Hacker News Reader

Comment by afsina | Hacker News Reader

Agreed. In Turkey, taxi medallions are part of a terrible system. They are extremely expensive in big cities. In many cases, Taxi drivers do not own them. Different drivers work in two or three shifts and pays a predetermined amount to medallion owner (a hefty sum). Sometimes medallions are rented by a third party and he manages the taxi drivers and pays to the top dude.

Government does not allow Uber like systems. Also Taxis are very expensive especially in smaller cities. And no, many does not behave nicely. They are also reckless in traffic.

So we stuck to this monopoly and nobody questions. Why is driving a Taxi a profession in this age of technology? Anybody with decent driving skills can do this yet Taxi drivers are the first to prevent any competition. This pattern is quite noticeable in many other areas of industry. They make restrictions and regulations with good intentions, later it turns to a monster.

View on HN

"Government does not allow Uber like systems"

Uber is banned in Denmark as well, but this is because there are absolutely no security requirements for Uber drivers, no mandatory first aid traning, nothing.

Proponents of Uber call it a "ridesharing system", but it really is a taxi system, and must abide by the same rules, namely driver training, verified fare metering and other security and fairness measures.

Uber has refused to respect the rules, so they have been banned from operating here, until they can abide by the rules, which are in place mostly for passenger safety and to prevent fraud.

"Why is driving a Taxi a profession in this age of technology? Anybody with decent driving skills can do this"

This can only come from a person who does not know what it actually takes to be a taxi driver (not just a person who happens to drive a taxi, but an actual bona fide taxi driver). There is a certain level of customer service, competency and training involved. You can't just blindly navigate by GPS, you have to know the city, know the traffic, know the shortcuts that a GPS can only guess at.

That used to be the case, but Waze has turned the table on knowing shortcuts/the city/traffic. So we're left with the service aspect, which has basically disappeared from society in the last 20-30 years - I can't find any evidence of it in retail anymore for example.

I do not disagree that it is much more enjoyable to drive around with a taxi driver who knows the city, proud of his work and has a "how may I help you attitude"; I paid 50 quid for a short ride in London 20 years ago and found that quite enjoyable - but if it wan't for the monopoly (which uber has managed to subvert, often illegally), you wouldn't have to wait until 2015 to get "just the transportation and nothing else" - which is what most people actually need.

Services like Uber can generally only exist in places with deficient public transport networks, hence why they never thrived in Copenhagen.

Uber does ok in London despite it having decent public transport. Even with decent public transport you don't necessarily want a night bus after your date.

No, it has nothing to do with first aid training or security, that is simply a misrepresentation of the situation. In London, Uber operates under a regulatory framework that requires these things, and it works very well and has for years. In Denmark, while they did abolish the medallion system (specifically, polical control over the supply of permits), politicians refused to create a similar framework, so the system remains one heavily favouring incumbent taxis.

Crucially, exactly none of requirements in the delta between the new Danish rules and eg. the London minicab rules has anything to do with protecting customers.

Furthermore, Uber does not train its drivers to be taxi drivers or even inform them what training and insurances are required in their line of work.

They advertise this as a way to get a job but when the drivers are fined for driving unlicensed they absolve themselves by claiming it is the responsibility of the driver.

They should not keep complete confidence in this strategy, as they have been sued by their (ex-)drivers for this and settled out of court. (Which may very well be a more lucrative strategy than doing the actual driving, I don't know about that.)

People in US are doing just fine without special "taxi" training. You think Uber drivers does not know short cuts? Rating system is a far better motivator for drivers.

In Turkey and likely in other countries there are regulations for commercial drivers such as they need special health certificates etc but everybody knows it is turns to be just another paper you can buy. If Uber does not follow the regulations you mention, people has a right to choose anyway. The only regulation necessary is to make it deliberate in the cars. A sign telling "This driver does not have first aid training".

"Traditional" taxi does not have to be bad. I think (I may be mistaken?) London taxi drivers are quite polite and also have to memorise the geography of London, which I imagine keeps a lot of would be but lower quality drivers out.

I agree, But it's still a monopoly that charges monopoly rents, mostly because of "tradition".

Indeed, but those that spent 2-3 years gaining the knowledge[0] and then paying for their cab, and licence are then being usurped by a Uber driver with a GPS and a cheap car. Even with the 'star' system the service levels will drop. [0]https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com