Hacker News Reader

Comment by themartorana | Hacker News Reader

It's rare that bad business regulations and/or government sponsored monopolies are just, ya know, fixed. Quite often, people need to be shown how bad things have gotten before anything changes.

It's even worse when the target of those regulations don't want things fixed either. Taxi companies pay crazy medallion fees, but expect exclusivity (perhaps rightly so) for that fee. Government doesn't want the fee income to go away, taxi companies enjoy their monopoly.

Sometimes it takes someone breaking the rules - and more importantly, with the general full support of the public - to really cause any change in the old, entrenched ways.

View on HN

> It's rare that bad business regulations and/or government sponsored monopolies are just, ya know, fixed. Quite often, people need to be shown how bad things have gotten before anything changes.

This, and more so. I hate to admit it, but it really is true. I currently live in a city where the cab situation is just awful. And a lot of it is due to awful regulation. Biggest case in point: The city caps the number of permits at only about 400. But you need a separate permit to pick people up at the airport, and the number of those is capped at 50. So getting a ride to the airport is nigh impossible - dispatchers will just refuse to send you a cab - because the vast majority of drivers are not allowed to get a return fare.

Uber and Lyft have done a great service by calling public attention to the situation, and so the city council is finally paying attention to it, too. But that's where their contribution stops - they've been actively lobbying against any proposed legislation that would allow metered cab service to improve, for example, and also actively fighting proposed rules that their drivers should be able to pass a basic background check and have a (vaguely) clean driving record. In that sense they're no better than the owners of the cab companies, who also have a vested interest in not seeing the situation for consumers improve.

I almost wish there were a Nobel Prize in aphorisms, so that we could award it to them for showing that two wrongs really can make a right.

I almost wish there were a Nobel Prize in aphorisms, so that we could award it to them for showing that two wrongs really can make a right.

And that you can have your cake and eat it, too!

Breaking the rules doesn't require you to knee-cap your competition - but it says a lot about the ethics of your business. I wouldn't entrust my safety to a company that's so flagrant about their ethics.

This is just nonsensical. You're talking about getting a ride in a car.

Which is, statistically speaking, one of the most dangerous things you do every day.

Right, and when there are statistics showing that Uber drivers pose a greater danger to their passengers than any other road hazards created by unethical companies then the sentiment will be meaningful.

I don't need statistics to elect not to put my life in somebody's hands.

That's also wrong, that "somebody" might be much more experienced in driving than you. One of the big problems with drivers (and humans in general) is the irrational feeling that being in control means being safer.

Sure, they might be. But why would I assume they are?

If we're talking about taxi drivers, it's reasonable to assume they're more experienced because they spent more hours on the road (unless, of course, you drive more than they do).

Sorry, I was unclear. What I was thinking about was, whether I would be safe with them is hard to assume.

- They probably have more experience behind the wheel, but they also have different incentives.

- Time behind the wheel doesn't automatically mean more skilled/safe.

There's plenty of reasons I could be safer in a cab, but also plenty of reasons I wouldn't assume that.

Except you don't really have a choice given that we all share the roads.

That's your justification for why I should feel safe getting into anyone's car? "Because I already face at least one risk, what's more risk?"

I don't disagree -- in fact, intuitively I'd imagine that Uber drivers reduce the risk to their passengers by displacing more dangerous drivers and reducing the number of vehicles on the road.

But my comment was really responding to SamReidHughes dismissal of the notion that there could possibly be any question of safety involved in these matters.

>I'd imagine that Uber drivers reduce the risk to their passengers by displacing more dangerous drivers and reducing the number of vehicles on the road.

Sounds most likely to me. Someone who drives 100k miles/year will on average by a safer driver than someone who drives 10k, both due to a wider experience base and by being far less likely to do something to jeopardise their license/insurance and hence their livelihood.

Over time, sure, but the outliers could be worse. Per Dunning Kruger, people who are bad at something often don't know that they're bad. If you take a bad driver who's desperate for extra cash and set them up with Uber, they might drive a lot of risky miles before their bad driving catches up with them in the form of a suspended license.

If they are willing to be unethical about fighting competition, how ethical are they about driver standards?

Well, it's worth noting you'd have to consider the risk to pedestrians, bicyclists, and people in other vehicles as well. Not that I have any reason to think they're more dangerous than normal cab drivers, who are shockingly reckless, at least in my experience as a cyclist.

Violating regulations which, in themselves, are against the public interest? I don't see that as unethical. In fact, I see it as outright praiseworthy.

When the hell did Hacker News get filled with bean counters who tut-tut about municipal regulations?

I'm pretty sure he's talking about Uber's practice of booking and cancelling competitor rides as unethical.

yep

OK, I can see now that I misread the comment I was responding to. I would have deleted my comment if I still could.

Breaking which rules?

Breaking the rules that artificially restrict the market for rides? Sure.

Breaking the rules that say you don't lie, cheat, or steal? Hmm, not so sure about that.

> Breaking the rules that say you don't lie, cheat, or steal? Hmm, not so sure about that.

So we have multiple competitors to Uber, on multiple occasions over a prolonged period of time saying Uber employees called in rides they had no intention of taking.

So right there we have a lie -- they lied to a competitor.

The lie was told to steal time from their competitors employees -- so there's your stealing.

And the lie was told because they couldn't compete on level ground with their competitors, and felt the need to cheat (by making their competitors seem like they received a lot of bogus rides-- where Uber does not).

You have multiple people, multiple competitors, on multiple occasions making the same allegations against Uber.. and you have Uber outright acknowledging it on (at least) one of those occasions.

So there's no question that Uber lies, cheats and steals.

Hold on a second. Keep in mind that these are allegations (and the allegations of a competitor, no less). I think there's a good chance these allegations are true, but there certainly isn't "no question that Uber lies, cheats and steals."

These current claims are allegations - but Uber has done this exact thing before to another competitor and acknowledged it. "no question that Uber lies, cheats, and steals" is still true, by Uber's own admission - though I'm certain they'd like to claim this type of behavior isn't lying/cheating/stealing.

I cannot resist to point out that your assertion that "Uber lies, cheats and steals" rests entirely on logical fallacies.

Let's stipulate your one assertion of fact, that Uber acknowledged that on one occasion an employee called in rides they had no intention of taking. From that one fact you jump to a Hasty Generalization [1].

We cannot admit your other evidence that "multiple competitors" made the same or similar claim because it's plain Argumentum Ad Populum [2].

Everything else is supposition and innuendo.

Please note, I'm not saying it ain't so, just that you did not support it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Well, you say hasty generalization, I say pattern of behavior.

And "Argumentum Ad Populum"... I'm not talking about what people believe. I'm talking about a behavior that was admitted by Uber. That isn't a belief. It is a fact that Uber engages in this behavior.

> there's no question that Uber lies, cheats and steals

Just to clarify my own comment: I was responding to the parent's statement that "sometimes it takes someone breaking the rules", and saying that it's OK to break the rules by trying to dislodge artificial scarcity, but it's not OK to break the rules by lying, cheating, and stealing; so if Uber has been doing the latter (and it looks like they have), they're not breaking the rules in the right way.

Interesting.. that wasn't the way I interpreted your comment. Thanks for the clarification.

> with the general full support of the public

Often the public has full support for causes that will bite it back in the long term.

Sometimes not. Ireland used to have a very limited number of taxi licences (as they were called), that could be worth €80,000. Then they deregulated it and now anyone can get a licence for ~€250. There are now thousands of taxis during busy periods.

I was really surprised by the easy availability and affordability of cabs here in Dublin. I used the €25 free credit from Uber and promptly uninstalled the app, but mostly because the CEO seems like an asshole (this is going to get downvoted, but whatever. I hate knowing my money is going to a major douchebag.)

You said app. Do you own an iPhone? Or an Apple product?

No, Android. App being short for "application" (or in some cases "appetizer"), I do not recognize Apple's claim to the word. If this isn't what you were referring to, please elaborate.

They're everywhere all right, way too many it seems, but most of the Dublin cabs I rode in were 15 y.o. econobox beaters on their last legs, ratty, loud, no A.C., gruff drivers. 10 Euro for 10 minute ride - meh. My last Uber ride (Boston) showed up under 3 minutes from when I requested it, driver loaded all our luggage, drove a brand new full-size sedan with leather, great stereo, A.C., great ride, spankin clean, twice the distance - to the airport! - for about $5 more. No comparison. Didn't know Uber ethics were questionable, but I was very happy to pay my driver for a great ride and great service.

Air conditioning is not common in a country that calls 20 degrees a heatwave. Fares are set by the government, and includes a ~€5 starting price (so short journeys have a higher price). "Gruff" is accurate. Though usually the white irish drivers are horrifically racist.

Maybe I'm weird, but is €10 for 10 minutes so bad? How much would a ten minute cab ride be in NYC? London? Operating a vehicle is pretty expensive, and you probably need at least €20 per hour for the driver (remember, the cost of paying someone wages of X is often 1-5 or 2 times X). Then there's insurance, fuel, tax, registration, and fees. Also, cabs aren't always carrying passengers, so it's not like they're actually going to get €60 for 60 minutes of driving. On top of all that, even, the fares are not adjusted much for periods of low or high demand, so a cab will cost very roughly the same at 8:30 AM Saturday morning as 5:30 PM Friday evening.

Really, I'd say €10 for 10 minutes is a pretty fair deal. They get to use the bus lane as well, which adds to the value of the service.

Also I'm weird but I like that cabs use small cars. The city has too many cars on the road as it is, and large vehicles are much harder to walk/cycle/drive/see around (and tend to be worse for the planet), so smaller vehicles are more considerate of others. I've never been in a late 90's (implied by your 15 y.o comment) car, at least yet.

On top of all that, even, the fares are not adjusted much for periods of low or high demand, so a cab will cost very roughly the same at 8:30 AM Saturday morning as 5:30 PM Friday evening.

In Ireland there is a premium rate between 8pm and 8am, all day Sundays and Public Holidays. But it's only a ~20% increase.

http://www.transportforireland.ie/fares/taxi/

Ireland was an interesting case of the cabbies shooting themselves in the foot. Dublin used to have a major shortage of cabs to the extent that many people including my ex girlfriend were forced to walk down dark streets in the early hours because there were no cabs. So the government tried for years to increase the number of licenses but the cabbies refused to negotiate that. So in the end the government got fed up and cancelled the old permit laws entirely so now there is a vast excess of cabs sitting about the taxi ranks - well that's partly due the economy also.

I agree, except the problem is that by-and-large, regulated taxi services work perfectly fine. How are they even close to dysfunctional currently? So people can't find a cab in mid-town at 5pm on a rainy day, I mean, come on. I'm pretty darn laissez faire when it comes to regulation, but honestly I think taxi service is done pretty well.

Here's what I know. If I paid (heavily) into a system of regulation that worked, only to have someone hack it and basically blow up my asset/income stream, you'd better believe I would push back hard. Aereo, anyone?

Where do you live? Taxis work well in some cities and terribly in others (SF!).

Chicago. Live and work in the city. Took Uber this morning (pouring rain...I normally ride bike) as a matter of fact. Uber is great...it's just the rideshares that are a problem.

When I lived in SF I was close enough to a Muni line that I almost never needed to take a taxi. The three times I did, all late at night, the taxis showed up promptly, the fares were reasonable, I felt safe, and I got where I needed to go. I'm not saying taxis in SF aren't "terrible," but it hasn't been my experience.

If taxis weren't so dysfunctional, Uber wouldn't have so many happy users and drivers.

For example, it used to be a major hassle trying to get a car to pick me up in Park Slope, Brooklyn. I would call the local car service, who would always say "5 minutes". Except it often wasn't 5 minutes and sometimes they didn't come at all.

Other car services were OK but took a long time to show up. Now with Uber I can hail an NYC green taxi.

Sorry to sound like an Uber ad but it's been working really well for me.

I'm just talking about UberX, not regular old Uber that fetches a licensed taxi, which I use and love.

No, you're not. You're defending them fighting back.

> If I paid (heavily) into a system of regulation that worked, only to have someone hack it and basically blow up my asset/income stream, you'd better believe I would push back hard. Aereo, anyone?

I actually do think cabs are broken. Without a rating system after they get a medallion they're golden for at least a year.

I get into cabs where: - The driver can't speak English - Doesn't know where they're going - The cab smells - Drives dangerously - Is drunk (literally had an open bottle of wine under the handbrake) - Doesn't turn up when I book it

The list goes on, the moment I started taking uber cabs all of this stopped, I review every cab I take after a trip and the moment they drop too far they're removed from the service.

Sure, maybe within the existing system I could write an email to the cab company (who will probably ignore me on account of trying to avoid a fine), the medallion issuer (who MIGHT fine the driver if this happens often). But the reality is that this is hard, and giving someone a rating between 1-5 stars at the end of the trip is easy.

> Doesn't turn up when I book it

This is my most frequent complaint (Boston and Pittsburgh). My success rate is about 30% when I have to call for a cab.

> (literally had an open bottle of wine under the handbrake)

Get out of the cab. Pay or don't pay, it doesn't matter. Note the cab number and call the taxi company or whatever organization polices the drivers internally (in Chicago, I think 3-1-1 is sufficient). YOU saw the infraction, who else do you expect will fix it? Sometimes the taxi driver will not see anyone else from the company, only the other driver who shares the car.

To be honest, at the time I was so shocked, I heavily doubting what I was seeing.

Or 911, since this is also DUI in progress.

This disruption at least gives them quicker incentive to improve their service. Develop a decent app instead of having people wait on hold after calling, etc.

Here in Chicago, there are many problems. The most frequent complaint is that drivers purposely break their credit card machines so that payment via card is not possible. The reason being that drivers are forced to pay the card processing fee themselves, which is another problem.

Aside from that, cash transactions are not recorded, which in turn results in less of that Driver's income being taxed, taking money away from local municipalities. This is actually a great argument in favor of uber, as they send 1099s out to all of their drivers.

> The most frequent complaint is that drivers purposely break their credit card machines so that payment via card is not possible.

That's not a problem, because they are required to accept credit cards (read the "Passenger Rights & Responsibilities" that they are also required to display). I've never been refused with this response: "I can pay the full fare with my credit card, or I can give you the $1-5 in my wallet."

OTOH, a lot of taxi drivers will break their machines and ask to use Square instead. I hear that Square's fee is about half of the company-provided machine's fee. I don't object to that, because the convenience is the same on my part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com