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

51–60 of 120 posts

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

#51

Post by tragic »

dasil003 wrote: post #42
vertex-four wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For people who want to get around cheaply, London has an excellent mass public transport system, between the tube, buses, and intra-city train services.

You mean if you want to get around quickly . If you want to get around cheaply you need to buy a bicycle (or take a Barclay's bike and keep it under 30 mins).

Really? £1.40 will get you from Lewisham to Newington Green if you're prepared to take a bus[1].

By comparison, back in my lovely hometown of Plymouth, a two and half mile bus hop will set you back 3 quid. (Fortunately, the taxis are cheap.)

London transport, for what you get, is great value. And it's definitely better than any other big city I've had the pleasure of visiting. Londoners moan about it, but then no matter how efficient or economically enticing, an urban mass transport system will always be associated in the mind with hellish rush-hour commutes, and thus a germane subject for grumbling.

[1] http://tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/21

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

#52

Post by vertex-four »

dasil003 wrote: post #50
vertex-four wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By cheaply I meant cheaper than a taxi. There's always a limit to how cheap vehicles powered by electricity or fuel, and which involve human employees, and which use a common causeway (whether that's rail or road), can be. £2 to rent a bicycle for 24 hours seems pretty reasonable, btw. I live in a city where I'd kill for that.

It's actually £50 to rent a Boris bike for 24 hours. £2 is 24-hour access , but only if you keep the journeys under 30 mins. The £90/year is a pretty good deal actually (even after they doubled it from £45 which it was for the first year), I still pay for it even though I own a bicycle just for the convenience of supplementing my walking speed at will.

Ah, that's a bit of a bummer. Still, I might try it out on Sunday to see exactly how far 30 minutes gets me, as I'm there for the weekend and have a free day.

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

#53

Post by thmcmahon »

icebraining wrote: post #30
jsmeaton wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem with cabs is the information asymmetry. You dot know before you're getting in how good their knowledge is, this means that knowledgeable drivers can't charge more and you get a 'market of lemons'. This is a classic form of market failure, and is a strong case for regulation.

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

#54

Post by colinbartlett »

mcv wrote: post #43
dia80 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a spinal cord injury (snowboarding) and use a wheelchair as a result of having no sensation/movement below my chest. One of the most annoying consequences is being unable to move around London quickly. The tube is inaccessible, buses are slow and you often have to have a pitched battle with pushchairs. Black cabs provided a relatively quick/convenient method of transport since they all have a ramp - not withou…

This is easily the best (and possibly only good) argument I've seen in favour of traditional cabs. The right kind of regulation can dramatically improve accessibility to people who are otherwise at risk of becoming marginalised. Unregulated competition always has the risk of marginalising minorities because they might be too small to be an attractive market.

What Uber is aiming for is not "unregulated competition" but ANY competition at all. Something that doesn't exist in many taxi markets.

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

#55

Post by vertex-four »

stuaxo wrote: post #49
vertex-four wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For people who want to get around cheaply, London has an excellent mass public transport system, between the tube, buses, and intra-city train services.

Buses and trains are not exactly cheap, and trains stop at about 12.

They're certainly cheaper than any taxi I've ever taken in my life.

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

#56

Post by gsuubvjhsb »

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…

Then choose a different taxi from Uber/Lyft. Why impose these rules if mutually consenting adults want to engage in a transaction between each other?

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

#57

Post by anu_gupta »

icebraining wrote: post #30
jsmeaton wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who's stopping you? London has thousands of mini-cabs. Just google London minicab, and phone one of the numbers.

Have you actually ever been to London?

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

#58

Post by gsuubvjhsb »

mcv wrote: post #43
dia80 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a spinal cord injury (snowboarding) and use a wheelchair as a result of having no sensation/movement below my chest. One of the most annoying consequences is being unable to move around London quickly. The tube is inaccessible, buses are slow and you often have to have a pitched battle with pushchairs. Black cabs provided a relatively quick/convenient method of transport since they all have a ramp - not withou…

This is easily the best (and possibly only good) argument I've seen in favour of traditional cabs. The right kind of regulation can dramatically improve accessibility to people who are otherwise at risk of becoming marginalised. Unregulated competition always has the risk of marginalising minorities because they might be too small to be an attractive market.

This doesn't make any sense. Subsidized cabs can coexist with the likes of Uber/Lyft. Do you think subsidized apartments don't exist or something?

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

#59

Post by dasil003 »

tragic wrote: post #51
dasil003 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean if you want to get around quickly . If you want to get around cheaply you need to buy a bicycle (or take a Barclay's bike and keep it under 30 mins).

Really? £1.40 will get you from Lewisham to Newington Green if you're prepared to take a bus[1]. By comparison, back in my lovely hometown of Plymouth, a two and half mile bus hop will set you back 3 quid. (Fortunately, the taxis are cheap.) London transport, for what you get, is great value. And it's definitely better than any other big city I've had the pleasure of visiting. Londoners moan about it, but then no mat…

You're right about buses being cheap if you can get a direct route. However during peak periods that will potentially take hours, easily 2-3 times as long as cycling.

I also agree the value of London transport is excellent, but I'm just saying it's not cheap. Especially if you are looking at tube/train/tram/bus transfers it starts to add up shockingly fast. Even with a travelcard I'd be paying £141.40/month which is just too much to swallow when I only have a 6-mile commute and arrive in the same amount of time as the fastest tube. Plus with the crowds, disruptions, strikes, "persons under a train" and other random commuter trauma I just can't say enough good things about cycling in London.

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

#60

Post by theklub »

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.

You make it sound like the Wal-Mart of Taxi operations, not saying you're wrong.
Post reply on HN