Comment by DigitalSea | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DigitalSea | Hacker News Reader

Seems that $40 billion evaluation has provoked some cities into taking action against Uber. The recent valuation after a hefty raising amount proved that Uber was no longer this small San Francisco startup any more, they are bigger in many cities than some taxi companies and now cities want their cut.

While I personally do not use Uber, we need services like Uber to be allowed to operate. My recent experience going from the airport to downtown Los Angeles was absolute hell, the taxi driver tried forcing me to pay cash even though the card terminal was working. He wanted to drive me to an ATM to get cash out. This is the kind of thing I am tired of. Don't get me started on the last weekend I was in Vegas, the taxi services are just as bad there (and unreliable).

I don't get the whole safety argument either, I have always felt safe in an Uber and Lyft, I have felt unsafe too many times when I have taken a regular taxi, when they're not deliberately taking you a longer way to extort cash or trying to get you to pay cash when you only have a credit card.

I know we need regulation and fair enough, Uber are violating some local laws here, but driving services like Uber out of the city won't make things better. Local councils should be working with services like Uber, so they can coexist and operate legally. Lets get some solid legislation and requirements for ridesharing services, otherwise, they will just continue to operate regardless (as they have shown).

This feels like a cash grab from the city of Portland. No doubt other cities are going to follow suit as well. Let the people decide who they want to drive with. The better product will always win out and if that is Lyft, Uber or whomever, it really highlights the issues that plague the taxi industry.

Uber can honor city rate caps, require the appropriate insurance for their drivers and take financial responsibility for drivers that fail to maintain that insurance. Uber can also comply with the same rules about coverage areas that cabs are required to comply with. They can do all these things but choose not to. What's to "work around"?

One of the blinders people wear when talking about Uber is the "it's just Uber" blinders. No: if Uber's regulatory arbitrage strategy succeeds, they'll be followed by even less scrupulous companies looking to exploit the same loophole.

I'm not sure what it would take to be less scrupulous than Uber.

They could get into the dodgy car finance business (like many private car companies...)

Not sure if you're being sarcastic...but if not: https://get.uber.com/cl/financing/

Oh wow.

Ouch. "Own a car for as little as $20/day." $600/month seems like a pretty hefty payment for the Prius that's featured at the front of the line in the picture underneath those words. I could understand that for someone with bad credit and such, but "as little as" should present the best case, surely.

dang! yeah.

They already are, they partner with Ford and Toyota to offer drivers car loans on select models if they are an Uber driver.

You make it sound so easy. The first issue is, taxi licences are super expensive. Don't get me started on cities that deal out medallions at ridiculous prices. In New York a taxi medallion will cost you about $1 million, how ridiculous is that? The system itself is broken and outdated, currently the system is engineered to benefit the companies selling medallions and those other bolt-ons that come with owning a taxi.

However, I do think that Uber and other services should honour pricing caps in cities that have them, they should also comply with rules regarding insurance and other reasonable things asked of them. But having said that, even if they were to honour pricing caps and get the appropriate insurance for their drivers, it will never be good enough for some cities, take Vancouver as an example.

In places like New York especially, too many people benefit off of the existing cartel like structure of leasing out a medallion, insurance and all of the other costs that tend to add up quite quickly. Things need to change, and I am glad there are companies out there pushing the boundaries and getting the conversation going. Gone are the days of a single company having a transportation monopoly in a city.

> Gone are the days of a single company having a transportation monopoly in a city.

Really ? Isn't that a bit short sighted ?

Why is that short sighted?

Do we disagree about competition being a good thing for consumers?

Because UBER will be a monopoly.

I agree that the current system needs to change.

I don't agree that we should throw open the doors for Uber as a catalyst to make that change though.

Cabs can be downright horrible, but I'm hesitant to throw out the devil we know for the one we don't. Uber has already demonstrated an unwillingness to obey laws they disagree with, I'm concerned about how far and in what areas they're willing to push the bounds. We already have avenues for complaining about / fixing the cab system but I don't think many people actually complain to the cab company when they have a bad experience - maybe the cab company needs an app?

They can do all these things but choose not to. What's to "work around"?

Isn't this why Uber is competitive on price - because they don't do all these other "onerous" things? I thought that was entirely how they were able to charge so low.

I had a Boston taxi cab driver say that the reason many say that the credit card reader isn't working (or otherwise insist on cash) is that A) there's a hefty 5-6% fee (both from the credit card terminal provider AND the cab company takes a cut too! I think something like 2%), and B) the credit card payments come in only a few days later, and the money does not consistently hit the bank account (sometimes gets delayed by a day or two, even in the middle of a week). Also the credit card payments get cut off at midnight (every 2-3 days I believe) and so you can get a fare at 11:50pm and then a juicy fare at 12:30am but you won't see the second fare until days later.

So when a cab driver, who is scraping by, needs to pay for the gas he used that night, if he has mostly credit card fees, he has no cash to pay for gas.

Which reinforces the fact that the cab companies are making a big mistake. If they only fought with the credit card processors to have a reliable, fast-paying, non-rip-off payment system or otherwise worked with the cab drivers to make it work for them, then all the cabbies would gladly take your credit card money.

The best cities make it illegal for cab drivers to do this. You can, for instance, report NYC cabs for claiming not to be able to handle credit cards, and NYC cab enforcement has (at least from some anecdotal semi-personal experience) teeth.

Chicago cab drivers used to tell me they couldn't take cards all the time. I just said "you are required to take my card". They always did.

> So when a cab driver, who is scraping by, needs to pay for the gas he used that night, if he has mostly credit card fees, he has no cash to pay for gas.

This may sound harsh, but... they're not earning anything past their daily spendings, right? Then this is going to happen the first day of illness, car not starting, or any other situation. Trying to avoid card transactions will likely just delay the result... so why do it at all?

Living paycheck to paycheck is sadly common. Sometimes it's because the expenses are unavoidable, sometimes it's because they're just biding their time until they get a better job, sometimes it's just bad financial planning (which often looks like the others).

Although living literally day to day with income is a new one to me. Most people can't do that even if they wanted to, what with only getting paid every two weeks.

In any case, this is obviously a situation you don't want to get into, but if you're in it, then the answer to your question should seem obvious: even if the fall is inevitable, you'd want to delay it as long as possible. Each day of survival is worth something, and maybe something will come along to help you dig out.

That said, I can't feel sorry for people whose money is delayed a few days rather than getting it immediately, when almost everybody else gets paid weeks after they work.

Meanwhile the average working stiff doesn't get paid for 2-4 weeks after he puts in the labor, and he gets the taxes withheld before the money even touches his account! Cry me a river.

I'm going to bet that a big reason for resisting credit card payments is that the payments are tracked and you can't evade taxes on them the way you can with cash. This isn't meant to impugn taxi drivers, as it seems to be typical for any cash work. I've had people, who seemed otherwise wholesome, tell me that I should tip waiters with cash instead of adding a tip to my credit card receipt because they can avoid declaring cash as income for their taxes.

> Lets get some solid legislation and requirements for ridesharing services

Sounds like what the city is trying to do. And I don't see the "cash grab" from the city when their criticisms are not about taxation but fair use for the public.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com