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

61–70 of 120 posts

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

#61

Post by sirsar »

alkonaut wrote: post #44

Of course regulation is needed. Insurance, car-standard, driver skill, all of that has to be known by the customer merely by the fact that you are stepping into a taxi. Can there be too much regulation, too archaic? Sure, but I can't see how that motivates sidestepping it entirely. In Stockholm, taxis (normal ones) are regulated in terms of insurance etc. but unlike most other cities, taxi prices are not regulated. T…

> Can there be too much regulation, too archaic? Sure, but I can't see how that motivates sidestepping it entirely.

Sidestepping lots of regulation is the only way to get around the archaic parts. There certainly won't be a referendum on taxis.

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

#63

Post by gsuubvjhsb »

PinguTS wrote: post #36
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…

There is a thing called: customer protection. This applies for all sorts of products and services. One of those services is taxi as part of transportation. Part of this is, that drivers are educated, trust worthy and the vehicles are in good shape as well as having a minimum insurance in protection of the customer. Also if you have 2 or more companies competing over who has the best service, that is good. But all of…

So you're basically saying that mutually consenting adults shouldn't be able to choose their own taxi arrangements, correct?

Comparing this to food safety is quite ludicrous. You can sell apples without an "apple vendor" license.

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

#64

Post by makomk »

dasil003 wrote: post #59
tragic wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's cheap compared to the rest of the country. Outside of London it's barely worth thinking about taking buses even if there's a direct one. Hell, I've taken a bus that literally dropped me on the doorstep of where I was going and regretted it - the bus was so irregular it'd have been quicker to walk and the tickets overpriced.

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

#65

Post by dia80 »

gsuubvjhsb wrote: post #58
mcv wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Point is they are plentiful - I can hail a cab in minutes but if they become rare I could wait 30 minutes for the 'special' cab to show up.

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

#66

Post by warfangle »

jsmeaton wrote: post #23
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. Regulatio…

Even in NYC, if you need to take a cab from Manhattan to one of the other boroughs, you often have to give them directions.

It's frustrating because there's usually a small language barrier, and they know Manhattan just fine. Some have satnav/smart phones, but usually they do not - and end up relying on my smartphone for turn by turn directions.

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

#67

Post by mhb »

alkonaut wrote: post #44

Of course regulation is needed. Insurance, car-standard, driver skill, all of that has to be known by the customer merely by the fact that you are stepping into a taxi. Can there be too much regulation, too archaic? Sure, but I can't see how that motivates sidestepping it entirely. In Stockholm, taxis (normal ones) are regulated in terms of insurance etc. but unlike most other cities, taxi prices are not regulated. T…

Why do you conclude that the unregulated taxi prices aren't lower than they would be with regulation?

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

#68

Post by Shivetya »

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.

Well if Uber or similar cannot serve this population then it would mean competition is not going to totally kill off existing services which do. He is already making a choice not to use public transportation not because it does not support his need but fails to meet his desire.

Not providing a service is not discrimination, refusing to provide is. Uber and others can simply have selection criteria listed for owners who support disabled or even large people. If there is a market for it I am sure people will step up.

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

#69

Post by penguat »

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.

There's also the parking issue: especially in the rush hour, they can be hard to find parking spots for.

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

#70

Post by hershel »

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.

I think there should be an UBER competitor ,that really helps cities build their own clone effectively.

If that's possible politically , it would be interesting : the cities would have regulatory power to win over UBER, this very critical business that's might just be the future of transport will be in public hands and hopefully will be guided to the good of the community, and drivers will be compensated fairly.

But getting the politics right is very difficult.

Post reply on HN