Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

The problem with cabs is the information asymmetry. You dot know before you're getting in how good their knowledge is, this means that knowledgeable drivers can't charge more and you get a 'market of lemons'. This is a classic form of market failure, and is a strong case for regulation.

Who's stopping you? London has thousands of mini-cabs. Just google London minicab, and phone one of the numbers.

Have you actually ever been to London?

By cheaply I meant cheaper than a taxi. There's always a limit to how cheap vehicles powered by electricity or fuel, and which involve human employees, and which use a common causeway (whether that's rail or road), can be.

£2 to rent a bicycle for 24 hours seems pretty reasonable, btw. I live in a city where I'd kill for that.

Really? £1.40 will get you from Lewisham to Newington Green if you're prepared to take a bus[1].

By comparison, back in my lovely hometown of Plymouth, a two and half mile bus hop will set you back 3 quid. (Fortunately, the taxis are cheap.)

London transport, for what you get, is great value. And it's definitely better than any other big city I've had the pleasure of visiting. Londoners moan about it, but then no matter how efficient or economically enticing, an urban mass transport system will always be associated in the mind with hellish rush-hour commutes, and thus a germane subject for grumbling.

[1] http://tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/21

They're certainly cheaper than any taxi I've ever taken in my life.

>>You can sell apples without an "apple vendor" license.

You don't need a licence,but you need to make sure your apples adhere to hundreds of different regulations regarding food safety. The same thing here - people transporting passengers for money should adhere to regulations that make such business safe for everyone.

> There are already two powerful forces protecting consumers, reputation and tort law. A taxi service with poor service will not be in business for long, because its reputation will crumble, and if the service is truly negligent (for example, by driving vehicles that are in dangerously poor shape), the customer who is harmed can sue, not to mention traffic laws that already punish any driver who endangers other drivers on the road.

If it is cheap enough, people will still use it without thinking about their risks.

> You say that foreigners don't know anything, but I think most travelers would disagree. When I travel to a foreign country, I am still fully capable of researching the best hotels and restaurants, despite not speaking the native tongue. Taxi service isn't any different.

I travel a lot for business and for leisure. Just returned from a 5 weeks trip in Bhutan and the Himalayas. When arriving at my destination, I will take the taxi that is available there. So, I require and rely on, that I have an immediate possibility to check, if a minimum service quality is guaranteed. The guarantee is given by a trustee and the trustee should be government. I don't research hotels in advance. Because the hotel quality assurance is called stars. I know, in this country I have to book a 4 star hotel and in Germany I can go with a 2 star or better 3 star. So, there is an international system and also quality assurance system. There is no such thing for taxi, because local government is basically providing that kind of service.

> > In France, the proposed remedy was simple: a mandated delay of 15 minutes between ordering a ride from Uber and the passenger pick-up.

> I find it inconceivable that this sort of regulation is meant to protect consumers. Clearly its only purpose is to protect the profits of traditional taxis.

France is always very special, especially Paris. I have experienced several shutdown on public trains or taxis as of blocked roads, just because they are on strike again.

> > But Uber (and some others) try to undermine any kind of regulation and so cutting costs to enable cheaper service.

> I can only speak for Cambridge, MA (which this article also mentions), but Uber has consistently provided a VASTLY superior experience compared to traditional Cambridge cab companies. Cambridge cabs are ludicrously overpriced; are frequently poorly maintained and old; have drivers who speak poor English, talk on the phone during the whole trip, and don't know where they are going; don't accept credit cards; have overpriced fixed cost routes to popular destinations (thanks government); sometimes won't even take a fare unless they judge it's worth their while; and are hard to find.

You have read:

> > That regulation also can go wrong, is a different story. Then, of course, it has to be fixed.

Here in Germany, about 60% of the taxi market is having a Mercedes E-Class model. Taxi cars are required to have a yearly inspection regarding road safety. Drivers need the have a permit, to allow passenger transportation. You can easily loose this permit on any kind of wrong behavior in terms of not following road safety rules. The taxi driver is required to execute any driving request within city limits (coverage). They are allows to reject you only under very strict requirements like if they could argue on personal safety. You, as a passenger, can blame anybody in terms of customer satisfaction. But, of course, if you don't blame, don't expect things to change by itself. Basically, the same applies to most countries I have been, like almost all over (western) Europe, Japan. Of course, quality differs from city to city. In Milano, IT, I have been driven by taxi driver over red light. But that is how Italian drivers drive in some parts of Italy. It is their mentality. In Spain the taxis are a bit messier then in German. But that also applies for rentals in Spain. They also have their scratches and dents. The experience in London - also mentioned in that article - superior, like in most parts of England.

That said, if your regulations are shitty, don't blame the government, because YOU elected the government. So get active to change things.

Point is they are plentiful - I can hail a cab in minutes but if they become rare I could wait 30 minutes for the 'special' cab to show up.

Yes, but then you have to subsidize them. There are also advantages to cabs not needing subsidies.

If wages were left to market mechanisms, there would be no need for a set minimum wage. The fact that there is a minimum wage, and that many earn just that, is a clear indication that the market price of labor isn't negotiated between parties of equal strength.

To be clear: regardless of who sets the minimum wage, there is a minimum wage, and you aren't free to take a job under that level. To be honest, it would seem easier to "control" the union of which you are a member, than to adjust the minimum wage. It's just two organizations where one (congress/parliament) feels larger and further away.

A huge drawback of a single minimum wage (not differing between different parts of the labor market) is that it will spel trouble for companies when businesses on different parts of the cycle would be treated the same. As an example, here companies relying on export such as truck makers are hugely sensitive to drops in global economy, and unions will accept frozen wages to limit layoffs as soon as bad times hit, which it does early in the cycle. Meanwhile service jobs or the public sector may be at a completely different point in the economy cycle, with perhaps 1-2 years before bad times hit. To use the same wages in both parts of the labor market would be a rather blunt solution.

“We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate…Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people” In contrast, when workers combine, “the masters..never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen.” - A Wealth of Nations

That's right, you won't find any regulations or bureaucracy in the court system!

Even with free healthcare you might be compensated for permanent injuries. In that case the insurance company still pays.

That means, the public should pay for one companies profit?

There's two differences there: 1) those suits are the result of special laws ("dram shop laws") that extend liability to bars; 2) liability in those cases arises when the bar did something negligent (serve someone who appeared to be drunk, serve a minor, etc).

Absent a special law, you can only sue a business for the negligence of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior. The essence of the theory is that businesses should be liable for the risks created by their employees acting within the scope of their employment.

However, respondeat superior does not apply when the tortfeasor (the person who acted negligently) is an independent contractor. When it comes to employees, a business can reduce incidences of negligence through training, setting procedures, etc. They exert a great deal of control over how the employee does his work. That's not true in the case of independent contractors, like Uber drivers.