Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

> So what? If people don't want to pay surge prices, they don't have to. Just don't take an Uber or Lyft ride. Ride sharing isn't a human right.

Some jurisdictions do consider transportation a right, and act accordingly.

> If the government wants to step in, maybe they should create a state sponsored and run ride share service of their own.

Careful what you wish for. It wouldn't exactly be difficult for Honolulu's government to hire someone to roll their own and ban Uber/Lyft.

https://venturebeat.com/2014/09/11/yes-a-build-your-own-uber...

View on HN

If "transportation is a right" means approximately, "everyone has access to affordable ridesharing", I don't think capping surge pricing yields this outcome.

Hitting the price cap necessarily leads to excess demand, i.e. some people have _no_ access.

In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.

> In effect, those willing to pay the most are replaced by a random subset of those willing to pay PRICE_CAP or more.

This is precisely the effect. And many would consider this fairer. I think it depends on whether you people's willingness to pay as being determined more by their preferences (between say convenient transport or having a bigger house), or their income level. If it's the latter, then I think it's fair to question for each good and service, why should someone with a greater income be prioritized?

I suppose my axiom is that "free market price" == "fair value". On this basis, a price ceiling is _unfair_ for both:

• the provider (they must exchange their product for less than it's worth). • the consumer who values the service at free market price (they lose the service to someone who values it less).

Regarding willingness to pay, I think the underlying factors are much to complicated to list (e.g. a pregnant woman heading to the hospital). The beauty of a free market is that fair price sorts itself out.

> Some jurisdictions do consider transportation a right, and act accordingly.

I am sympathetic to this position, but IMO the right way to go about that is to build a great public transportation system (which incidentally would reduce ride share surge pricing through reduced demand).

> I am sympathetic to this position, but IMO the right way to go about that is to build a great public transportation system (which incidentally would reduce ride share surge pricing through reduced demand).

I agree. Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system?

> Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system?

I am waiting for a single-click multi-modal transportation app. I say “I want to get to the Hamptons” and have a car pick me up, deposit me at Penn Station, notify me before the change and have a car waiting on the other side.

You'll have to wait until either it's required by law, or a single monopolist covers all the transport modes. No business want to interoperate with competitors.

Waive ridesharing taxes in exchange for an open booking and billing API.

> Why can't the local government provide a transportation app that includes ride sharing as a component of that transportation system?

Probably because taxis and pseudo-taxis don't want to be commoditized. They want to steer users towards their platform, not be a part of someone else's platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com