biggest concern with surge pricing is the apparent lack of transparency. According to my friends who use Uber, the app will give the estimated cost that doesn't account for (at least not fully) the surge pricing--to the extent of an estimate $15 fare actually being over $90.
If people know before they make the request/get in the car, there are still issues of what they thought was a viable option for getting home suddenly turns out not to be, but without surge pricing to boost supply, it may well not be anyway in such situations, so, like you, I'm divided.
> However, there are things that I (and I believe the population at large) value that cannot be optimized using simple market dynamics with no regulation. For example, I expect there to be taxis on the road, even if the demand is very low.
Can you explain why these things that the population values at large would not be profitable? Obviously that can be true for public goods, but individual or small group point-to-point ground transportation (taxis) is not a public good. The fact that you expect things that are extremely inefficient is not a very good reason.
Just because it's fulfilled by private companies does not mean it isn't a public good. I believe that transport, especially inter-city transport (which has many more externalities than intra-city transport - e.g. traffic, pollution, mobility) should be managed as a public service. Many cities agree.
Simply said, the fact that I can always get a taxi makes it more viable for me to not own a car. Less cars in a city mean more space and less traffic, both of which are desirable for the entire population of the city, and both of which have significantly more positive payoff than the cost of some minimum amount of taxis on the street at all times. Therefore, in my eyes, it makes sense to enforce such minimum via regulation, even though it is not profitable (and will manifest itself in an increased fare for other, more profitable rides).
Well, one, because not controlling it could presumably lead to big boom-and-bust cycles as prices rise and fall, and for another, every taxi on the road has costs to every driver, as they cause congestion driving around looking for fares and burn up fuel, polluting the air, etc. Of course the same argument's applicable to private cars, but how many of us spend all day driving around in circles?
>Uber doesn't replace taxis as a service - if my phone is dead, I can only use a taxi, not Uber.
well, good luck, as i obviously didn't have enough luck to successfully use taxi when i tried even with a working phone :)
>To keep the price sustainable, cities limit the supply of taxis. In exchange taxis need to obey some rules (e.g. can't reject people).
And Santa Claus is real.
>It possible that the regulations are too strict,
who cares what regulations are if taxi service is that bad and thus the regulations are worthless? What happened with Uber (AirBNB/etc...) is the classical case from Hegelian dialectic - when situation gets that bad, that "badness" is a fertile soil from which a principally new solution emerges which fundamentally changes the situation - in western world such process is called "disruption". Attempts to reverse the situation after that is, like our Borg friends like to say, futile.
