Uber sign-ups soar by 850 percent as cab drivers protest | Hacker News Reader

Uber sign-ups soar by 850 percent as cab drivers protest

csmonitor.com

78 pointshappyscrappy72 comments

I saw that the protest cost London something like ~650 million pounds. Seems like the Police should just block the front of the line, arrest all the drviers and tow their cars one by one. Would clear up traffic and would send a pretty clear message that fucking everyone in a city because you're upset is not okay.

This seems like an extremely risky move by the "official" cab drivers. Angering their potential customers and removing themselves from the pool of drivers for the strike just seems like it would send people running into Uber's open arms.

Bullies aren't that bright.

So... taxi drivers go on strike to punish Uber? Why would uber care if they do? Or are they going on strike just to not work?

Taxi drivers went on strike because taxi drivers and uber drivers don't have the same requirements for doing what amounts to be the same job. In short, becoming a taxi driver is hard and extremelly expensive, becoming a uber driver is easier and cheaper. So these strikes are more against the unfair regulation than against Uber and the likes.

Why don't they become uber drivers, then? I guess that keeping the taxi driver status is quite expensive also.

Because some would argue running a taxi-like business without a taxi license is breaking the law.

Sorry something doesn't strike me as correct here. Do you mean that "taxis" working with Uber don't actually have a Taxi-License? How is this even legal?

In many countries, including the UK, there's a big difference between "private car hire" services that are not allowed to pick up passengers without pre-arranging the hire, and taxi services which can pick up passengers at the kerb or at taxi ranks.

Private car hire services (minicabs in the UK) does not have the same licensing requirements as black cabs (licensed taxis)

i thought a car hire service isnt a taxi if you first pre-arrange the pickup (whcih is what i thought uber is). That you can do it quickly via an app on a phone is irrelevant.

Taxis are striking in London specifically because the regulator has said that Uber is legal.

Well, this shows the legislation is broken. Uber drivers can work without having to pay for medallions/licenses/what have you, and having to fulfill cumbersome regulations. If you rule they get a pass, then so should the cab drivers.

They'll still get hosed because without a medallion system bottlenecking the amount of suppliers, taxi service becomes a race to the bottom that can't support a decent living. But at least they won't be _twice_ hosed like they are now.

EDIT: I'm not saying Uber is wrong and should be stopped and the taxi drivers protected. On the contrary, the legislation could be opened up, dropping both protection and regulation of the taxi industry, now that Uber exists as a competing solution. However, the current state of affairs, where some drivers are taxed and regulated (taxis) and others are not (Uber drivers) is just going to make the former group collapse under the burden of regulation.

Also, I'm merely observing that opening the market to a huge supplier pool effectively means the end of the taxi driving profession (for reasons that have already been stated a hundred times before). Not saying this is good or bad, it's just the way the market works.

Taxis have a regulated taxi-meter. These are auditable and they enforce the set rates. This meter is a requirement to pick up people from the street with no booking.

Cabs do not have a meter. The customer can set a price before the journey. These must be pre-booked by phone. In theory there is a lot of regulation around criminal checks etc.

Uber exists in a grey middle ground. They are booked via the app; and the app acts like a meter. The regulator for London has recently said that the app is not a meter and thus Uber is fine.

So long as Uber is complying with local laws I'm fine with them operating. I guess they should be prepared for some of the backlash they'll face when an Uber driver murders a passenger. (Because, with a large enough number of drivers and passwngers and years it'll happen some time).

@_broody: if it becomes a race to the bottom and it will not provide a decent income then people will not practice it (like any other job). Why not let the demand & competition regulate the market instead of some bureaucracy ? If my job (programming) becomes agglomerated will someone regulate it to provide me a decent income ?

you do not need a licence to be a taxi. You need one to be a cab. Uber are NOT cabs. they are private driver. You cannot hail one from the street.

It's the other way around in London parlance. Taxis are more tightly regulated but have freedom to pick up from ranks, can be flagged in the street, etc. Minicabs (sometimes generically called "cabs") are also regulated but to a much lesser extent and are predominantly private drivers.

They've already invested an average of 34 months learning the London streets. You'd get a similar reaction if itw ere possible, say, for someone to become a doctor by signing up with a startup rather than going to medical school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...

If you could be a 95% effective doctor by using a $200 consumer electronics device, it'd be perfectly fair for people to be "Uber doctors" without going to medical school. And existing doctors would be up in arms, because technology rendered their investment almost worthless, not because they could present a meaningful challenge to the usefulness of "Uber doctors".

"The knowledge" may very well at one point have been a reasonable requirement for a taxi driver, but at least as GPS satnavs got good, it's just not anymore. The purpose of "the knowledge" today is only to serve as a barrier to entry to protect incumbents against competition.

Edit: Footnote on doctors: It's a poor analogy as a taxi-driver taking a poor route (picking good routes is the singular advantage the knowledge provides) doesn't carry anywhere near as bad consequences for the "patient" as a doctor making a mistake.

It won't be very long before NPs using expert systems will do a better job than physicians using the same old techniques they always have, for at least 95% of patients.

That's a great analogy. Its only flaw, as you say, is that doctors should be regulated closely- but to me this only brings up the question of why cabbies are as regulated.

It's kind of like if travel agents were regulated, and suddenly expedia or kayak existed. They can do an almost-as-good job through technology, and a "mistake" analogous to the taxi driver taking a poor route, i.e. Expedia connecting you through a worse city or not finding a deal 10% cheaper.

The $200 tool is coming to disrupt doctors eventually, who act as human pattern matchers for most of their time and much of what they do could easily be replaced (and even done better) via systems like Watson. When this happens, it will be great for the developing world where doctors aren't very common anyways, while first world doctors will probably be able to shut it out for awhile until the advantages are crystal clear and undeniable.

The same with self driving cars, its not like Uber or the taxi industry are long for this world without drastically changing business models (maybe 10 or 15 years tops).

I don't disagree - I'm just saying I'd understand why the doctors would be upset about it.

A driver didn't have enough sleep or one whith medical condition might very well kill you in an accident though.

While I understand the intent here, do taxi drivers get checked against the potential for a stroke? That could happen to either side.

In theory, that's great. In practice, cabbies still rip people off sometimes. I'd be happier if they always took the Google Maps route.

It's sad but they are simply a victim of technology. Before sat nav, minicab drivers were very unreliable. They would get lost, they would have to consult maps, etc. Now, a minicab is as good or better than a taxi.

Ugh, no. There are times when the Google Maps route would take way longer than even reasonably obvious alternative routes. Particularly in London. Google tries to pick the quickest route, but these roads are often way too busy.

As usual it turns out that there are good & bad taxi drivers, and good & bad mini-cab drivers / companies too.

Google Maps is blocked in China, I hope they don't try to use it.

> I'd be happier if they always took the Google Maps route.

Part of being a good taxi-driver is knowing which parts of the city are going to busy at different points of time.

If a taxi takes a detour from the best map-presented route you don't know if they're giving you a faster journey, or ripping you off. Too often people assume the latter.

Maybe I was being prematurely futuristic and unfair, but it seems that at some point Google Maps will be better at routing than the average cabbie.

Google has all the information a cabbie has (road layout, major disruptions, historical traffic patterns, speed limits). They also have real-time traffic information. This is the kind of problem that computers tend to beat humans at, eventually.

I expect it is only a matter of time.

Using the same kind of volunteers who contribute to OpenStreetMap it should be possible to update routing based on temporary road-works (which might last for 3-5 days, here in Scotland), which would otherwise catch drivers out by surprise with detours.

Every investment carries a risk. This is true about "learning the London streets", too. Especially in the era of ubiquitous GPS-enabled mobile phones.

Assuming your conjectured startup somehow conferred the medical skills you would have just found a great way to lower everyone's medical bills.

So they spent a lot of time and money learning to crack buggy whips very well. Too bad there are automobiles now.

Well, medical school is useful. 34 months of learning the London streets is an artificial barrier to entry for new competitors.

Because they've already gone through the expensive, time consuming part. They would have very little to gain from switching from a black cab to an Uber car, and a lot of potential customers to lose.

if uber doesn't work out for a driver will they have forfeited their black cab rights? JW

I believe there is a large investment in becoming a taxi driver in London. It takes years of training (see, the Knowledge[1]) and money. Uber drivers presumably do not have to make such a big investment, so permitting them to go without the same regulations taxi drivers need creates a lot of extra, cheaper competition.

I also suspect that the taxicab regulations would prohibit taxicabs from using alternative meters, so taxi drivers could not be Uber drivers at the same time.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom#...

This is a misrepresentation.

Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation. In fact, in most places taxi drivers and their unions are strong supporters of the said regulations and have worked for decades to get it in place. It's a typical situation where a bunch of "insiders" have striven for years to keep "outsiders" away with the goal of reducing competition.

Another typical aspect to this situation is how technology upends a structure put in place by legalistic means.

Do Uber drivers pay taxes to the municipalities in which their drivers deliver service? The regulators and the regulated both get something from the status quo.

Selling medallions, etc. gets the city in which the drivers do business some revenue to pay for the services the city must provide to support the business. Taxes help fund roads, police, administration, etc.

The "situation" is more complex than you describe and the unintended consequences of Uber are nowhere in the discussion.

I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process.

> I'm surprised that Uber hasn't put forth licensing a version of their infrastructure for use by black/yellow cabs for dispatch. They can provide access to customers along with a pretty seamless payment process.

They have: http://blog.uber.com/UberTAXI

That's not what I mean at all and this model wouldn't work outside of places, like NYC, where drivers are indy contractors. Even there, it's not clear that this would be OK with the lessors or their cab. They may not be able to use this. I'm thinking something that cedes some control of the system while making available some of the functionality. SaaS, not a franchising exercise directly from Uber to drivers.

They pay income taxes.

The primary intent of medallions is not to raise funds for infrastructure. Their goal is to keep people out of the business. You can tell by the fact that they're regressive: they burden lower-income persons more than higher-income thereby preventing new competition from low-skilled workers and guaranteeing safety to the incumbents.

Income taxes for drivers likely do not benefit the municipalities where the cars are driving. e.g. The drivers would be consuming space and wear and tear in NYC, but living in Jersey. NYC roads and services necessary to support increased congestion get burdened, but no tax dollars help support them.

A regressive policy has nothing to do with the goal of the medallions. They cost what market forces will support. The goal of high-end watches is to keep poor people from knowing what time it is.

The medallions aren't for infrastructure. I'd argue the medallions are supported by both the city and existing cabbies because of congestion and quality management issues. It's a way to ensure minimal levels of service and to punish bad (well, abhorrent) service.

The tax on fares is for infrastructure and administration. In NYC, $.50/trip is imposed. What's Uber paying?

I guess Uber couldn't know when it was dealing with a NYC fare subject to the tax... Oh, wait they couldn't offer that since it would imply they were a taxi service subject to other regs... So, they have to flaunt all the laws and put themselves in a legal bind that isn't all "just obvious barriers to entry."

Medallions are meant to regulate supply with demand, nothing more. Other fees go to road maintenance (gas tax, tab tax, tolls, etc...) and are actually sort of related to usage.

Uber is doing what it can disrupt the status quo, the laws are ambiguous enough that they can get away with it. Admirable in my opinion.

Medallions shouldn't be assets you can own, transfer, rentseek on. They should be a lottery, with no cash value if their purpose is to restrict the number of vehicles in a geographic area.

> Taxi drivers are not protesting against the regulation.

I think perhaps both are true, though one only accidentally so. Taxi drivers' see themselves as protesting for stronger enforcement of the regulations. I suspect a large portion of the public, though, will recognize the protests as a sort of performance art designed to illustrate that the regulations are problematic and could perhaps stand to be revised.

Yes, because the only reason those regulations are in place is a lobbying industry trying for a monopoly. Care for the safety and treatment of the actual passengers would never enter the mind of a politician.

And of course this is true for every country affected.

I think you're being sarcastic, but as a first approximation it's so close to what many actually think that the sarcasm might be lost. :)

I didn't think it was sarcasm - I'm one of those people you're talking about.

edit: reading again - yeah it's a pretty black and white statement and the truth is always grey-er, but I'm an American who has absolutely no faith in most of our govt anymore so it hits home.

Funny enough, I feel much safer in an uber car than a taxi.

Technology has succeeded where the government has failed.

Agreed. The name for this is "regulatory capture."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

>against the unfair regulation

Not all unfair regulation, since one could argue that the regulation that protects the taxi drivers from incumbents it's pretty unfair. They are protesting just against unfair regulation that hurts them.

Its interesting, every uber I take in Chicago (typically a yellow cab instead of UberX) and ask the driver what they think. They generally seem to like it because its safer, easier and more efficient for them (they always know where people are instead of having to hang around popular corners, they can skip on people if that last cab had bad things to say, etc.).

But it is surprising to me that they don't complain about the fact that they laid down serious cash for a medalion, or pay other fees to the city to operate. I would especially think UberX would bother them. I think in the short term they are happy but I suspect they will start to get more upset if uberX starts to take away business. Right now, its earning them more money.

In Florida, they are having issues with UberX for that very reason (http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/11/4172680/miami-dade-tax...).

Its interesting to watch a number of industries just get blindsided by these disruptive technologies. Seeing it with crowd-sourced cab rides (uberX), direct autosales instead of dealers (Tesla dealer controversy) and crowd-sourced accommodations (airBnB). Some of the regulations placed on the older players in those spaces were put there to protect the consumer and/or the industry but my take is that consumer choice is providing better options and bypassing the need (or maybe it just hasn't come up yet) for these regulations. But then the people who played by the rules get mad or cling to them if it allows them to maintain their position a little longer.

The people who own taxi medallions are usually not the taxi drivers themselves. The medallion owners (who usually own many medallions and rent them out to drivers) are as pissed off about Uber as you would expect.

Company's PR says that possibly controversial event for company results in huge benefit for said company.

Hm.

I'm not saying it not true, but it's playing in to an expectation that a lot of people had when they heard about this protest. So until there's independent evidence, I'll take the specifics of this claim with a dose of salt.

Edit: Suggesting that one be reasonably skeptical of unverified company PR is downvote worthy? Come on...

Uber ran full page ads in London's free newspapers yesterday, so it looks like they were planning on benefitting from the controversy.

I didn't know that, but I'm not surprised. It was the sensible thing to do.

My point is that it is also sensible for Uber to claim that it has resulted in a massive success for their company. It makes themselves seem savvy and the taxi drivers short-sighted.

Of course, the goal of the taxi drivers' protest not really about getting people to not use Uber so much as it is about getting the regulators to change their decision that Uber's app doesn't count as a taximeter.

The disruptive nature of Uber will make policy makers eventually doubt who to support: should they keep protecting the jobs of the taxi industry while Uber is creating jobs at a much higher pace?

They are protecting tax revenues, not the taxi industry.

Then tax Uber in a special way?

Doesn't need to be a special way.

1 medallion per car per shift [iirc] + the per-trip tax.

It is just they need to pass the laws to do that and haven't yet. Of course, I think Uber is lobbying against being taxed given that they've tried to evade paying taxi-like taxes so far.

Don't underestimate kickbacks and bribes.

the post got me because i just signed up. I live in melbourne. it is not possible to get a cab on a friday or saturday night. trial run coming up tomorrow

Beware that you may get fined in Melbourne because it is illegal. It's more likely your driver will get fined though.

wouldnt surprise me. the state and the cab companies here have it locked down so no one can muscle in on their action.

How do they know who to fine? Aren't all these transactions done purely digitally? You could just be getting into a friend's car, there's always plausible deniability.

People have already been fined in Melbourne.

got a link to articles on it?

With both the taxi and hotel industries being disrupted (technical meaning), I wonder if there's a pattern here... Is it a direct consequential of the web, enabling new ways to connect customers and providers? Or, deeper societal forces at work, making this a general time of change for other, non-technological reasons?

Or just coincidence...?

The web started as a distributed system. It is turning these industries into distributed systems (A car from a person with time and a car at a time when a consumer needs a car as opposed to strict 8 hour shifts. A bed from a person with a bed when a consumer needs a bed as opposed to a centralized location with many beds). It will be interesting if we see these newly distributed systems consolidate in the future. And I wouldn't be surprised to see realtors with house hotels rented through air BnB. And I've noticed there are already plenty of people with cars looking for uber drivers.

I think it is a direct consequence. When people can so easily access and post information regarding availability of luxuries and commodities it relieves the need for centralization. The question should be, what's the cost? Do I go to the hotel which will be able to put me in another room when there are problems? Or go for the quaint feeling of a person's home. Homes are generally in residential areas, but if I'm touring I might want the luxury of staying in downtown. Hopefully these two industries can live side by side to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of consumers.

(This doesn't even include the possible costs in terms of flimsy insurance guidelines for Uber drivers in some municipalities or locales, or property value depreciation for neighborhoods that become AirBnB traps with many units being turned essentially into mini hotels.)

The valuations are insane, so it looks like these companies are here to stay. It will be interesting to watch.

Sounds right, esp for hotels. Though taxis are already distributed and on-demand. Just regulated centrally.

Deregulation is pretty common: banking, utilities (electricity, gas, telecommunications), railways, jails. States get a phenomenal one-off budgetary windfall from sale of infrastructure assets, and buyers get a government mandated toll-bridge - everybody wins! Though more governmental than "societal" as I previously described it.

Governments aren't driving hotel/taxi deregulation, but the hard-won legal and admin expertise to do it is sitting around with nothing to do...

Controversy based PR works.

Streisand effect works on its own!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com