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

Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

bostonglobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 120 posts

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#21

Post by jmckib »

gambiting wrote: post #10

>>Most notoriously, attaining “The Knowledge” required for a taxi license involves memorizing hundreds of routes, business locations, and places of interest throughout the city. Charming, but expensive — and quite unnecessary in the age of smartphones. Says a person who has never been to London and doesn't understand the enormous benefit of intimate knowledge of all the streets of London and how to navigate them quic…

I understand that it's useful for a taxi driver to have this knowledge, but do we really need the government to impose it as a strict requirement? One could imagine multiple taxi services that compete on different axes. One service, competing on price, could have less knowledgeable drivers equipped with GPS devices. Another service, competing on its drivers' knowledge, would be more useful for taking you to obscure locations or navigating the streets quickly.

It's like any other industry, really. Can you imagine if short order cooks were required to have the same encyclopedic knowledge as the chefs in a high end restaurant? You'd just end up with some very expensive diners.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#22

Post by arethuza »

blcknight wrote: post #6
Argorak wrote: post #2

The article concentrates on aspects that are certainly archaic - the expectancy that a taxi driver knows every street in a city. On the other hand, it totally ignores the benefits of the regulation: the client can have normalized expectations over all businesses. E.g. in germany, your insurance status if an Uber car crashes is unknown - it depends whether the driver is insured. On the other hand, it is clearly regula…

At least in Berlin, with an app that I can also use to pay like Uber (mytaxi), I can have a pristine regulated taxi (usually a newish Mercedes) to my door in five minutes. And it costs 30% less than Uber. But in the US, you have idiotic cities where taxis are expensive and some even charge per person, are dirty, dilapidated cars with rude drivers. Uber is nice there..

I have a similar view of the taxis here in Edinburgh - I use the same taxi company both for work and personal trips and they are great, can use an app or IVR to book really easily.

The taxis are always spotless and the drivers very pleasant.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#23

Post by jsmeaton »

gambiting wrote: post #10

>>Most notoriously, attaining “The Knowledge” required for a taxi license involves memorizing hundreds of routes, business locations, and places of interest throughout the city. Charming, but expensive — and quite unnecessary in the age of smartphones. Says a person who has never been to London and doesn't understand the enormous benefit of intimate knowledge of all the streets of London and how to navigate them quic…

This is the first thing that jumped out at me. Taxi drivers in London are brilliant.

Try using a Taxi in Melbourne. Most of the drivers don't know the most basic of knowledge. Main roads in the city? No idea. The casino? "Could you direct me?". Getting into a bloody Taxi in the city for a fare less than 20kms is a lesson in patience. You often have to lie about where you're going until you get into the cab.

Regulations aren't the problem. Most regulations exist for good reason, and there should be more of the better ones (and less of the worse..).

I've used Uber and really like the service when I'm going a fare (sorry) distance. But they are just as bad, if not worse, than cabs when it's only a short trip around the city.

I believe both services could co-exist, but something drastic needs to happen to shake up the Taxi business. Perhaps charge a higher flag-fall and a smaller per km rate. Try to increase the rate of owner-drivers rather than a lease out to drivers. There has been a lot of discussion in Melbourne about how to improve the service, but so far it seems to be getting worse.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#24

Post by crag »

gambiting wrote: post #13
lukasm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really a problem? If he's not insured you're just gonna sue him or Uber.

Suing takes time, and even if you succeed the person/company might not be able to pay. Insurance companies pay out immediately if there are medical bills to pay.

"Insurance companies pay out immediately if there are medical bills to pay."

That's not true at all. And it REALLY depends on which state (in the USA) you are in. Florida for example is a no-fault state. Which means, basically, insurance companies are on the hook for the first 10k. Which is about how much it coast to mend a broken leg. Anything above that requires a lawsuit. And you don't sue the insurance company. You are suing a person (or company).

Lawsuits take time. Lots of time.

A taxi driver in Florida has different requirements. So does the company he drives for. The amount they pay out is much higher. Also, not every issue requires a lawsuit. Sometime you just get a bad driver. With Uber, who you gonna complain too? Uber?

In most states, complaining to the taxi commission is a serious offense and has to be answered by the driver and company he drives for.

I don't have a problem with Uber itself. If people want to drive others around, fine. BUT totally unfair to require taxi drivers to be licensed and not the Uber drives. It's unfair to make the taxi driver (and company) have much higher insurance requirements than Uber and it's divers. And it's unfair to the rider. If you are in an Uber car and you have a wreck; you better hope that driver has more then "what's minimum" for insurance. Chances are, he doesn't. And you're fucked.

PS: This is true for car services, and even courier services too, by the way.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#25

Post by jsmeaton »

jmckib wrote: post #21
gambiting wrote: post #10

>>Most notoriously, attaining “The Knowledge” required for a taxi license involves memorizing hundreds of routes, business locations, and places of interest throughout the city. Charming, but expensive — and quite unnecessary in the age of smartphones. Says a person who has never been to London and doesn't understand the enormous benefit of intimate knowledge of all the streets of London and how to navigate them quic…

I understand that it's useful for a taxi driver to have this knowledge, but do we really need the government to impose it as a strict requirement? One could imagine multiple taxi services that compete on different axes. One service, competing on price, could have less knowledgeable drivers equipped with GPS devices. Another service, competing on its drivers' knowledge, would be more useful for taking you to obscure l…

We have several companies operating in Melbourne and they are all awful. We don't have any (decent) requirements as far as road knowledge goes. I've also been to London, and the experience with cabs there was wonderful. The requirement to pass a substantial test is a fantastic one, and should be adopted in more places.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#26

Post by rmc »

gambiting wrote: post #10

>>Most notoriously, attaining “The Knowledge” required for a taxi license involves memorizing hundreds of routes, business locations, and places of interest throughout the city. Charming, but expensive — and quite unnecessary in the age of smartphones. Says a person who has never been to London and doesn't understand the enormous benefit of intimate knowledge of all the streets of London and how to navigate them quic…

>> quite unnecessary in the age of smartphones.

Maybe in the USA, which always gets first class treatment from US tech companies when it comes to maps. In the rest of the world, which doesn't have as good as policy of open government data, or consitant addressing schemes, smartphones aren't always a wonder tool.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#27

Post by yason »

gambiting wrote: post #10

>>Most notoriously, attaining “The Knowledge” required for a taxi license involves memorizing hundreds of routes, business locations, and places of interest throughout the city. Charming, but expensive — and quite unnecessary in the age of smartphones. Says a person who has never been to London and doesn't understand the enormous benefit of intimate knowledge of all the streets of London and how to navigate them quic…

This would simply translate to the choice between a) using Uber with the driver relying on a navigator unit and possibly driving slow and/or unoptimal routes but with a cheaper price vs. b) traditional taxis that cost more but really know the city. (Or try to get an Uber driver with good ratings for local knowledge, if Uber supports that sort of rankings.)

In a city that has mostly bad taxis, I'd choose Uber. I London I might just not.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#28

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

gambiting wrote: post #10

>>Most notoriously, attaining “The Knowledge” required for a taxi license involves memorizing hundreds of routes, business locations, and places of interest throughout the city. Charming, but expensive — and quite unnecessary in the age of smartphones. Says a person who has never been to London and doesn't understand the enormous benefit of intimate knowledge of all the streets of London and how to navigate them quic…

To be honest. I find "The Knowledge" vastly overrated. Uber drivers have given me a much better and consistent experience than black cabs to the point where I stopped using black cabs altogether.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#29

Post by thret »

yeureka wrote: post #3

I am not a fan of the medallion system, but Uber does seem to impact the businesses of traditional, local cab drivers while raking in profits on a global scale. It looks like a perfect middle-class job destroying operation that centralizes profits in one multinational company. As someone put it, those with the more powerful computers will win the economic spoils.

As someone who regularly uses taxis in Melbourne, I don't care if it destroys the lives of taxi drivers. That's just another perk of switching to uber in my opinion.

Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are

#30

Post by icebraining »

jsmeaton wrote: post #25
jmckib wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that it's useful for a taxi driver to have this knowledge, but do we really need the government to impose it as a strict requirement? One could imagine multiple taxi services that compete on different axes. One service, competing on price, could have less knowledgeable drivers equipped with GPS devices. Another service, competing on its drivers' knowledge, would be more useful for taking you to obscure l…

We have several companies operating in Melbourne and they are all awful. We don't have any (decent) requirements as far as road knowledge goes. I've also been to London, and the experience with cabs there was wonderful. The requirement to pass a substantial test is a fantastic one, and should be adopted in more places.

I'd rather pay cheaper fares, but thanks for deciding for me.
Post reply on HN