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

Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

universalhub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

#61

Post by eridius »

sqs wrote: post #58
kyro wrote: post #19

I felt I got burned by Uber the first time I used them during Hurricane Sandy when I was charged a hefty fee because of their dynamic pricing. I gave them another try a month back and now find myself using the service no fewer than 5 times a week. It literally eliminates every thing I hate about calling a cab. I love it now and almost rely on it at times. I make sure to ask every single new driver about their experie…

Yes, I've also gotten universally positive feedback from all of the Uber drivers I've talked to (Uber Taxi, UberX, and Uber Black in SF). Whenever I take non-Uber cabs, I ask about Uber, and the response is also usually positive. Some of them say they have already applied to Uber and are waiting to hear back. The one negative thing about Uber that I've heard is from a non-Uber cab driver who said that Uber is bad bec…

Unless Uber manages to actually kill off the taxi industry, which seems extremely unlikely, then the anonymous travel option has not been lost.

Re: Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

#62

Post by modeless »

People talking about the dangers of completely unregulated cabs are missing the point. Unregulated cabs that you hail randomly on the street are dangerous because you have no way to verify that the cab is actually from the company it claims to be, and no way to punish the driver if he lies to you (or worse). You are completely at the mercy of the driver.

Uber is completely different from randomly hailing a cab on the street, because you can verify that the cab is from Uber and you can punish bad drivers with bad ratings. If you have a bad experience in an Uber cab, it reflects badly on Uber's brand, so Uber has a strong incentive to punish bad drivers. That's why services like Uber don't need the same regulation that regular cabs do.

Re: Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

#63

Post by eridius »

joubert wrote: post #6

In New York, cabbies are not allowed to refuse you ride a particular neighborhood either. I never announce where I want to go before I get in (I have some friends in BKLN). One time I did get a driver who bitched about having to take me somewhere. So I made an overt stretch to look at his details posted inside the car, and then pretended to be taking a note of it. He VERY quickly complied. I didn't have to say a word…

The complaint about Uber refusing rides to certain neighborhoods confuses me. When has that ever happened? Uber specifically doesn't ask you where you're going when you hail the cab, and if you enter it anyway (because there's a button that gives you that option), I believe it doesn't show that to the driver until they've already picked you up and started the trip.

Basically, Uber made a conscious decision to not inform the driver where you're going until you're already inside the car, specifically to prevent drivers from ignoring requests to go to certain neighborhoods.

Re: Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

#64

Post by RandallBrown »

pifflesnort wrote: post #32
newbie12 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, the medallion systems exist to block new competition. Sure there are some regulations that seem to favor consumers-- such as price controls-- but these are a short-term benefit, and at the cost of reduced innovation. Far better to allow competition, and customer service will improve through market action rather than government rule-making.

Unregulated innovation often innovates fraud and crime when you're talking about unmarked, unregulated cars driven by unknown people, picking people up off the street. If you go anywhere in the world with less strict taxi regulation, you'll run into this. In Prague, my wife and I hopped into a cab only to find that the meter seemed to exist in a time bubble that ran 10x faster than the rest of the known universe. I a…

And hailing a random car on the street should be regulated. Uber is not something you hail randomly on the street though. You hail it through their app, so you know that the car picking you up is actually an Uber car.

Re: Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

#65

Post by pmikesell »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #46

Can someone explain uber to a UK reader who does not understand what the fuss is? I can see its some sort of aggregation service for taxi cabs, but I generally like using one particular firm, that I know vets its drivers well. Some (men & women) I know stick to women only driver firms and so forth. A nice UI is good but I dont get it?

The big difference is that you are logged in and you request a car with your account. You've essentially rented the car from the moment you hit ok.

Why does this matter? Because it means the car will actually show up.

I live in San Francisco. The cabs here are terrible. You can't actually call a cab and have it show up. Most cabbies will pick up another fare if they see one on the way to you. Doing things like getting to the airport or generally arriving anywhere on time is nearly impossible if you have a 30 minute swing based on how many times you have to re-call the cab company to actually get somebody to show up.

Want to be responsible and not drink and drive after that party? Don't count on getting home from a cab.

Re: Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

#66

Post by rada »

joubert wrote: post #6

In New York, cabbies are not allowed to refuse you ride a particular neighborhood either. I never announce where I want to go before I get in (I have some friends in BKLN). One time I did get a driver who bitched about having to take me somewhere. So I made an overt stretch to look at his details posted inside the car, and then pretended to be taking a note of it. He VERY quickly complied. I didn't have to say a word…

This kind of sentiment comes up a lot, and I am sorry, I find it kind of revolting.

There is this notion that cabbies are discriminating against the downtrodden, but in reality, they are the downtrodden. They are low-income, immigrant people who, unlike you, actually live in those outer boroughs. People who need money so badly that they will drive a cab for a living.

You, on the other hand, are a wealthy dude. A dude with so much disposable income that you can throw $20-$40 at a cab instead of taking the subway for free. (Free as in, you already have an unlimited metro card, yes? And $20-$40 is just one way, yes? And you do this every weekend, yes?).

So you, the wealthy dude, have the law on your side. Apparently, your need for low-cost on-demand, luxury transportation trumps the basic human right to free will. Apparently, mostly white, wealthy people need to be protected from being discriminated against by mostly brown, poor people. Apparently, when a laborer refuses to take on dangerous work or insufficiently compensated work ^, we must bring in the government guns and show him who's boss.

(^) It's always money or personal safety. Discrimination has nothing to do with it and I find it rather humorous that cab takers project their own racist attitudes onto cab drivers, seeing as I don't recall a while cabbie once during my 15 years in NYC.

Re: Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

#67

Post by rdouble »

rada wrote: post #66
joubert wrote: post #6

In New York, cabbies are not allowed to refuse you ride a particular neighborhood either. I never announce where I want to go before I get in (I have some friends in BKLN). One time I did get a driver who bitched about having to take me somewhere. So I made an overt stretch to look at his details posted inside the car, and then pretended to be taking a note of it. He VERY quickly complied. I didn't have to say a word…

This kind of sentiment comes up a lot, and I am sorry, I find it kind of revolting. There is this notion that cabbies are discriminating against the downtrodden, but in reality, they are the downtrodden. They are low-income, immigrant people who, unlike you, actually live in those outer boroughs. People who need money so badly that they will drive a cab for a living. You, on the other hand, are a wealthy dude. A dude…

Cabbies used to routinely discriminate against whomever they felt like, mostly black and brown people who needed to get uptown. That is why the laws prohibiting refusal to take you were you want to go were instated in the first place.

Re: Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

#68

Post by mjn »

newbie12 wrote: post #25
adrr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm i think regulations came because the of the sorry state of taxis. I don't know how many times i've been ripped off in a taxi. I assume people complained and the taxi industry got heavily regulated. Just look outside the US for comparison.

Nope, the medallion systems exist to block new competition. Sure there are some regulations that seem to favor consumers-- such as price controls-- but these are a short-term benefit, and at the cost of reduced innovation. Far better to allow competition, and customer service will improve through market action rather than government rule-making.

> Nope, the medallion systems exist to block new competition.

That might be why they persist, but the main historical reasons that led to the introduction of tax licenses were: 1) to ensure a certain level of scrupulousness and geographical competence among drivers; 2) to reduce safety incidents caused by poorly maintained vehicles (initially carriages, later automobiles); and 3) to reduce taxis' contribution to traffic congestion by limiting their absolute numbers.

The British Parliament introduced the first such system in the 17th century, responding to concerns expressed by Londoners that thousands of "hackney hell carts", driven by unscrupulous fellows and poorly maintained, were overrunning the city.

Of course, there are now alternate approaches, so maybe the idea should be modified. Vehicle safety is today taken care of separately by mandatory vehicle inspections for all roadworthy vehicles. Congestion could be dealt with through market forces by charging tolls to drive in the busiest areas during peak times, as London has already started doing.

Re: Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

#69

Post by rada »

rdouble wrote: post #67
rada wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of sentiment comes up a lot, and I am sorry, I find it kind of revolting. There is this notion that cabbies are discriminating against the downtrodden, but in reality, they are the downtrodden. They are low-income, immigrant people who, unlike you, actually live in those outer boroughs. People who need money so badly that they will drive a cab for a living. You, on the other hand, are a wealthy dude. A dude…

Cabbies used to routinely discriminate against whomever they felt like, mostly black and brown people who needed to get uptown. That is why the laws prohibiting refusal to take you were you want to go were instated in the first place.

Your point that there is a historic basis for the law is well taken. However, history is not an excuse, especially when it comes to forced labor (cough, slavery, cough).

Also, when you say "used to routinely", you are projecting. The press made it into a banner issue, but really, think about it. "Uptown" used to be very, very poor, and poor people don't take cabs.

Re: Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court

#70

Post by [deleted] »

rada wrote: post #69
rdouble wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cabbies used to routinely discriminate against whomever they felt like, mostly black and brown people who needed to get uptown. That is why the laws prohibiting refusal to take you were you want to go were instated in the first place.

Your point that there is a historic basis for the law is well taken. However, history is not an excuse, especially when it comes to forced labor (cough, slavery, cough). Also, when you say "used to routinely", you are projecting. The press made it into a banner issue, but really, think about it. "Uptown" used to be very, very poor, and poor people don't take cabs.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN