Hacker News Reader

Comment by boothead | Hacker News Reader

I took my wife to Paris last year. When I turned up a taxi tout (I assume for an un-licensed taxi) offered to get us to our hotel (about 6 km away) for 100 euro. When I demurred he kindly lowered the price to 60 euro. I ordered an uber, which picked us up in ~10 mins and the total cost was 20 euro.

So while I sympathize with taxi drivers, they really can't expect consumers to not prefer something that's manifestly better for them.

BTW in London, before uber a black cab might cost me £60-70 to get home if I'd missed a train. An uber now can be as little as £25, which is low enough that I can just not worry about the terribly unreliable and sparse trains and plan my trip home that way.

View on HN

When someone comes to you to offer you a "taxi" service in France, it's pretty certainly a scam (especially with a price like that). A licensed taxi has a sign on the roof, doesn't randomly offer you its service, and its price is regulated. It never would have cost you even 60€ for 6 km. It would have been roughly the same as with the Uber, maybe a bit cheaper.

The question of whether you would prefer a licensed taxi or an Uber is a different one which I won't get into for now :)

The problem is that I now have to know, for every country I visit, what their taxi regulation laws are and how they enforce them. With Uber, I know the brand, and I can just expect not to get scammed.

For international travelers it's the franchising aspect that is most appealing.

Uber operates in countries where their services are not in compliance with the local legislation (or operate in a gray area), and are operating until they get to a court case that will decide whether it is legal or not.

So if you don't know the local taxi regulation, your Uber might get pulled over by the cops who take the driver and you're left in the middle of nowhere. This has happened in Helsinki, for example (where the local taxi service is very reliable, albeit somewhat expensive and may be busy at certain hours).

In general, when visiting a country, you are expected to roughly know what the local legislation is.

So getting pulled over for using a trusted brand with a reputation at stake instead of the local tourist-preying cabs is supposed to be proof of the value of taxi regulation?

There are no tourist predator cabs in Helsinki because the cops stop anyone suspected of running an illegal cab service, including Uber rides. Many of the horror stories of getting ripped off in this thread have indeed been pirate cabs with no regulation behind them.

There might be some reasonable middle ground but I'm quite happy paying for a reliable, regulated service despite it's flaws rather than a wild west situation.

But the problem is that you can be taken advantage if even with a regulated cab, and indeed people report that this is a typical experience.

Legal != no rip-off

And I know there is a regulated dispute resolution procedure. But so far Uber/Lyft seem to be a much better process for that too.

Just a simple advice: When someone comes to you to offer you a "taxi" service everywhere in the world, be careful, it might be a scam. (One time, I've been robbed of all of my money in Vietnam accepting an offer like that) The best thing to do is to go to a taxi terminal or stop a car with TAXI written on it.

A while back in at Nice airport I was trying to get a cab into town. The licensed taxis with taxi signs on them were quoting us about twice the metered fare to get in. I actually wandered over to tourist info and asked if the cabs were not supposed to work at the official fares and they just kind of shrugged as if to say what can we do. You can see why consumers would not be too keen on the situation.

I think that Taxi fares on Paris are fixed: http://www.taxis-de-france.com/professionnel/tarifstaxis.htm So it is quite estrange what you are telling. Maybe it was a pirate taxi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_taxicab_operation)?

It was almost certainly a pirate taxi.

I guess my point was that using the same app I use in London and knowing that I'm not going to get ripped off in a strange* city was quite nice

* that's strange as in unfamiliar ;-)

In general I agree with what you're saying. I also use Uber and enjoy Uber a great deal. But I think it's important to understand that a) There's a very good chance that your fare is subsidized by venture capital and does not reflect a "true" fare and that b) this subsidization, like any subsidization, will drive non subsidized competitors from your marketplace which can result in c) Uber deciding to no longer subsidize the true cost of a fare and you having a marketplace with far less competition.

Uber takes 20% cut on the fares and taxi drivers are happy to take the deal. By what process do you think venture capital is subsidizing the fare?

You're right - all of these things are of concern.

The incumbents never really seem to make an argument beyond shrieking that their protected racket is being disrupted though. I remember one hilarious picture on the news of a cabbie f-ing and blinding to a reporter out of his window at a protest against uber. Just behind him in his cab was a sign saying "cash only".

When an innovation comes along and starts stealing your lunch, screaming that you were here first isn't really going to help you much!

I'm under the impression that this violates US anti-trust laws - is this not the case?

It's called "predatory pricing," but I think you must usually prove that the intent is specifically to eliminate your competition - simply selling below cost isn't illegal, AFAIK (IANAL).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

Especially if your process is legitimately more efficient.

Are you really comparing Uber to conmen trying to trick tourists into expensive rides? Of course it's better than that. I'll also add that Uber is better than being mugged, assaulted, or pickpocketed. So what?

You get what you pay for. If you're happy to entrust your life into a random untrained uninsured stranger, then go ahead and get the cheaper unregulated taxi.

Regulations didn't save John Nash from dying in a traditional taxi. If you're happy to entrust your life to a random stranger that's shielded from market conditions/feedback, then go ahead and get the regulated taxi.

You think market conditions will make taxis safer? Why do you think we have OSHA? Why do you think selling products with lead paint in them is illegal?

Market forces help consumer massively. To expensive? don't choose them. Not safe enough? Dont choose them. Crappy cars? Dont choose them Etc etc

Restricting markets, so you can only use politician approved services is the exact opposite of helping the consumer.

Too expensive? Well I don't really have a choice....

Market conditions have made transportation safer. Two way rating systems, accessible GPS, drivers #, drivers picture, driers location, arrival time etc.

Those aren't market conditions, they're technological advances.

These qualities are present because they were superior to the previous market provider, in order to compete in a free market your product or service has to be superior in some manner. Competitive market forces like safety, efficieny (both price and liquidity) are what makes Uber successful.

No laws dictated these qualities, no legislation demanded this level of safety. These practices were conceived via market forces, and safety was a by product.

This is a fairy tale.

> ...in order to compete in a free market...

The entire point of Uber is that the taxi industry is not a free market, therefore the things necessary to compete in a theoretical "free market" are not relevant and can't be assumed to be why Uber is successful.

Uber uses roads that were designed to comply with government safety regulations and their drivers drive cars designed to comply with a different set of government safety regulations. Those regulations exist because experience has shown that they need to.

Please read the rest of the post, it addresses your concerns. If we're unable to stay on topic I cannot continue this conversation.

Which post addresses which concerns?

Unless I'm wrong you're arguing that Uber is safe and efficient because market forces made it so. It's efficient because of technological advances and it's safe literally to the extent required by law.

Because they've opted out of the regulations their competitors are subject to Uber could offer a a more dangerous and less efficient service than current taxi companies and still "compete".

Safety precautions are in fact codified by law. Uber is in the business of breaking the law and ignoring all regulations. The fact that they have a substitute that follows the spirit of the regulations if not the letter and provides safety is the only reason governments have chosen to allow Uber to exist. The safety precautions Uber has ARE required by regulation, though implicitly; they act as a substitute which makes Uber's lawbreaking far less egregious.

I'm pretty sure that the taxi that was being touted for the first time was also unregulated, so it's extremely unclear here what 3x my money was going to get me.

Quality of black cabs and mini-cabs in London in also wildly variable. At least with uber you can actually leave a bad review (I'm not sure what comes of those) but I get a response on bad reviews at least.

Never had a bad black cab ride. I'd trust any black cab driver over software/GPS etc.

Almost every black cab ride I've ever had has been great - and they most certainly know how to get round London better than a newly minted uber driver with google maps. However if you've never had a black cab with the driver spouting racist/misogynist/anti immigration rhetoric they whole journey, then you haven't lived ;-)

A lot of taxi drivers grew up when London was part of England, before it became a "global city". It's unsurprising that they miss those days when it was still culturally part of England.

If you're happy to entrust your life into a random untrained uninsured stranger, then go ahead and get the cheaper unregulated taxi.

Except the whole point is that taxi license owners want to prevent me from doing that.

Yes, illegal, unregulated services tend to be cheaper.

What a groundbreaking discovery.

Well, sure, that's true. But let's augment that discovery: Illegal, unregulated services preferred by customers on both price and quality, despite substantial disadvantages (street hails, airport pickup nonsense, etc).

That should kind of leave you asking: exactly who are those regulations supposed to be protecting, anyway?

The answer is taxi drivers.

I had the same experience. Uber was routinely cheaper than taxis in France. And hailing with an app is astoundingly better than waving at cars in the rain.

You can't hail a taxi in France. Either you wait at a designated spot that bears a Taxi sign, or you need to call for them.

There are a few apps that work great in Paris like 'Taxis Bleus' and are more convenient than Uber since you can get a taxi to pick you up in a few minutes (they are usually more taxis around you than Uber cars).

Having said that, I'm all for competing cab services. The French taxi system has been games to protect a the taxi drivers at the expense of the users, resulting in high prices and an less convenience (can't hail a taxi).

What? You can definitely hail a taxi in France. It can sometimes be very hard to find one that is free, but there's no law that says you have to either call for them or go to a taxi stop.

I stand corrected. I don't remember what persuaded me to the contrary. It's nevertheless a daunting task compared to the experience you get as a user in many other countries.

This comment is just absurd!. Great deal of ignorance and not knowing in it... waka-waka

Please - do enlighten me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com