Hacker News Reader

Comment by andyferris | Hacker News Reader

When Uber entered the market, what they were doing was technically illegal (the taxi industry was regulated, Uber wasn't a registered provider, its drivers didn't own a taxi permit (which no longer exist), etc).

You can generally sue for illegal behavior that causes you losses.

View on HN

Further to that, taxi licences were limited in number and sought after.

So it became less of driving a taxi and more about financial investment. People bought dozens of licences and leased them out.

It no longer became about driving taxis and was more an investment.

As soon as Uber came, those who invested heavily were left holding a useless (or heavily reduced) investment.

Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.

Correct. And the screeching from the taxi lobby was thunderous. We are better off now this has occurred, really its a sovereign risk issue and they should have sued the government instead.

I feel like you just ignored everything else that was said and just zeroed in on the one thing that aligns with your viewpoint.

Not OP. But I theorize that almost every single ill plaguing society on a large level ATM can be traced back to a specific government action or refusal by the government to act.

Homelessness? Check. Drunk driving fatalities? Check. Domestic violence? Check. Abusive monopolies on single-person transportation? Check.

In theory government can do almost anything so it’s hard for this statement to be wrong…

The argument I've heard before (about the medallion system in the US, which had the same result as what GP described with licenses) was that since roads are a limited resource, this prevented too many taxis from causing excess traffic just driving around looking for customers.

It's an interesting argument because having the app connect customers means they don't have to drive around aimlessly, which almost sidesteps the problem (they still have to pull over somewhere but aren't necessarily causing traffic).

They could fix the whole system by issuing as many medallians as people want. Fixed reasonable price, renewable each year. You have to meet certain criteria for public safety, like good driving record, not a sex offender, the car must pass annual safety inspections, etc. But other that, let the market decide how many taxis.

It makes level of sense to limit number of medallions. And then also at same time cap prices and mandate availability. That is if you have a medallion you must have car on order or on road at all times. This could be achieved by multiple medallion owners working together so that there is a taxi available Wed-Thu night during rainstorm.

Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living. Now transferability outside selling whole business is stupid.

> cap prices

> Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living

Do you really think that some government agency can come up with the correct price and license cap using Excel magic? Of course not, most likely this will just lead to corruption and an inferior service.

Let the free market find the price. If it's not possible to make a living people won't drive. Where I live taxis usually charge whatever Uber is showing.

If you want free market to find the price. Why not force Uber and Lyft to accept pricing from their drivers. Absolutely any pricing and any rules. I think that would be reasonable.

Thats what sidecar did, and the driver market rejected it because it was an awful and unsafe experience. Imagine trying to set rates while you're driving around!

Uber shows how much they will pay, the driver doesn't have to accept the trip. If drivers don't accept Uber will have to adjust the price.

I can only imagine what NYC traffic would look like if there was an unlimited number of yellow cab medallions allowing pickups in NYC.

I can't find a reference, but I'm pretty sure that someone on the Australian Financial Review's rich list, got rich from Taxi medallions. When Melbourne was to host the olympics, the licence authority decided there would not be enough taxis. They invited people to apply for free licences, and lots of people did apply for a licence. One person applied for a shedfull - something like 200?, and received them all.

Sounds like a racket. So still hard to fathom the legality.

Lobbying by the taxi industry has also been persistent for the past decade or so [0]. Along with some fairly excellent return political stunts from early days Uber [1].

[0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-driv...

[1]: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-hor...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com