Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 178 posts

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#31

Post by zo1 »

BadHumans wrote: post #26
farhanhubble wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.

I feel like you just ignored everything else that was said and just zeroed in on the one thing that aligns with your viewpoint.

Not OP. But I theorize that almost every single ill plaguing society on a large level ATM can be traced back to a specific government action or refusal by the government to act.

Homelessness? Check. Drunk driving fatalities? Check. Domestic violence? Check. Abusive monopolies on single-person transportation? Check.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#33

Post by Izkata »

farhanhubble wrote: post #22
lysp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further to that, taxi licences were limited in number and sought after. So it became less of driving a taxi and more about financial investment. People bought dozens of licences and leased them out. It no longer became about driving taxis and was more an investment. As soon as Uber came, those who invested heavily were left holding a useless (or heavily reduced) investment.

Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.

The argument I've heard before (about the medallion system in the US, which had the same result as what GP described with licenses) was that since roads are a limited resource, this prevented too many taxis from causing excess traffic just driving around looking for customers.

It's an interesting argument because having the app connect customers means they don't have to drive around aimlessly, which almost sidesteps the problem (they still have to pull over somewhere but aren't necessarily causing traffic).

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#34

Post by protocolture »

EarthMephit wrote: post #11
joegibbs wrote: post #3

It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then you sue them and win for beating you? Imagine that in any other scenario. Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers. Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instea…

At the end of the day, Uber broke the Australian laws as they stood (even if you didn't agree with them). If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations?

Sure but the responsibility is always to break unjust laws. And in this instance they were able to demonstrate why the laws were unjust and succeeded in getting them changed. There shouldn't be consideration for unjust laws. Its like suing a german car company for not using enough slave labor. "Its the Law" is just a rhetorical was to shut down debate. It should never have been the law, and when it was contested it no longer was.

>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested.

You shouldnt have been. Thats the point.

>Why are there different rules for large corporations?

The large corporation defeated cabcharge dominance for all of us. They get minor consideration for that.

Uber took us from a situation where a single large corporation had a complete monopoly, to a place where multiple large corporations compete, a place where you technically have the right to compete against them. They flattened the rules, they didn't create a new rule where only they get special consideration.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#35

Post by pjd7 »

Taxi's in NSW/Sydney are much better these days. Uber X are typically shit by comparison.

A $95 UberX ride home is about $109 in a taxi for me.

Talking to a few friends who also live a similar distant from the CBD/downtown find that Taxi's are the better / more reliable option these days too.

The taxi is pretty much always newer, with a professional driver who usually isn't almost falling asleep behind the wheel. The quality of the driving is typically significantly higher. It feels like a safer ride.

Of the recent UberX's I have caught, the car was typically in need of a suspension replacement or significant servicing and around 6-7 years old or older.

Most recent taxi rides I have had a car around 12 months old or less.

Taxi's are better regulated and provide a better service. I'll happily pay the little premium there is in this market to use one over an Uber.

On a recent trip to NZ the uber to taxi price comparison was massively different.. Taxi was like 2.5x more expensive..

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#36

Post by resolutebat »

It's worth noting that Australian taxis are generally terrible. They're expensive and notorious for ripoffs, particularly from the airport: scenic routes, bogus surcharges, "broken" credit card machines (plus 5% surcharge when they do work), drivers refusing destinations (by law they're not allowed to), and to top it all off they're not even safe, with taxi drivers responsible for a long string of sexual assaults.

Uber and its competitors have their own problems, but they're still way better, and they've forced positive change onto taxis as well with 13CABS (the largest company) now offering an Uber clone app with fixed fares, tracking, etc.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#37

Post by abigail95 »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #19
lannisterstark wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I had started an illegal gypsy taxi business I would have been fined or arrested. Why are there different rules for large corporations? Shouldn't you be wondering why is it illegal for you to do the first thing rather than the last? Why shouldn't you be able to start what you call a 'gypsy taxi business.' what's the need for arresting you? Is it that authoritarian of a nation?

do you disagree with all laws or just ones meant to protect workers' wages?

if ride sharing didn't exist wages would be lower. companies like uber increase wages, see Seattle's law reducing the pay of drivers by enforcing minimums.

those laws do not protect wages, uber was right to protest them.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#38

Post by protocolture »

weq wrote: post #14
NoPicklez wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they missed reading that. Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.

The prices of cartel approved taxi plates crashed from ~200-150k to ~20k overnight once the market saw that the gov was letting Uber continue operating. Uber didnt compete on the same field, they created a new game, that was completely illegal in Australia, on another field. If a regular joe did that he would gaol. This payment compentsates those taxi licence holders who held the dip.

Irrelevant. Uber flattened the market, removed cabcharge dominance. And removed the barrier to entry for other players.

Just because the barrier to entry was a tradable government stamp is irrelevant. There shouldnt have been a barrier in the first place.

Uber, in a weird, stupid, modernity sucks way, brought justice to an industry that had been unjust for a very long time. Love them or hate them, cabcharge is worse.

>If a regular joe did that he would gaol.

Also bad. The government and taxi lobby should not have set up a situation where giving a ride for money could lead to incarceration. This doesnt support your point, it just further illustrates that the situation was unjust until uber acted.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#39

Post by kijalo »

nonethewiser wrote: post #29
Retric wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.

How are they a taxi company? Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing.

Disagree there. I think most people would prefer uber over taxi for service/convenience/cost, but I doubt modern uber would be considered that different to a taxi service.

Re: Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

#40

Post by joshuaissac »

nonethewiser wrote: post #29
Retric wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.

How are they a taxi company? Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing.

> Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing

Uber operates primarily as a taxi service with an app

Ride sharing is a non-core feature called UberPool, which lets users share Uber taxis with other users.

Post reply on HN