Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmckib | Hacker News Reader

I understand that it's useful for a taxi driver to have this knowledge, but do we really need the government to impose it as a strict requirement? One could imagine multiple taxi services that compete on different axes. One service, competing on price, could have less knowledgeable drivers equipped with GPS devices. Another service, competing on its drivers' knowledge, would be more useful for taking you to obscure locations or navigating the streets quickly.

It's like any other industry, really. Can you imagine if short order cooks were required to have the same encyclopedic knowledge as the chefs in a high end restaurant? You'd just end up with some very expensive diners.

View on HN

There is a thing called: customer protection. This applies for all sorts of products and services. One of those services is taxi as part of transportation. Part of this is, that drivers are educated, trust worthy and the vehicles are in good shape as well as having a minimum insurance in protection of the customer.

Also if you have 2 or more companies competing over who has the best service, that is good. But all of them have to provide a minimum quality service. Especially, for foreigners who don't know anything. For that reason regulation is required.

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

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

That is like Food safety regulations. Like there is a new startup, which has provides a service like Amazon Fresh. It is cheaper by using just peoples cars, which may have no cooling possibility in their vehicles. Then blaming the food safety regulations are wrong because they require cooling facilities for fresh food not putting peoples life at risk.

> 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.

Contrast this with Uber where the vehicles come to you; the drivers are vetted and courteous (and can be punished if they are not); the cars are new and generally nice (I have even been picked up in Mercedes S500s and a BMW 7 series on Uber X, and my friend was once picked up in a Tesla); the payment process is simple with no bullshit about tipping; the drivers are about as knowledgeable about locations as traditional Cambridge cabs; and it's CHEAPER.

I don't normally care much about local government affairs, but if Cambridge tries to protect the inferior cab service by banning Uber, I will be at the polling stations come next election trying to vote out anyone involved.

> > 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.

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.

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'm not saying all consumer protection laws are unnecessary, but you have to remember that regulation has a cost. Of course, there's the cost in tax money, but also the fact that regulations are slow to change when necessary. Perhaps the largest risk is regulatory capture, which we've clearly seen in the taxi industry in a number of places. For example, from the linked article:

> 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.

> 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.

So you're basically saying that mutually consenting adults shouldn't be able to choose their own taxi arrangements, correct?

Comparing this to food safety is quite ludicrous. You can sell apples without an "apple vendor" license.

>>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.

We have several companies operating in Melbourne and they are all awful. We don't have any (decent) requirements as far as road knowledge goes. I've also been to London, and the experience with cabs there was wonderful. The requirement to pass a substantial test is a fantastic one, and should be adopted in more places.

I'd rather pay cheaper fares, but thanks for deciding for me.

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.

There's nothing stopping a competitor from starting a cab company that charges more and gives all their employees a difficult test. Of course, few would use it because few are willing to pay more money for having a knowledgeable taxi driver.

You dot know before you're getting in how good their knowledge is

Why not? Grant a certification with the test, allow cab owners/companies to put a mark on the car/site/etc, sue people using the mark without authorization. Cabs around here already have big ads on their doors, I don't see why couldn't they have a logo advertising their knowledge.

So any small business or startup without name recognition should be restricted from the marketplace by a higher authority until a government entity approves its service? Is that what you're saying? Wouldn't this basically kill Ycombinator?

Yes, that's how it works. If you want to run a restaurant you need to obtain a certificate saying that it's safe and hygienic, if you want to run a theatre you need to make sure that emergency exits are clearly marked and that there is sufficient ventilation, and also, if you want to transport people for money you need to have a certificate that says that 1) you are able to physically 2) your vehicle is in good enough condition. For all of those things you need the "higher authority" and it's a good thing.

Transport is the lifeblood of a city, and is extremely important to that city's economy. I think it's reasonable to say that it's a little different than the next photo-sharing app.

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?

Googling is not an option when I'm on the street and I need a cab (I don't have mobile Internet access, nor can I justify the cost), which is most of the times when I actually take one.

For people who want to get around cheaply, London has an excellent mass public transport system, between the tube, buses, and intra-city train services.

You mean if you want to get around quickly. If you want to get around cheaply you need to buy a bicycle (or take a Barclay's bike and keep it under 30 mins).

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

You're right about buses being cheap if you can get a direct route. However during peak periods that will potentially take hours, easily 2-3 times as long as cycling.

I also agree the value of London transport is excellent, but I'm just saying it's not cheap. Especially if you are looking at tube/train/tram/bus transfers it starts to add up shockingly fast. Even with a travelcard I'd be paying £141.40/month which is just too much to swallow when I only have a 6-mile commute and arrive in the same amount of time as the fastest tube. Plus with the crowds, disruptions, strikes, "persons under a train" and other random commuter trauma I just can't say enough good things about cycling in London.

It's cheap compared to the rest of the country. Outside of London it's barely worth thinking about taking buses even if there's a direct one. Hell, I've taken a bus that literally dropped me on the doorstep of where I was going and regretted it - the bus was so irregular it'd have been quicker to walk and the tickets overpriced.

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.

It's actually £50 to rent a Boris bike for 24 hours. £2 is 24-hour access, but only if you keep the journeys under 30 mins. The £90/year is a pretty good deal actually (even after they doubled it from £45 which it was for the first year), I still pay for it even though I own a bicycle just for the convenience of supplementing my walking speed at will.

Ah, that's a bit of a bummer. Still, I might try it out on Sunday to see exactly how far 30 minutes gets me, as I'm there for the weekend and have a free day.

There's also the parking issue: especially in the rush hour, they can be hard to find parking spots for.

Buses and trains are not exactly cheap, and trains stop at about 12.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com