San Francisco and L.A. sue Uber
mercurynews.com
mercurynews.com
As much as we'd like to think that the law and public opinion are separate, in reality, I think that if Uber had tried to be a better 'public citizen' they probably wouldn't be facing so much backlash.
That essay by Paul Graham about 'mean people' is looking downright prophetic right about now.
I remember how the music industry teamed up with politicians, and used police and courts to go after Napster and KaZaA. The founders of those companies were considered thugs by the establishment back then - thieves even.
Later, one of the Napster guys made money on Facebook and the KaZaA duo made money on Skype. Now they are all considered superhero entrepreneurs.
Napster and KaZaA didn't make much money but the next generation downloading and streaming apps such as iTunes, Spotify etc. did and personally I haven't bought a CD for years.
Maybe Uber will go down in lawsuits and prohibitions, maybe not, but the taxi industry has already been disrupted and if Uber doesn't defeat the taxis, other companies will. People have been shown much more comfortable and cheaper ways of getting a ride.
Just like I don't want to bother paying $20 going to the mall to buy 11 crappy songs on a disc in order to get that one song that I want to listen to, taxi riders don't want to bother with the expensive taxi tsars of their hometown.
Personally, I don't care if Uber or another nicer or more legal alternative wins. As long as the taxi companies lose.
Far too much commerce resides behind the walled garden of regulation, the worst being alcohol and tobacco; regardless how you feel about those the protection afforded by regulation and government enforcers is frightening.
Heck, if you want to see real silly, go read the horror stories in some states about enforcement on hair salons; as in if your not connected they will fine you to oblivion for any infraction they can find.
Agreed. In my home town taxis break every rule that you can imagine in the name of their precious business. I've seen them ignoring priorities, bicycles, pedestrians, speed limits, I've seen taxis using walkways and bike lanes to avoid red lights. Indicating the direction is out of fashion since long.
My last taxis ride to the airport was with 180 km/h on a street with 100 km/h limit while the driver was flipping through a folder on his dashboard in order to organize - whatever - with his company. Not to speak about the noise of taxis dashing through the town at 3 in the morning.
Yes, I don't like what I read about uber, but alternatives for taxis are overdue.
Police does not have sufficient personnel to catch them all. But I think, because with their drivers license taxi drivers would lose their job, the police looks away much more (this is a pure guess). Taxi drivers are also well connected and have their police info system. That is a fact,as you hear it, when you use a taxi. There is constant exchange about traffic control over radio.
Do the uber guys have a taxi driver background and are used to being reckless? :o)
I did it and the driver once asked me for more money on arrival. I refused. He said, "Oh, OK. So this is your home? I'll meet you with my friends here tomorrow then, when you'll be heading to work."
I bet India today is not that much different. I bet Costa-Rica (not sure if Uber operates there) is even worse. Every time I'm booking a licensed (and slightly more expensive) cab to the airport, I'm super happy that I know what to expect.
https://twitter.com/nps2113/status/542063133809192960
The lady was on TV saying that she had complained about the creepy driver to Uber, a few days before he committed the dastardly act. They gave an assurance but failed to act, which resulted in something much worse. Granted that the bigger culprit is the police here who let go off the individual despite his previous run-ins with the law. But Uber has absolutely failed the trust here. Just goes out to show that they care about $$ above everything else.
Response from Uber: https://twitter.com/nps2113/status/542352404478713857
News coverage: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-buck-stops-here/woman-c...
(Credit goes to a comment down below for first mentioning this)
In any case, I think it's important to consider how this would play out in a pre-Uber world. If someone took a taxi ride and got attacked by the driver prior to Uber, there was very little evidence pointing to that driver. Passengers would need to remember their identification details or number plate after an event that tends to leave people quite mentally shaken. Not a good outcome; I think there's a good chance they would still be searching for the driver if this hadn't been facilitated by Uber.
They are providing a false sense of security to the passengers.
[1] https://www.uber.com/safety
[2] http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-we-did-not-run-backgrou...
Umm, depends on the nature of the complaint, don't it?
If you ran a restaurant, say, and you received a complaint about one of the male waiters "constantly staring" at a female customer in a way that she found sufficiently disturbing to write you an email about afterwards[1] -- at the very least you'd investigate. And if the investigation ended up sustaining the claims the customer was making, of course you'd fire the waiter on the spot. And there's be nothing in the least bit "harsh" about it.
But what's damning for Uber, of course, not only did they not investigate; they failed to meaningfully acknowledge her request. And this isn't a matter of poor training among their customer service reps; those poor folks are diligently acting on the priorities they've been given. And those priorities, of course, come from the top.
Also: back in the "pre-Uber" world, not only would the drivers at least have to go through a (meaningful) background check, but in many cities they'd have to risk losing their permits, which generally are worth something on the order of a driver's pension (or several years worth of pay in any case). In fact even being able to get a loan to buy one of these permits is a kind of a test for basic personal stability.
But in the brave, new Uber world? All you need is a phone.
[1] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation...
The suspect in question was implicated in 2 other rape cases and on bail for multiple other criminal charges. At what point is the Indian government responsible for this guy being at large?
Also, what was reported to Uber was allegations of "staring" and just generally making the passenger feel uncomfortable. While thats definitely not cool and not the experience anyone wants to have with Uber, thats hardly enough to fire someone.
I don't think that them "acting" would've stopped anything. At the end of the day those drivers are contractors and I never judge Uber on what a driver says to me or how they act.
Uber has a duty to provide and ensure safety. I personally think they live up to that in the US.
Indian government is totally at fault. And so is Uber for lying about background checks and not taking the complaints seriously. This is not an isolated incident that shows their cavalier response. A follow-up from Uber on the complaint would have absolutely won my trust in the company.
> thats hardly enough to fire someone
Maybe run a background check based on a complaint, that would have given sufficient grounds to take action.
Drivers that make passengers who are women uncomfortable due to harassment should absolutely 100% be fired. Sexual harassment is not tolerable for employees of a company, whether its to fellow employees and/or customers.
Every step of Uber's success has been associated with some sort of law breaking. In each new market they ignore the established taxi/limo laws, and in some they ignore more serious laws (background checks, etc). The individual offenses are small and generally non-serious (unlicensed taxi driving, illegal fees) but when you zoom out you see that this is a company systematically encouraging thousands of small crimes every day. When you realize that the behavior comes from the top, you can aggregate the wrongdoing into something pretty serious.
At first this was kind of 'cute'. We were all rooting for the little startup who said no to an old system and tried to create something better. Uber is now a huge company. They have secured over $2B in funding and probably intending to IPO with a market cap over $50B. Yet they have not slowed down with the law breaking and general disregard for "the rules".
How can this be OK? When will we force them to be mature and obey the laws. I have to obey the law in my every day life. More importantly, I would be terrified if other companies with similar market caps (airlines, rental car companies, media companies) started ignoring the law left and right. If money and investors can make you above the law then there is no protection for the rest of us.
I really want Uber as a service to exist, as I said. They provide a great convenience for me. However I don't think it's acceptable that they get to ignore the established rules. The laws are there for a reason. If they are bad laws, then we can work to change them. No amount of VC funding should make you immune to their reach.
(With apologies to those who fight against things far more onerous than taxi medallions)
There is no moral duty to obey unjust laws.
Besides, I think that societies overwhelmingly err far on the side of too much respect for the law. Most people are content to form their opinions based on the status quo, which can make for some terrifying dystopian results.
Say there's a bad law, for instance a law requiring that every toddler must be taken to a police station before the age of 3 to have one eye gouged out with a red hot steel bar.
Suddenly, the government decide to apply this law capriciously, and starts exempting left-handed boys from the eye gouging.
Would you complain that it's unfair that left-handed boys don't have their eyes gouged out? Would you say that two eyed people grow up to have an unfair advantage in the work place by being able to be more productive and earn more? Would that "fairness" be your concern? Would you feel better if the government reverted its policy and decided to apply the policy uniformly and resumed gouging the eyes of left-handed boy toddlers:
No! You would just want to make sure no one gets their eyes gouged out! Well there you go, focus your concern on the victims of the law, not on the lucky ones who manage to escape it.
How do we verify law as well-written and protecting interests of constituents first and foremost?
If we assume breaking it was necessary to improve customer experience -- and there are some good indicators for that -- we should ask ourselves, does the law protect the entrenched service provider (here, taxis) more than the consumers?
Should that be the case, it's failure of the law, and perhaps also law making process.
> How can this be OK?
It's a terrible stretch, but still: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison" - Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"
Look at how Uber is breaking the laws. They are doing it with the financial backing of enormously powerful people. So while now they are just breaking old crusty taxi laws, it scares me to think that a well-funded company could take this model and break some laws that actually protect me. What if what happened to the taxi drivers happens to an industry that I work in? I will have no moral leg to stand on if I don't oppose Uber's tactics now.
So you never drive over the speed limit? Jaywalk? Smoke pot? When will we force you to be mature and obey the law? Many millions of small crimes are committed every day by practically every person in the world. The reason nobody cares is because there's often no negative consequences to those "crimes".
Additionally, there ARE negative consequences to what Uber does. They are just not negative to you or me. Taxi drivers are being hurt by the reduced number of customers and the de-valuing of their medallions. I don't like the taxi system at all, but I do feel bad for all of the drivers who tried to play fair and buy in and are now being muscled out by VC money.
The taxis in DC are night and day compared to before and after Uber. They wouldn't even accept credit cards because it was "too hard" to implement. Somehow about 6 months after Uber came to town, it suddenly became possible to do something most other major cities had managed years ago. Even still, credit card readers are often mysteriously "broken". By the "rules" the cab is not supposed to operate if the credit card reader isn't working, but since that rule isn't related to shutting down Uber, I guess it doesn't matter.
Uber and its competitors are, more than anyone else in decades as far as I can tell, working to change them.
My biggest gripe is perhaps not even the inefficiency of the system, but its natural tendency towards systematic support of entrenched players, see the kind of regulatory capture performed by Comcast, or the article about the Chase Whistleblower from a few weeks back. You say that no amount of VC money should make an individual institution immune to the law, but this sort of immunity is conferred all the time by anyone with deep enough pockets, through mechanisms like lobbyists, regulatory capture and the various campaign finance loopholes exploited by Super-PACs. See any of Lawrence Lessig's writings of the past few years for more discussion. I'm reminded of an article that showed up on Hacker News about the downsides of an economy with a lot of entrenched players (permit me to suggest the "cartel" nomenclature) taking advantage of their favorable position in overly-bureaucratic systems: http://intellectual-detox.com/2013/04/14/rent-seeking-econom...
I do agree that Uber's shady business practices are not laudable, and there are certain important regulatory functions that can only be performed by unbiased parties interested in the public good, of which the legal system/government ought to be the exemplary case. But I think your suggestion that we can simply work to change bad laws is perhaps dependent on a system that currently cannot consistently keep up with the pace of change, not just because of inefficiency but because of perverse incentives (here is where I could begin to talk about the influence of corporate money in politics). I suspect we will have to wait at least another half-generation before a critical mass of individuals with both a true understanding of the exponential pace of progress and well-credentialed clout can begin to make serious reforms and updates in that area.
Until then, "move fast and break things" may, terrifyingly, be our best option.
The people holding Uber back are also empowered by wealth and influence. I'd prefer that our country not work this way. It's very unfortunate. I'm worried that encouraging companies like Uber may seem to upset this system but it really enforces it. It further sidelines the average person, and the 'nice' rich people get to battle the 'evil' rich people.
So I instead have the idealist view that we can all vote our way out of this mess. That we can eventually put candidates in place that will create sensible laws around technology and markets. And that these laws will benefit the consumer.
The reality is that it's f*ed on both sides. I can avoid using Uber and the entrenched taxi cab lobby will win. I can use Uber and validate a startup that has systematically broken the law. I can use neither and never get where I am going on time.
So instead I'll just sit here and spout my thoughts on HN. Makes me feel a little better in the meantime.
This article doesn't even get into it, but beyond background checks, their not having medallions is a huge, unfair advantage; their labor practices are exploitative and probably illegal; and their insurance policies are not adequate.
(Note that you can minimize anything with word choice. "Google is just a web spider that looks at links," or "Clojure is just a lisp that runs on the JVM," etc.)
It's incremental. Not innovation.
I'm not pretending, I'm reporting empirical observations. Uber provides a service that is really nice, and significantly changed the way I transport myself around town. It is empirically an innovative and new service.
Yes, there are more of them offering these kinds of apps now, after Uber and its competitors entered the market. That's pretty decent evidence that the laws regulating competition in taxi markets stifle innovation.
Actually pretty solid advice for Silicon Valley.
However, I have no sympathy left for Uber. They're on their own as far as I'm concerned.
The taxi regulations are lengthy and serve multiple purposes. To classify it with a single sentence is just silly.
After all, requiring proper operating equipment and frequent inspections obviously doesn't benefit users... Is that what you're really forwarding? I hope not!
I was going to say I expect more out of HN commenters, but then I'd be lying. The people here are perhaps "smarter" than many, but their heads are made out of the same fallible gloopy cholesterol that the rest of us are. Cognitive biases are for everyone, and in some ways worse among those who refuse to admit the essential hormonal/emotional nature of our brains.
The specific equipment requirements can certainly be chosen in a way to benefit entrenched businesses by increasing the barrier to entry.
It's basically Uber but for cabs, I think that's why I've never been over-the-top thrilled by the Uber concept, it's something that already happened and didn't have to break any laws to get the same convenience while not fucking with the cab drivers (who are people too).
This isn't innovation. It's gypsy cabs with an iPhone app.
There is much more incentive to not suck when you have daily ratings as opposed to whatever the limit is for taxi cab drivers.
Which appointed agency would you rather have tell you what food is good/bad? The local health boards?! Don't make me laugh, I worked in a sit down restaurant for years and every single inspection was a quick walk through followed by a free meal we'd give the inspector and a high rating.
This wasn't one store. This is every single store I worked at in multiple restaurants across three different cities and two different health departments.
It certainly doesn't provide any assurance of quality (as indicated by the horrible drivers and customer service one gets from Taxi Drivers on the Peninsula).
I think it's entirely reasonable to require Insurance, Background Checks, Car Safety Checkups (from a third party), Drivers Valid License - Basically anything that is in place to protect consumer safety, instead of there to protect incumbents market ownership.
For example - in London, acquisition of "The Knowledge" is not there to protect consumers, it's there to reduce the amount of competition. I would absolutely not require "The Knowledge" prior to anyone becoming a Lyft/Uber driver.
And, as one who has taken thousands of taxi-rides, I can tell you that Uber/Lyft are not just innovation, they are mind-blowing revolutionary disruptive innovation to this industry. They are a much bigger deal for cab rides, than the iPhone was for the smart phone.
That would be revolutionary.
The value is in that the license can be taken away if the owner does not comply with the appropriate requisites for the activity. The relationship between a taxi driver and their passenger extends way beyond the mere act of driving, so the driver's license is not enough.
Why, because you can order and pay through an app? And they can offer lower prices as they're skirting the rules?
o Single Contact point - I don't have to power dial a bunch of different services, or try and find out who is currently picking up in my region.
o Always, Always, Always a driver available. There were so many times when I just could never get a pickup on the peninsula. With Uber/Lyft, no matter how busy it is, or what concerts are playing, I can always get a ride. 100% of the time. (And yes, I know surge pricing makes those rides pricey, but I would much rather pay 3x or 4x and have a ride in 5 minutes than spend an hour to 90 minutes waiting for a cab. )
o When the driver/dispatch claims they are on the way - they always show up. Not only do they always show up, they show up reasonably on time. And, better yet, I can see if they are moving in my direction. That real-time car location technology is a major innovation.
o The feedback mechanism means I haven't been picked up by one psycho, or in one half-broken down vehicle yet. I'm not claiming they haven't existed on Uber/Lyft, I'm certain they have. But, those types of drives will be downvoted so quickly they'll cease to be a driver very quickly. With Taxis, I had a ton of drivers on the peninsula I dreaded being picked up by. One of them was frequently undergoing some weird psychotic episodes which had him shouting out to voices. Another was just an asshole. I frequently got into old cars with non-working windows, and often doors that would not open from the inside.
o No screwing around having to "pay through an app" - you don't pay - you just book your ride and get out at your destination. Particularly when you have a bunch of bags and stuff - that's awesome.
These are just a few of the reasons why Uber/Lyft changed everything. I can't believe anybody who frequently took taxis on the Peninsula would claim otherwise. Price is about #7 or #8 on the list.
> I think it's entirely reasonable to require Insurance, Background Checks, Car Safety Checkups (from a third party), Drivers Valid License - Basically anything that is in place to protect consumer safety
You contradict yourself.
> I would absolutely not require "The Knowledge" prior to anyone becoming a Lyft/Uber driver.
The Knowledge is not for delivery; it's for picking people up on the street (which is many times preferable to ordering Uber on your phone). I don't want my taxi driver to spend 2 minutes blocking the road while he enters the destination into the navigation app, nor doing it while s/he's driving.
Regarding the knowledge (yes, I know it's for black cab hails) - if you think that's useful, and are willing to pay the increased rates that result from the higher level of service (and as one who has taken London Cabs, I can attest it's a wonderful service, just not one I would be willing to pay for), then you should be free to pay for that service, in the same way that others should be free to provide and advertise it.
But don't make it a requirement to run a service like Uber/Lyft.
Regarding "app" services, I agree, it's not necessary as they can map the path in advance, but they can't replace the existing "taxi" service (i.e. hailing taxi) that way (and I feel it's reasonable for cities to protect that service to a certain extent).
So you're cool with just getting in any old stranger's car? Really?
But, more importantly - how familiar are you with Taxi Drivers on the Peninsula. Many of them are very new to the valley, many of them have just started driving, and quite a few of them are scary, psychotic, or just plain mean. I have yet to have that experience with Uber/Lyft, and when I do, I expect my, and others feedback, to correct that situation immediately rather than have to deal with it for any prolonged period of time.
Also - think of the hundreds (thousands?) of people a day for the last 10 years who carpool over the bay bridge. In that situation, you truly are getting into an absolutely random strangers car. People don't seem to have any issues with that - and there is ZERO background check, tracking, or awareness of those people.
The world is not as scary as people seem to think it is - In terms of risks, the most dangerous thing is likely not your driver, but the fact that you are in a car in the first place. They kill 30,000+ people a year.
There are background checks, but they are a joke.
And by innovation, he probably doesn't refer to the slur that you did by calling their workforce "gypsies" but to the resource locality problem solved by an app.
I would argue that the use of the word gypsy is actually a slur against Romani people. I'm a little confused by your comment as you seem to be implying that a gypsy is a bad thing and it's thus offensive to the drivers to be called gypsies.
I hope I'm misinterpreting because that's like getting mad at Alice for calling Bob a n*, not for using a racist slur, but because it compares Bob to a black person.
It is an innovation that works on purely economic grounds.
He was insinuating that Uber's innovation was cheap workers and then slurring these as "gypsies". It's easier to point out somebody's smear than it is to describe their misunderstandings related to innovation and domain knowledge, so my attack was on his method not his content.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locality_of_reference
Edit: You can't honestly downvote me based on a discussion from first principles of why something was innovative or can you? Sigh.
As a response to your original post, I would argue that the term gypsy is widely considered derogatory, and that I was not saying "how dare you call somebody a gypsy". I was saying that I felt that he was purposefully using it as a derogatory smear. I think it's fair to assume that he was using it as a smear and I think it's interesting that you wish to defend him by accusing me of the same thing that I accused him of.
You're perverting my intention which was to point out that he was normalising a smear as a negative externality to defending his anti-Uber beliefs and that this isn't okay.
The term gypsy is widely considered derogatory, but it is also widely used and accepted as normal by people unaware of that.[1] I don't think it's fair to assume pico was using it as a smear, but in the ignorant casual sense that people refer to illegal cabs as gypsy cabs, or say they got "gypped". Still insensitive, but I don't think he was trying to use a slur.
I'm not trying to defend his usage. You're right, it's not okay. But I think there is a distinction to be made in educating someone as to the history of a word vs. assuming they used it intentionally.
[1] In Conan O'Brian's documentary, there's a scene where an attendee of his show says to him something like "we got jew'd", to which Conan says "you know I'm part Jewish, and my producer over there is Jewish?". And the guy says "sorry...we got gypped" and then everyone carries on like it's normal. Meanwhile I was like "wait, that doesn't bother you in the exact same way?".
That's not Uber's innovation, since livery cars are not allowed to accept hailed fares in most places anyway. The only difference is an app instead of traditional voice.
I don't understand your point about gypsies; "gypsy cab" is a pretty widely understood term for an illegal, unlicensed cab. At least, Uber seems to think so: http://blog.uber.com/2013/08/18/stay-safe-avoid-gypsy-cabs/
I didn't know that "gypsy cabs" was a legitimate term of description to use to describe unlicensed cabs. I think it still sounds offensive, but I guess that would mean that he wasn't the instigator.
If you mean "disruption" - lowering the prices of a cab by bypassing regulation - not really.
they bypassed the regulation artificially limiting supply - medallions. Such limit of supply has nothing to do with public interests/safety/etc... and in many cases actually goes against the public interest.
It possible that the regulations are too strict, and I don't support medallions, but I don't support Uber breaking a number of other regulations - e.g. surge pricing, insurance, drivers that actually know the city (in e.g. London).
Does any other city have such a strict knowledge test as London? Certainly it's not common.
With that in mind, if you support the Knowledge requirement in London: do you think that other cities should have their own Knowledge? Or that London is a special case? Or do you think the Knowledge itself is too strict, but something like it is good? Or...?
well, good luck, as i obviously didn't have enough luck to successfully use taxi when i tried even with a working phone :)
>To keep the price sustainable, cities limit the supply of taxis. In exchange taxis need to obey some rules (e.g. can't reject people).
And Santa Claus is real.
>It possible that the regulations are too strict,
who cares what regulations are if taxi service is that bad and thus the regulations are worthless? What happened with Uber (AirBNB/etc...) is the classical case from Hegelian dialectic - when situation gets that bad, that "badness" is a fertile soil from which a principally new solution emerges which fundamentally changes the situation - in western world such process is called "disruption". Attempts to reverse the situation after that is, like our Borg friends like to say, futile.
Would you mind elaborating on the idea of sustainable pricing?
I ask because it sounds not too far away from, for example, "With the goal of artificially inflating the price of transportation, for the benefit cartel members, we will constrain the supply". See OPEC. This type of collusion is typically considered to be anti-competitive, and not in the best interest of society overall, or of the market counterparties. Silicon Valley's "No Hire List" conspiracy is another example of cartel action to manipulate market price for the cartel's benefit - in that case, illegal.
Why should the government support a specific type of private business (taxi companies) in this way? Competition is a good thing - we ought to encourage taxis and other transportation companies to compete with each other and offer the lowest price. I don't in general want my government to prop up businesses that cannot survive on their own (moral hazard, among other reasons), especially if society can solve the same problems with businesses that thrive naturally. To make this claim, there needs to be an objective way to define what a "sustainable price" is. Can such a thing be defined? (except as follows)
The fair market price is the sustainable price. Anything else is unsustainable and will only persist as long as artificial constraints are applied, such as arbitrary limitations on supply. This is not healthy, and harms the market and the consumer (deadweight loss). A functioning market balances supply and demand naturally through the negotiation of price.
Do other forms of transportation such as long-haul trucking or air travel require limitations on the number of trucks or planes in order for their markets to function effectively? It seems as though they don't. We expect airlines and trucking companies to compete with each other in order to offer the lowest price, and these days consumers select airlines largely on price. Why is regulation to artificially constrain supply necessary for taxis but not trucks or airlines?
It seems to me that such regulation is in fact not necessary, and not in the best interest of society; but is rather regulation that has resulted from "regulatory capture", and protects certain vested interests, at the expense of other transportation companies like Uber and Lyft, as well as the general consumer.
Surge pricing is a good thing, and if regulations prohibit it, then that's another example of undesirable regulatory intervention in a market. Surge pricing is another concept that's effectively standard and well-accepted in air travel: if you travel when it's busy, the fare will cost more. I discussed surge pricing in a previous comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8720969 The consumer protection issue of fixing taxi fares so that people don't get taken advantage of by unethical cabbies does not apply to Uber.
I am not sure about the insurance issue, but I agree that Uber ought to be required to provide whatever insurance is conventionally required by vehicles in that category. Perhaps that's taxis when comparing to UberX, and private towncars when comparing to Uber.
The problem with markets is that they optimize only on profit/price. However, there are things that I (and I believe the population at large) value that cannot be optimized using simple market dynamics with no regulation. For example, I expect there to be taxis on the road, even if the demand is very low. Another is, as I mentioned previously and you agree, insurance. Yet another is cooperation - it is beneficial for a city to mandate that there is only one app/protocol for hailing taxis, whereas for private companies it makes sense to each create its own walled garden and prevent new competition from entering.
Of course, all of the above could be created by carefully-constructed regulation (or appropriate economic incentives), but simply limiting the supply of taxis along with a small number of rules is the easiest way to do it. Ideally, we'll get better regulation; while Uber will probably make us reach that goal faster, I hope the end result is not like Uber.
I'm divided on surge pricing, but I definitely see no reason for surge pricing on "predictable" events, such as Friday night. Even for "unpredictable" events, such as rain or even a hockey game, I think it would be better if people would be able to hail taxis on the street, or on a first-come-first-serve basis. On the other hand, I realize that surge pricing can increase supply, but the very existence of surge pricing can also lead to market manipulation - suppliers waiting until surge pricing is in effect, so that they get a higher fare. In effect, (if I understand correctly) since surge pricing is not momentary (when it starts, it doesn't end until sometime later), Uber is creating a free market distortion itself.
Your argument about a unified protocol is weird. It's not like there's a central place I can call to get a cab. There are many cab companies with different numbers. There is very little difference to me between having to look up a cab number and using an app to call a cab. And how is it even beneficial to have one app/protocol for hailing a cab? Beneficial to who? I would rather choose the service I prefer over time based on my experience with them and my preferences. The city doesn't need to dictate that for me.
For the record, I strongly dislike Uber's business practices. I think there should be regulation for stuff like background checks of drivers, insurance, etc. Just as the food industry has regulations for health and safety.
But the taxi business overall has no reason to be regulated in terms of limiting cabs on the road or how they're accessed, just as there is no regulation on how many restaurants there can be in town, when they're open or whether you can make a reservation or not.
Can you explain why these things that the population values at large would not be profitable? Obviously that can be true for public goods, but individual or small group point-to-point ground transportation (taxis) is not a public good. The fact that you expect things that are extremely inefficient is not a very good reason.
Simply said, the fact that I can always get a taxi makes it more viable for me to not own a car. Less cars in a city mean more space and less traffic, both of which are desirable for the entire population of the city, and both of which have significantly more positive payoff than the cost of some minimum amount of taxis on the street at all times. Therefore, in my eyes, it makes sense to enforce such minimum via regulation, even though it is not profitable (and will manifest itself in an increased fare for other, more profitable rides).
My biggest concern with surge pricing is the apparent lack of transparency. According to my friends who use Uber, the app will give the estimated cost that doesn't account for (at least not fully) the surge pricing--to the extent of an estimate $15 fare actually being over $90.
If people know before they make the request/get in the car, there are still issues of what they thought was a viable option for getting home suddenly turns out not to be, but without surge pricing to boost supply, it may well not be anyway in such situations, so, like you, I'm divided.
My worst Uber experience is better than my best cab experience. I don't know anyone who's tried Uber here who would go back to using cabs except as a last resort. I don't understand why people would prefer a random almost untraceable taxi (Unless you memorize or document the license # of every driver, assuming it's even legit) over a known GPS tracked Uber. Perhaps things are different in other cities.
"I don't know if this is legally feasible, but my inclination would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber," the commissioner of Portland's Bureau of Transportation, told the Times. "Lyft seems like a respectable company, and Uber seems like a bunch of thugs."
It is a bit shocking to hear a public regulator talk like this. A regulator's role should not be to pick and choose winners between two (essentially identical) companies based on personal preference.
What if a few missing/implied words were added in that related to earlier parts of the conversation?
> my inclination would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber
becomes
> my inclination based on the legal interpretation of how these companies have operated would be to allow Lyft here a long time before Uber
His quote remains an opinion, the only missing context is whether this opinion is based on the legal arguments in the case or a purely personal opinion or external set of information that would show a bias away from the legal arguments.
He even said in the prior sentence "This is about one company thinking it's above the law". Again, implying that Lyft are following the spirit of the law as well as the letter, and Uber are following the letter and not the spirit (and thus working as many loopholes as possible to 'win' in-spite of the wishes of the people of the affected cities that they do so in accordance with the wishes of the people of those cities).
I think this is not shocking at all, it's how it's supposed to be. Shocking is how some companies wish to ignore the codified will of the people of a city (or state, or country) purely to turn a dime. And yes, it's also shocking that some representatives of the people are corrupt as hell and that the written law has enough holes in it to fly a 747 through.
But a representative of people's tax dollars standing up to ask for companies who operate within a city to do so in accordance with the wishes of those who pay the tax dollars is not shocking, it should be the norm
By definition, the codified will of the people is the letter of the law. The "spirit of the law" is what politicians kind of want to happen, but never actually passed a law for.
Also, the "will of the people" is a nonsensical concept by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...
I don't know what "will of the people" means if not a ranked preference. Maybe you can explain?
That's basically what Arrow's impossibility theorem says. Due to its limited inputs, a preferential voting system will necessarily fail one of the three fairness criteria.
There are far better voting schemes out there, none of which are affected by Arrow's impossibility theorem.
As it applies to this situation, it's moot - Portland did not express any cardinal preferences.
[1] Non-private goods introduce other incentives that prevent spending from tracking desire.
For example, if a group of people by some social process comes to a consensus then arguably this represents the "will of the people". Thus it makes sense to reason about this concept without requiring the existence of ranked preferences.
The whole point of Arrow is that you need some very strong assumptions (e.g., cardinal preferences) to define a "will of the people". The only real world expression of cardinal preferences is a set of supply&demand curves, however - based on this the "will of the people" says Uber should exist.
The point I am trying to make through the last n posts is that Arrow's theorem does concerns the impossibility of a certain, narrow-minded formalization. It is therefore incorrect to conclude that 'the "will of the people" is a nonsensical concept by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem', which is what you had claimed.
I have nothing to say about the people and churches of England.
You either have a coherent definition of "will of the people" that goes beyond consensus, or you don't. If you do, give the definition.
The "people", not being an individual or an AI or whatever, has a more complex preference vector than a ranked list. The real world is more complex than that.
So can we now agree that Arrow's Impossibility Theorem doesn't apply to all of democracy, that these things are nuanced and there is a long and deep conversation about this kind of topic that has been going on in the human race for centuries, and that frankly, pointing to technical flaws in established, stable enough systems that were set up by people with a hell of a lot less information about anything than us hundreds of years go is not going to do anything to prevent that system from operating in the way that it does or to convince people who have vested interests in it remaining stable?
It won't apply if you can assign cardinal numbers to the options, but I doubt that's what you have in mind.
Theorem: Hitting your thumb with a steel hammer, instead of hitting the nail, hurts like crazy!
Problem: The pain of a smashed thumb is bad.
Solution: Use an iron hammer. The requirements of the earlier theorem don't apply.
The spirit of the law is the programmer's intention, the design document, the thing the customer wants you...to...build.....
Right, okay, I've changed my mind. That's nebulous.
In my opinion, this is actually one of the only points of accountability for a corporation growing unchecked (which has this many varying complaints against them and some think act like thugs)
It appears the lawsuit is mostly for "false advertising" and (as stated in the LA Times article) the damages are perhaps in the low dozens of millions. The complaint perhaps focuses on the background check system.
I can't find a copy of the actual complaint, but looks like it's "business tort": (via http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/online-services/verify?f=cnq ) Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Case Number: CGC 14 543120 Title: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC A DELAWARE CORPORATION ET AL Cause of Action: BUSINESS TORT
IMO the Mercury News article spins the magnitude of this lawsuit a bit too hard. Yes, Uber will probably pay (once again) for its hubris, but it's mostly gonna be dirt off its shoulders ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7HAYkB-gH0 ).
> Uber's background checks ... have become a worldwide
> issue: The company was banned in New Delhi ... drivers
> there had to produce a certificate of strong character
> signed by police ... a bribe of about $130 would easily
> garner the document
Just because the article is not well written, don't uber is not at fault.
I'm really keen to see if their growth startegy works and if they're able to dominate the industry; or become one of those companies that rises too fast and falls quickly.
Met a young kid recently, claimed he had the idea for Uber too.. Told him, it's all about the execution.
I'd expect the lawsuit against Uber will not be the last. They have really got to keep on top of their legal department to protect stakeholders.
Would you care to explain? (I'm genuinely curious)
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/block-quora-login-...
(I mean free as in money, I am OK giving Quora ad dollars and building a social profile of myself)
I've had startups PM me for advice, feedback, done Skype chats etc. I always try to help people when I can as I was once in their shoes. People have also helped me out too.
I dig anything related to tech, I enjoy using HN and Quora, and I feel - by only limiting yourself to one service, limits your knowledge. That's why I use both.
The sign in thing with Quora, did really bug me at the start, same goes for the dirty thing Facebook Messenger did - once, you can get over that, you might actually enjoy it.
Back on topic, Uber is everywhere in the news!
This manifests itself as off-topic, intellectually dishonest comments whose main purpose is to push an agenda, not to engage in real discussion.
While this may be a great media/PR strategy, its also a pretty good litmus test as to whether you're a respectable human being imo.
Taxi companies dominate the taxi industry, it seems to me: they're shutting down Uber in more and more places.
I'm not anti-Uber or at least anti-disruption for the taxi industry. Here in Italy the taxi lobby is strong and very, very much against any kind of change or liberalization, and can use pretty nasty tactics themselves when they feel threatened.
http://corrieredelveneto.corriere.it/padova/notizie/cronaca/...
They're definitely hurting, but I don't think it's "game over" just yet. But it seems to be a critical moment for them.
Go Lyft.