In London, we've had a setup for licensing 'mini-cabs' for almost a decade (and they've been around for far longer than that). In essence, they are all registered and regulated by a central authority, in a similar (but much less strict) way to London's famous black cabs. The difference being that mini-cabs are normal cars, that must be prebooked.
In that sense Uber fit right in, they're just another (one of 100's, if not 1000's) mini-cab providers. So for us in London, Uber hasn't really been revelatory at all except in the app driven aspects of their service (which is great).
There's always been a tension between liveried cabs and these 'mini-cabs' in London, and that's something that's been really interesting to see played out in different markets in the US. Especially when it's tied to the more prevalent laissez-faire attitude that the US has to market regulation.
The Chauffeur's license exam includes background checks, tests for common infectious diseases (tuberculosis), and a basic knowledge test of the city.
Uber does background checks, but they don't test for TB and I've had three UberX drivers that didn't know where Lake Michigan was when we were two blocks away from it.
Also, licensed taxi drivers have a number that you can report to 311 for safety purposes.
I think Uber could have avoided a portion of this backlash if it would have taken more steps to ensure safety-parity while side-stepping the medallion limitations.
I'm a big fan of Uber, but the insistent ratings are really annoying. For example - I take a ride, the car is fine, the driver is a little annoying, there is traffic and but we get there. Is that a "5" star ride? a 4 star ride? a 3 star ride? To me, 3 stars is average. to Uber, 3 stars is "you're fired." doesn't make sense.
Not to mention - how the heck would I know if he was vaccinated? that's just gross to contemplate. What if we rate him a 5, but then i get hospitalized with some crazy sickness later? and I thought taxis were dirty - i take it back.
Maybe public health officials might know something after all.
This isn't empty scolding. As "software eats the world" and tech companies start trying to compete in "meat space" industries, it will be imperative for them to understand why things are done the way they are, and how fruitful progress can be made without creating unnecessary friction by simply ignoring settled expectations. People won't react well to someone just plucking the onion out of the varnish unless he can demonstrate that he understands why the onion was in there to begin with, and articulate convincingly why it no longer needs to be in there.
I totally agree that the structural compromise that led to taxi monopolies need to be revisited. But not because Uber and Lyft change the market dynamics in any relevant way. These monopolies need to be revisited because highly regulated markets like that have proven to become a liability over time, and the deregulation experiment in the U.S. over the last few decades has shown that lightly-regulated markets function better.
"...the deregulation experiment in the U.S. over the last few decades has shown that lightly-regulated markets function better"
Uh, I'm really not interested in an economics debate, but I think many people would disagree with that blanket assertion. The deregulated electric market in California springs to mind as one counter-example.
Some of the supposedly evil taxi regulations that Uber has been fighting here in DC actually seem pretty reasonable to me. I'm OK with Uber drivers being required to have extra car insurance and the city making sure that the GPS-based meter system is accurate.
Has anyone looked at if taxi companies actually hold up their end of the bargain? In Baltimore taxis routinely refuse to make pickups in various parts of town either because they are out of the way or because they are perceived to be "bad".
With something like a taxi that you hail from the street and don't know what you are getting into before you get in some light regulation is reasonable for accident and scam reduction But a brand like Uber that achieves those same goals through different means shouldn't be pushed out of existence and of all laws to pass limiting the number of drivers is just a blatant attempt to protect existing taxi's
The fact that businesses still routinely use that piece of jargon suggests to me that they're completely stuck in the tech bubble.
But we have seen it before, these are just illegal unlicensed cabs. There is literally nothing separating Uber from an illegal cab, except that they've got an app for that.
These, instead, generally count as livery services. If you are calling a specific business to be picked up, you know who you're dealing with ahead of times, and can check their rates, choose based on their reputation, etc.
At least in Boston, Uber drivers are regulated, but as livery not as taxis, as you "call" them rather than hailing them directly on the street.
I wasn't generally interested in attacking or defending regulation as such, but the most compelling thing I've heard in favor of regulation is that livery services don't have the same legal obligation as taxi companies to offer vehicles which can serve handicapped people.
Others are simply opposed to all industry-specific regulations, and a few are opposed to the concept of the State as a whole ;)
And yes, as far as I've read, many are opposed to caps on all taxis, not just on Uber/Lyft.
Naturally, a different system might work better or worse. A worse outcome would be more people taking their own cars into the city because they need or want quick access to a vehicle.
Regulating the number of cabs probably helps deal with traffic congestion, and also makes it potentially possible for drivers to earn a living wage. However, I can see where on-call cars are a different situation because they would serve a different purpose.
But does it really? A study[1] from 2000 shows that the availability is not that great in NYC. Any why should it be, if the regulations cap their number?
Regulating the number of cabs probably helps deal with traffic congestion, and also makes it potentially possible for drivers to earn a living wage.
Why, if most drivers can't afford the medallions and end up having to work for the few that can? In fact, the same study shows that as industry revenue grows, the wages don't follow.
Frankly, this is typical of regulations as they're implemented in the US and other countries (including mine). It's the Bootleggers and Baptists all around, which mostly end up feeding the capitalists at the expense of lower classes.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/17/nyregion/riders-know-study...
Do you actually believe that? Because I don't see how it could possibly be true. Uber does a better job of providing cars when and where they're needed than any other cab company I've ever seen. Not only to they make it easy for drivers to work part time to accommodate higher demand during peak hours they also provide service to areas of cites where taxi drivers flat out refuse to go despite their supposed regulated status to provide service to all parts of the city. I've talked to people who use Uber in Baltimore about it for example and before Uber they would routinely be stranded in bad parts of town or off the beaten path areas and the taxi dispatcher would literally laugh at them if they called for a pickup.
With regards to the restrictions, the primary backers of the bill in Georgia were existing limo companies. I would be surprised if similar groups are not the reasons for the problems such companies face in other states.
Taxis negotiated their monopoly by giving us concessions for e.g. universal service (a taxi, unlike most businesses, is obligated to serve any customer regardless of whether their custom is the most profitable use of the taxi's time). This allows us to depend on taxis as an outsourced component of our public transportation infrastructure. If competition creams the really desirable fairs away from taxis, that might kill taxis. DSX has no desire to implement universal service and never will. This will adversely affect our most vulnerable citizens, like little old ladies who depend on the $3.50 fare to the local supermarket (whose custom taxi drivers hate) due to limited mobility.
How can we be sure drivers at DSX have adequate insurance, safe driving records, and obey the traffic laws? DSX says that they have adequate procedures in place, but DSX has basically designed those procedures itself, and on the face of it DSX seems to operate under accept-everyone-and-weed-out-underperformers, which still means that at any given time there are dozens of commercial drivers who we know nothing about operating on the streets of our fair city.
We depend on "if you screw up, you lose your medallion" to discipline taxi owners (as opposed to operators) in this city. "If you screw up, your account gets deleted and you have to move to a competing provider" doesn't apply the same level of incentive.
If Disruptive Service X (DSX) will let literally anybody with a car start working for them, how can we be sure that DSX isn't a summon-a-rapist app? Cars present a higher risk of rape/kidnapping than e.g. barber salons (n.b. which we also regulate), since a) they move and b) the passenger generally doesn't have a convenient escape out of the door.
The cab companies have an inferior business model and lobbying is the way they compete. Welcome to the political game.
Right now, AirBNB and Uber are basically trying to avoid all regulations by pretending to be just middlemen, but that argument is transparently bullshit.
The company was started to help political operative (the most amenable form of interns) to find a dry place to nap during conferences: that sounds like a specific, unaddressed need rather than a tax evasion scheme.
> highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not - apartment rents are often rented at submarket prices under rent-control schemes,
Actually, the handful of people operating ‘hotel-like’ plans (short-term flat-share, really) that you refer too are always doing it from recently build, not rent controlled, purchased flats, for all sort of reasons; they all explicitly mention that operating anything significant from a rent-controlled flat will get you out in the street faster than you can list your flat.
The classic case is this ‘let’s limit the number of license for safety reasons’: if you want high-grade manure, that is top-shelf bullshit. I went to San Francisco once, and I never felt so much in danger than in that cab: no seat belts, speed limits were for the wuss that he was honking at through-out, he gave multi-tasking an Olympic status; even looking at the (packed) road was too much for him. To the point we felt the need to call the company, if anything to make sure whomever would surely die in there soon would have proper insurance. Let’s say we were told in no uncertain terms that we were alive, therefore our livelihood was not supposed to be our concern. Same for rats in hotels: I don't mind an accident, but I expect action, not denial. I don’t understand how limiting the market is going to have a positive impact on service when the human touch is… lacking.
I chose AirBnB because they had interesting features, as in, creative business model that make they offer relevant to XXIst century dweller: personal contact, restaurant recommendations from our host that make sense, a Wifi router that I can physically access when it needs rebooting, free access to kitchen that won’t charge me a day’s worth of wage to toast two slices of bread at night, significant rebate when staying more than a couple of days.
> hotel rooms are highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not
As you point out: they are intermediaries, and I’m positive they wouldn’t care charging extra tax. I would put them on a list, and that list could be artificially limited, making them possible victim of a lobbying effort by hotel chains who want to keep a stronghold on a market, rather than admit it has evolved and adapt -- so I understand their reservations. But passing taxes is generally a business-neutral act, so I doubt they care that much. Once again: look and compare, they are not trying to be cheaper than hotels.
It's nothing compared to the regulatory push the teamsters will make when automated trucks begin to take on the existing industry. That said, I think it's a good lesson for SV companies and a warning to count on and prepare for government reaction to new technologies effect on regular jobs.
all these useful and innovative startups are great, but they need to learn the most basic respect for the law and its spirit. this is the nth time something like this has happened in the startup community and its embarassing.
we have taxi driver licenses and regulations for a reason. naivete isn't an excuse for blatantly circumventing them - even if you provide a genuinely useful service that we would all like to see grow and help redefine our futures...
