Hacker News Reader

As you point out, most people are critiquing the state intervention for being woefully outdated and not inline with market economics (as they always seem to end up being overtime thanks to technology). No-one really thinks the Taxi companies are the "evil" ones because they were handed monopolies on a platter then got comfortable and fat with their position.

If the local administrators have the power to hand out monopolies, they should also have the responsibility to retract it when it no longer makes sense. A repeated and long-delayed failure to do so is harmful to society, whether or not it was had good intentions at the beginning doesn't absolve it of criticism now.

It's a bad law, but as people point out downthread, breaking a bad law is not in itself a good deed, it is simply a neutral one.

That's a good soundbite, but I don't like it. Breaking a bad law can be virtuous, but I suspect in this case it's neutral at best.

>Breaking a bad law can be virtuous, but I suspect in this case it's neutral at best.

It's not "breaking a bad law" that can be virtuous, it's the case. Sit-ins are/were virtuous because the cause (civil rights) was just. The cause here is primarily "Uber and its investors want to make more money".

I do think the local municipalities have a responsibility to revisit the regulations in light of a changing market, and frankly I believe a lot of the "universal coverage" motivations of the original regulations are misguided and never should have been in place to begin with.

That said, the narrative painted by the tech press has focused mostly on the efforts of cab companies to "stifle innovation" without acknowledging that they are defending legitimate rights. They paint Uber as a scrappy startup trying to compete with "fat" cab companies that have regulators in their pockets. The tech press narrative is simultaneously baseless and self-aggrandizing. The real narrative is less sexy: technology is enabling companies like Uber to eat up markets previous served, rather inefficiently, by modestly profitable small businesses. It's no different than what Wal-Mart did to mom and pop shops, or what Amazon did to small retailers, or what Starbucks did to local coffee shops. A national corporation can offer better service and lower prices, and can exercise quality control that obviates much of the need for regulation. This is both good and bad, but mostly, it's just the way the world works.

There's no reason, on top of all that, to demonize cab companies for trying to force municipalities to hold up their end of the bargain.

I feel like you're trying to paint the inverse picture where the taxi company is the 'little guy'.

> It's no different than what Wal-Mart did to mom and pop shops, or what Amazon did to small retailers, or what Starbucks did to local coffee shops.

Mom and pop shops rarely had regulators preventing Walmart and Starbucks from touching their market share. We're talking about very large centralized taxi companies that run entire cities. Most cities have 2-3 large companies dominating the entire city with a few minor players running limo services. Even in small towns the companies are hardly small friendly businesses.

My father drove taxi for years for multiple different taxi cartels and they all paid their workers poorly, withheld funds for weeks whenever customers used credit cards, and often only hired new drivers within their family/network. He loved the freedom of driving but hated the companies. He only enjoyed it when he could become a broker aka owning his own car and being able to distance himself from the company.

I hear similar stories from every Taxi driver I speak to, which is often. They see Uber/Hailo technology as liberating.

I see neither Uber nor the Taxi companies as the David vs Goliath. But Uber-style technology has given drivers the opportunity to make higher wages AND be independent from local cartels, while opening the door to new entrants in the market both for new drivers and new tech, even decentralized tech in the future.

So I do agree that the tech/news industry should make sure the real issue being debated is technology vs the nature of regulation, and stop looking for archetypical narratives. Instead of trying to reverse the narrative in favor of the other side.

Actually, in many places, Mom and Pop stores have regulators that stop Walmart and Starbucks from opening stores near them.

Very few locations in the United States have regulations protecting mom & pop stores from Walmart or Starbucks. You're exaggerating by an extreme factor.

You can count the number of municipalities with such actual laws to the tune of less than 100 out of 19,000 cities in the US.

"Taxi company is the 'little guy'" analogy is wrong.

There are many different structures of taxi companies.

Some Fleets are owned by drivers (similar to employee owned companies). Some fleets are owned by a single company, who got into the business at the right time to benefit from it (of course with a high upfront investment). And then there are some groups of fleets owned by a single company, sometimes across many cities.

So a 'Taxi Company' can be worth anywhere between a $100,000 company to a $100 million, based on the structure.

The 'little guy' analogy was false for sometime since Uber and Lyft disrupted the market. But now, compared to Uber and Lyft at current valuations (multiple billions), these fleets (any type) are certainly "tiny" if not "little guys".

TNC disruption has been necessary for a long time, since regulations didn't evolve continually to reflect market demands/requirements. Now its time to turn the heat on the TNCs to ensure the driver/rider is not screwed due to lack of valid insurance and licenses.

I foresee a point where Uber and Lyft will get more regulated, existing taxis will get a fair playground in terms of insurance and pricing flexibility, and more transport options will become available for everyone.

The problem is that local politicians have little incentive to retract an inefficient monopoly enforcement (even one that we assume was previously efficient), because the taxi companies' special interests tend to win out over the dispersed interests of all taxi customers. This isn't some specific flaw with taxi regulations. It's a basic economic reality of government regulation.

  ... for being woefully outdated and not inline with market economics

Why do regulations have to be in line with market economics in the first place?

Most, if not all regulations should serve and protect the citizenship and not private interest.

That Uber so vehemently lobbies against sensible regulation, like an obligation for commercial insurance, speaks volumes.

>Why do regulations have to be in line with market economics in the first place?

Yeah, I think this is something a lot of folks overlook - regulations exist because society has decided its interests are better served by making folks play by a certain set of rules than by hitting peak market efficiency or whatever. Now you can argue that a given regulation is not the best way to achieve a societal goal (for instance that limits on cab numbers don't reduce congestion much) or that they have worse externalities (medallion systems squeezing out the little guy in favor of big companies that can afford 6-figure medallion prices) or that the lost efficiency isn't worth society's goals, but straight up saying that they're "inefficient" isn't a case for anything.

> regulations exist because society has decided its interests are better served by making folks play by a certain set of rules than by hitting peak market efficiency or whatever

This is technically correct, but is forgetting that society is often wrong about what serves its interests.

For some popularly unpopular examples: homosexual marriage being illegal, a drug war instead of drug treatment programs, putting fluoride (a neurotoxin) in the water.

Edit: those are current laws, for more popularly unpopular laws see slavery, the 18th amendment, the banning of blood transfusions, etc, etc

> regulations exist because society has decided its interests are better served by making folks play by a certain set of rules than by hitting peak market efficiency or whatever

But society (and times) change. If there was a regulation that said 'the rightmost lane must always be reserved for horse-drawn carriages', we'd all be laughing about it.

Market economics is the aggregate of the deals that people make when they are not coerced. It's what results when both drivers and passengers are free to choose their best options. Regulation that disrupts this, by preventing drivers from offering services (through a medalion system) or prevents passengers from paying for services (by capping fares) make people worse off than they otherwise would be.

You're willfully ignoring the positive parts of the regulations, like proper insurance and licensing requirements. And even those you listed have both positive and negative sides. It might be difficult to hail a taxi, but I do know that once I do, I can expect to pay the capped fare to go wherever I want to (common-carrier regulations mean they can't refuse you a trip within some bounds). I fail to see how the alternative, which would be flat-out refusal of service or drastically increased pricing to go to unpopular places, improves anyone's life.

It's what results when there is no incentive for people to know what their best options are.

Regulation is to come to terms with drivers being dishonest about pricing to rip people off, and concerns about sexual advances on drunk passengers.

Any one who argues against it should at least be prepared to have an answer to these problems.

Not when two competitors are spending their money to actively make the other competitor's service worse.

Then everybody is worse off. It's a negative spiral that either ends in a monopoly or a stalemate with money being wasted on holding off the other party's attacks.

(assuming that Lyft is engaging in dirty tactics as well, but the argument works similar if it's one-sided)

> That Uber so vehemently lobbies against sensible regulation, like an obligation for commercial insurance, speaks volumes.

I'd love to know how many Uber drivers actually have an appropriate drive-for-hire license (in jurisdictions which have one). I wouldn't be surprised if it were far, far less than 100%.

> critiquing the state intervention for being woefully outdated and not inline with market economics

Regulation is often not about being inline with market economics - it is often used to enforce things that companies would not do (because of cost) that have significant impact on employee, customer, and public safety.

The regulations in place vary from city to city, but Uber and co are not just arguing against the out-of-date bits (knowing "the knowledge" which some argue is irrelevant with technological help, and so forth) but the whole lot including drivers having adequate insurance and relevant background checks.

I'm very much in support of new business models thriving, even if it eventually kills the old ones (progress is a good thing) so I'll back Uber wanting a piece of the pie, but I don't agree with the complete circumvention of the existing regulations so I wouldn't currently feel safe using them.

> Regulation is often not about being inline with market economics

Regulations usually aren't about being inline with market economics, otherwise they'd be unnecessary. Regulations are only inline with market economics in some instances of market failure regulations (e.g. monopoly regulations such as local loop unbundling mandates). Usually, the whole point of regulations is to create incentives which don't match straight market economics in order to effect different behaviours from companies (such as improved service or standards of conduct)

For me, the appeal that Uber had (when it was active in Vancouver) was that most people didn't use it, and that I didn't have to pay at the point of delivery (nor tip). On a Friday night, leaving a venue at midnight with my wife and a friend, we knew from experience that waiting for a cab was going to be an hour at least, and probably more, as taxis were surging into the city with their fares and then rushing back out to get more fares. We were just out of the way enough that no cab was going to want to carry us from A to B, heading from a poorly-travelled area of town to another. On top of that, it was going to be hugely expensive, and splitting the fare is a hassle.

Instead, I summoned an Uber. It got there in fifteen minutes (and would have been sooner except for traffic), took us home, then continued on to drop off our friend. Minimal hassle, a comfortable ride, and impressed the fuck out of our friend. I was sold.

Then in Seattle earlier this year, we used Uber again. Our first trip was perfect (as we'd expected). Our second trip, the driver didn't even show up. We watched him on the app for 20 minutes; mostly not moving, and then driving around, never getting closer than ten blocks. My friend called him (another handy feature!) and he said that he'd already picked us up? Or someone up? He'd already done a fare, anyway, and apparently we weren't part of his plans. My friend got billed though, and had to contest the charge with Uber (which they quickly reversed).

Had we been excessively drunk (as I'm sure a lot of people were that weekend) we might not have even noticed. We would have flagged down a cab (which we eventually did) but forgotten about our uber ride entirely. The driver would have gotten paid, we'd have been out fifteen bucks, and no one would be the wiser.

Uber has gotten shady, for sure, but with their explosive growth it's hard to believe that the drivers aren't getting shady as well. Uber needs to be held to the regulations (which may need updating to support newer models of transportation), but they also need to start behaving like a real company and not an insecure frat boy trying to bully everyone into doing things his way. It's time for their investors to step up and start protecting their investment, and force Uber to stop exposing the company to lawsuits and horrible public image.

And it's time for people to stop using Uber until they straighten out their deal.

You know, I don't even think anything is wrong with Uber's public image. Its in their shareholders' best interest to be free from insurance requirements, etc, although I think ultimately they'll have to capitulate to those. And some of the "poaching" of Lyft drivers--well that's great. The drivers should go to whoever pays the most, and agreeing to not poach drivers would be anticompetitive.

I think Uber is great. I just see no reason to aggrandize them or to demonize the cab industry.

are we all forgetting just last week (i think at least) both companies accused each other of the same thing here... only Uber's documentation about it leaked.

Seems both are up to no good.

The whole premise of this article is that "siphoning drivers away from Lyft" is wrong. Its not. Isn't "not poaching" what everyone is up in arms about when Apple and Google did it?

Canceling rides is the bigger problem.

Exactly. That's more than impolite, it's unfair IMO. If the only way they can offer a better service is by screwing with the competition, well, they aren't doing a very good job then. Otherwise they could spend their time looking for ways to improve their services.

Making a better offer is fine. Using your competitor's service to summon their employees so that you can make a better offer is, at least, impolite.

I think there is some legitimacy to the shake-up of the "taxi cartel".

Where I live in the midwest traditional taxi cabs are unreliable with their pickup times, they often advertise they accept credit cards when they do not, and they have a history of intentionally diverting through long routes.

Uber brings accountability and transparency to every step in the process of getting a taxi cab.

I'm not rooting for the good guy, I'm rooting for the more convenient and efficient customer experience.

I agree with you here -- I'm not necessarily pumped about ride-sharing because it's the best way for everybody to get around, but it is an outstanding way to wake up the taxi companies and force them to actually consider customers. Until recently, they've had enough of a corner on the market that they can have broken credit readers, unsafe drivers and suspect billing without much consequence. In my city, they seem to be regarded as the Comcast of the transportation world.

> they often advertise they accept credit cards when they do not,

This is not allowed in the UK and you have a variety of ways to tackle it.

> and they have a history of intentionally diverting through long routes.

This sounds straight up criminal. Carrying a GPS enabled phone and mapping the route driven should gather enough evidence to persuade regulators to take action.

> This sounds straight up criminal. Carrying a GPS enabled phone and mapping the route driven should gather enough evidence to persuade regulators to take action.

This happened to me multiple times in the US, Europe and Asia generally when taking a taxi from the airport or a railway station. And I know first hand that tired customers in a hurry in a foreign country don't have time, energy and determination to gather evidence or argue. This willingness to give up a fight is likely a contributing factor to the continued prevalence of the practice.

I dislike many of Uber's business practices, but ride sharing in general is a great way to leverage technology to solve the above problem.

"This sounds straight up criminal. Carrying a GPS enabled phone and mapping the route driven should gather enough evidence to persuade regulators to take action."

Do you think that is more efficient/effective over just going to another "taxi" company? Because that's how you'd solve the problem if you didn't have a cartel/monopoly granted and enforced by government.

Additionally, do you think it's fair/efficient/effective for us to legislate against scenic driving? Because, some taxi companies might offer that specifically, and not as a ploy for more money.

Following from that, do you think it's efficient/effective to clog up regulations with such minutiae exceptions/details as above? So that even new competitors into the "taxi" business need to comply with countless regulations.

Face it, as soon as you make exceptions, you need transparency. To get transparency you need to enforce compliance, to enforce compliance you need to make sure the players conform to whatever method you come up with to ensure that they aren't breaking your minute detail/regulation. And that means increasing the barrier to entry into that market, which means less competition.

On the other hand Uber doesn't take cash, which I prefer.

If taxi drivers actually adhered to those "common carrier-esque" restrictions, they would have a valid point in expecting Uber to follow the same. As it stands, you're speaking like someone who hasn't actually endured the experience of needing a cab driver to adhere to them.

Unfortunately, it's not enough to have a written law that says "oh yeah, taxis will totally take you anwhere, pick up anyone hailing them, and accommodate the disabled"; it needs to have actual observable implications.

When your entire defense is that "but we have to provide this public service", you might want to check that you're actually providing it.

Agree about the dangers of needing to make everyone a pure good or a pure bad guy though.

> Yes, the taxi companies are trying to shut down Uber and Lyft using regulation, but they are just trying to enforce a legal monopoly granted to them by the cities in which they operate.

If I buy legislation that allows me to extort consumers then when I extort them afterwards it is legal, but it's also as evil as always. There is a reason why illegal and evil are two different words.

You've obviously never been a black person trying to hail a cab. I can't tell you how many times I've had taxis refuse to take me across a bridge (which is part of their responsibility that comes with the monopoly). The taxi industry brought this on themselves and I'll be glad to see them go.

How is Uber addressing this? If anything it seems like it would be harder for them to enforce this that a regular taxi company.

Drivers don't see you when they take the ride so there is no racial bias. When they refuse to take you across abridge, they leave a digital trail so you can contact Uber about the specific person that refused the ride.

thats not true. Driver sees the user details, and the ratings, before accepting the ride offer. The driver has an option to not take the ride offer.

I too was of the same thought that Uber drivers don't discriminate. But I have had a few too many instances where Uber shows more than one vehicle available nearby, when I confirm booking, after some time, no driver accepts. Why would it be so? Could it be because of my non-caucasian/american name?

After this happened, I just removed my photo, and now I'm thinking of having a generic american first/last name.

Just because Uber says it doesn't happen, doesnt mean that its not happening. Either Uber is using wrong metrics/data to identify such occurrences, or is flat-out lying to everyone saying that "the drivers cannot discriminate".