Hacker News Reader

Comment by eridius | Hacker News Reader

The lawsuit against Uber seems to me like nothing more than taxi drivers upset that their monopoly is being threatened. As the article said, all the Uber drivers are already licensed, and there's no explanation as to why Uber is "unfair".

View on HN

Uber claims their drivers already meet the requirements, but if Uber doesn't register with CPUC how can they know if it's true? Are they supposed to take Uber's word for it?

I don't know anything about CPUC so I can't really answer that question, but the lawsuit isn't about the licensing. The lawsuit is about Uber being "unfair", with no explanation for what that means. The only hint is that taxi drivers are seeing lower incomes, and the implication is that the lower incomes must somehow mean that Uber is being "unfair" rather than simply being a consequence of competition.

Well, you should probably read the actual complaint before deciding anything. You can see the whole thing at the bottom of this article: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/11/14/class-action-lawsui...

IANAL and I don't know if the lawsuit has merit, but there is slightly more to it then just someone stamping their foot and yelling, "Unfair!"

Unqualified statements of "X is unfair" are quite popular with unions in the northeast, to protest the hiring of any non-union labor. I guess one can't accuse them of libel or slander for accusations of "unfairness."

Oversimplified summaries of 'Y said "X is unfair"' are quite popular on the Internet. :)

To clarify: trade unions hoist signs and distribute leaflets that literally say "[so-and-so] IS UNFAIR." It's the phrase "is unfair" to which I'm reacting--it's not a summary or simplification of anything else.

If you don't take Uber's word for it, don't use Uber. Given that there are alternatives available, I don't see the need for regulation here.

Except that's not how public safety works. Part of why this regulation exists is because having unregulated taxi drivers (at least to the judgement of lawmakers) poses a danger to everyone else on roads etc.

It surprises me that intelligent people are so ready to take bureaucrats and politicians at their word when they claim that "your safety is our priority".

Is it any less surprising than someone taking the word of a corporate entity when they use the exact same phrase?

Yes! God forbid someone isn't as cynical about the government! I mean obviously regulators that are regulating the cabs are interested in making the government a profit to ensure that the gov is the most profitable organiza....wait a second. Oh yah, the governments role is to provide for the common welfare of this nation. Silly me.

That's its role in theory, but in practice, governments are made out of people, and people don't always have the motives they're supposed to. A government official might be more motivated by a desire to protect the profits of his friend's taxi company than by what's in the interests of society as a whole.

It doesn't always work out this way, but I think in the case of companies like Uber, the interests of the company, the customer and society as a whole all align. To be able to make a profit, Uber needs to be perceived as safe. The most effective way to do that is to actually be safe.

You can just go to Peru, Bolivia or anywhere near them and check if you are insured whenever you get into a 'taxi'...

Neat! How do I get in on that? It would be super convenient if my business could opt out of regulations I find inconvenient.

You do something that isn't quite covered under a strict reading of the regulations that are in place, then you hire a good lawyer.

Technically it'd be an oligopoly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com