Hacker News Reader

I like the general balanced approach you are taking, but I have to critique a few elements.

Service dependability - I take cabs exclusively, and, while I can't comment on other markets, I have deep knowledge of the bay area taxis. First, it's important to note, that even when they are operating in "normal mode" - you can never, ever quickly get a taxi on the peninsula. Minimum time is always about 15-20 minutes, and frequently 30 minutes. Also, when it's busy, or late - forget it, you will not get a taxi. Compare this to Uber, that works hard to ensure you will always have a ride, regardless of time, level of busy. And yes, basic economics therefore suggests that in order to make that happen, you will have to vary the price. But, I would definitely like to have the choice of taking a more expensive ride, then no ride at all.

Non-Discrimination: You've got it backwards. Taxis discriminate all the time based on every conceivable factor. Uber doesn't even let the driver know where you are going, and the driver is committed to picking you up before he sees if you are young or old, black or white, male or female. About all they can discriminate on is how well you treat them (Drivers rate passengers).

Your Driver tracking thing is a long stretch. A better example would be, "Taxi Drivers in general have been doing their job for a while, there is little churn, so it's unlikely you will get one that will rob or rape you, (though it's not unheard of, particularly with drunk passengers.) as those drivers who do that are probably going to get fired, and it's less common to get new drivers with taxi services than with uber.

Of the 200 or so RideShares, the worst one I got was a Driver who had only been working for Lyft for a week, and used her cellphone to get GPS directions to the airport, and came to a hard stop at a stop sign. Every other one has been excellent, courteous, and clean safe cars. I have no end of horror stories of psychotic taxi drivers driving cars that sometimes wouldn't open from the inside.

Yeah I love Uber but the one thing that's really annoyed me the past couple of years is whenever it goes above 2x surge every UberX driver immediately "forgets" how to navigate the city. Even a couple of blocks out of the way means a couple of bucks extra on your fare at surge pricing levels. Uber definitely has this data, I would love to see them release it given their commitment to data transparency. Even some really simple metric like average distance traveled vs. average GPS route distance during surge vs. normal should give a fairly unbiased view of how often this is happening.

Surge pricing gets more, less experienced, drivers on the road.

> Uber doesn't even let the driver know where you are going, and the driver is committed to picking you up before he sees if you are young or old, black or white, male or female. About all they can discriminate on is how well you treat them (Drivers rate passengers).

But they do rate the passengers after they discover their destination, age, race and gender, so they could discriminate on that if they want to.

They can, but the incentive is lower, and the information the driver has about the specific person is higher, which should help.

> * Price reliability: Prices in most taxi systems follow strict rules. Customers can use this knowledge to estimate what they will spend, and drivers what they can earn.

Don't Uber give you an estimation? I took a taxi a single time in my life, I can tell you, I had no idea how expensive it would be (and it was) and it took me multiple call and about 45 minutes before getting inside the taxi. I still have no idea how to estimate the price, I'm still not interested in taking a taxi after all that.

> * Service dependability: Because medallions are limited and prices are regulated, taxi drivers can make a living, and the service does not boom/bust. This means customers are not gouged in good times and unable to find taxis in bad times.

This is something that I never liked and I don't understands how people can be for that. What purpose does it make to have a unique price when you can't even get it at that price. I will sell you a new amazing smartphone for 1$, the best price of the world and I will never change it's price, but I only have 100 of them and I don't plan to make more. It's great for the one that get it but at the end of the day, if you really need it and you can't even get it, it's amazing price won't help.

> * Non-discrimination: Taxis are usually required to respond to all hails, and to not refuse service because your ride is too short/long.

I can't see how you can believe that.

> * Driver tracking: because a taxi driver must have a medallion and follow rules about posting information in/on their cabs, passengers can distinguish between 'taxis' and random people offering ride services. While there may be no built-in reputation system, there is incentive and recourse. How do passengers know if a non-taxi is a guy who makes his living from offering rides, or a guy who just stole a car and is going to rob them? A taxi driver is risking a lot by robbing his passenger.

That's depends of the service. If people require it, if it stop people from taking that service because they are afraid of it, then the offering will change.

With a monopoly it doesn't, it stay the same, it doesn't have to change, I still have no idea what's the price, I have no easy way to make sure I will really get one fast enough. I'm a potential market but they don't freaking care about me. At least, with competition the market can affect how it work, they have an impact on it. If we need more taxi during rush hour, it's possible, if we need less, it's possible, if we need more security, it's possible.

If there's still enough people interested in your monopoly taxi system, they will keep using your monopoly taxi system and it will survive but we both know it's not the case and currently it's subsidized by people who have no other option than taking that crappy service.

> Non-discrimination:

Aparently, that's not true in the US - I've read about many times how white people hail cabs for their black friends, because cabs won't stop for black people.

In SF a cab refused to take us (a white guy and girl and a 6 month toddler) to Lombard street because it was "2 blocks away". It was in fact 6 blocks away with awful ups and down. I had a really hard 15 - 20 minutes going up and down trying to don't fall with our baby cart.

The 3 times our friend in SF ordered a Uber, it never failed, even though one of these rides was shorter than the one we requested to Lombard St.

To me it's clear who is providing the non-discrimination service and who is not.

That is strange to hear for me. I also always thought that taxi's disliked short rides. However since they receive a fixed amount for all rides, it is actually a good deal for them since they are making more per mile on that small trip.

The driver's issue could be that the meter isn't running while the customers enter/exit the cab. If the GP had a stroller, the driver may have assessed the overhead wasn't worth a minimal fare. Mean and probably illegal, but there may have been some gut-logic to it.

Yes, that is certainly a real phenomenon. I was speaking about 'discrimination' in it's wider sense, however, as in that there are clear rules about a cabbie's ability to reject a hail based on certain factors (like distance/time, but also race).

In reality this does happen. I've frequently been refused during 'feeding frenzies' at my local train station based on the fact that I'm not a tourist (and thus know the rules), my trip is too short, etc. In theory by rejecting a legitimate fare a cabbie is risking more than a scab would be risking (historically). Under an Uber/Lyft/etc system this problem is mitigated, probably even better than the medallion system.

You are talking about the (flawed but defensible) medallion system, not the medallion arbitrage system.