Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
71–80 of 120 posts
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#73Earlier 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…
You say that foreigners don't know anything, but I think most travelers would disagree. When I travel to a foreign country, I am still fully capable of researching the best hotels and restaurants, despite not speaking the native tongue. Taxi service isn't any different.
I'm not saying all consumer protection laws are unnecessary, but you have to remember that regulation has a cost. Of course, there's the cost in tax money, but also the fact that regulations are slow to change when necessary. Perhaps the largest risk is regulatory capture, which we've clearly seen in the taxi industry in a number of places. For example, from the linked article:
> In France, the proposed remedy was simple: a mandated delay of 15 minutes between ordering a ride from Uber and the passenger pick-up.
I find it inconceivable that this sort of regulation is meant to protect consumers. Clearly its only purpose is to protect the profits of traditional taxis.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't sue Uber if a driver crashes, because drivers are independent contractors. You can sue the driver, but he has no money and can just dodge the judgment in bankruptcy.
Are you sure? If I'm hit by a drunk driver I can sue the bar. All you need is one judge that thinks Uber has some culpability and you can sue away.
Absent a special law, you can only sue a business for the negligence of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior. The essence of the theory is that businesses should be liable for the risks created by their employees acting within the scope of their employment.
However, respondeat superior does not apply when the tortfeasor (the person who acted negligently) is an independent contractor. When it comes to employees, a business can reduce incidences of negligence through training, setting procedures, etc. They exert a great deal of control over how the employee does his work. That's not true in the case of independent contractors, like Uber drivers.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#75>>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…
I'm interested in hearing more about your Uber experiences. In my experience (and that of everyone I know), Uber has been great for short and longer distances. The Uber drivers don't even know where you want them to go until you're already in the car, so there's no way for them to discriminate.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So any small business or startup without name recognition should be restricted from the marketplace by a higher authority until a government entity approves its service? Is that what you're saying? Wouldn't this basically kill Ycombinator?
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#77Taxi cabs are just one of the professions suffering from the problem of competition being in conflict with professional standards (ie, self-regulation). The only option that will be fully serviceable remains government regulation, but it will need to take on a new format.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#78Earlier 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…
I can only speak for Cambridge, MA (which this article also mentions), but Uber has consistently provided a VASTLY superior experience compared to traditional Cambridge cab companies. Cambridge cabs are ludicrously overpriced; are frequently poorly maintained and old; have drivers who speak poor English, talk on the phone during the whole trip, and don't know where they are going; don't accept credit cards; have overpriced fixed cost routes to popular destinations (thanks government); sometimes won't even take a fare unless they judge it's worth their while; and are hard to find.
Contrast this with Uber where the vehicles come to you; the drivers are vetted and courteous (and can be punished if they are not); the cars are new and generally nice (I have even been picked up in Mercedes S500s and a BMW 7 series on Uber X, and my friend was once picked up in a Tesla); the payment process is simple with no bullshit about tipping; the drivers are about as knowledgeable about locations as traditional Cambridge cabs; and it's CHEAPER.
I don't normally care much about local government affairs, but if Cambridge tries to protect the inferior cab service by banning Uber, I will be at the polling stations come next election trying to vote out anyone involved.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You don't need a licence,but you need to make sure your apples adhere to hundreds of different regulations regarding food safety. The same thing here - people transporting passengers for money should adhere to regulations that make such business safe for everyone.
Re: Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If they become rare, wouldn't the market supply more cabs? I mean, how do you think food supply works?