Live data from Hacker News

Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

bizjournals.com

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#11
Looking at the debates there are in local governments in the US, it's interesting to look at how Uber has been received in London.

In London, we've had a setup for licensing 'mini-cabs' for almost a decade (and they've been around for far longer than that). In essence, they are all registered and regulated by a central authority, in a similar (but much less strict) way to London's famous black cabs. The difference being that mini-cabs are normal cars, that must be prebooked.

In that sense Uber fit right in, they're just another (one of 100's, if not 1000's) mini-cab providers. So for us in London, Uber hasn't really been revelatory at all except in the app driven aspects of their service (which is great).

There's always been a tension between liveried cabs and these 'mini-cabs' in London, and that's something that's been really interesting to see played out in different markets in the US. Especially when it's tied to the more prevalent laissez-faire attitude that the US has to market regulation.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#12
post #4

What are the arguments in favor of this regulation? I'm sure that anti-competition lobbies from limos, cabs, etc. play a role, but is there something safety-related as well? And if so, why would 150 Lyft drivers be safer than 400 Lyft drivers?

I don't subscribe to it, but:

Taxis negotiated their monopoly by giving us concessions for e.g. universal service (a taxi, unlike most businesses, is obligated to serve any customer regardless of whether their custom is the most profitable use of the taxi's time). This allows us to depend on taxis as an outsourced component of our public transportation infrastructure. If competition creams the really desirable fairs away from taxis, that might kill taxis. DSX has no desire to implement universal service and never will. This will adversely affect our most vulnerable citizens, like little old ladies who depend on the $3.50 fare to the local supermarket (whose custom taxi drivers hate) due to limited mobility.

How can we be sure drivers at DSX have adequate insurance, safe driving records, and obey the traffic laws? DSX says that they have adequate procedures in place, but DSX has basically designed those procedures itself, and on the face of it DSX seems to operate under accept-everyone-and-weed-out-underperformers, which still means that at any given time there are dozens of commercial drivers who we know nothing about operating on the streets of our fair city.

We depend on "if you screw up, you lose your medallion" to discipline taxi owners (as opposed to operators) in this city. "If you screw up, your account gets deleted and you have to move to a competing provider" doesn't apply the same level of incentive.

If Disruptive Service X (DSX) will let literally anybody with a car start working for them, how can we be sure that DSX isn't a summon-a-rapist app? Cars present a higher risk of rape/kidnapping than e.g. barber salons (n.b. which we also regulate), since a) they move and b) the passenger generally doesn't have a convenient escape out of the door.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#13
post #11

Looking at the debates there are in local governments in the US, it's interesting to look at how Uber has been received in London. In London, we've had a setup for licensing 'mini-cabs' for almost a decade (and they've been around for far longer than that). In essence, they are all registered and regulated by a central authority, in a similar (but much less strict) way to London's famous black cabs. The difference be…

That laissez-faire attitude, to the extent it exists at all, is generally only aimed at the federal and to a lesser degree state level. At the local level the voter involvement is so low that corruption and pandering to special interests are the norm.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#14

I'm genuinely curious: what is it that distinguishes these services from taxis? Why is it okay for one to be regulated but not the other -- or do proponents of these services generally think that taxis shouldn't be regulated either?

In a big city like NYC, taxis are part of an overall transportation system. Regulating them ensures that they are available where and when they are expected to be. People plan their activities around the functioning of that system.

Naturally, a different system might work better or worse. A worse outcome would be more people taking their own cars into the city because they need or want quick access to a vehicle.

Regulating the number of cabs probably helps deal with traffic congestion, and also makes it potentially possible for drivers to earn a living wage. However, I can see where on-call cars are a different situation because they would serve a different purpose.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#15
post #7

Same as AirBNB. If you can't beat them... lobby to ban them.

I'm fine with abolishing almost all those regulations - they are a huge barrier to entry, and they serve very little public good. However, hotel rooms are highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not - apartment rents are often rented at submarket prices under rent-control schemes, yet the tenants charge full fair to rent out their rooms. Right now, AirBNB and Uber are basically trying to avoid all regulations by pr…

The intermediary argument is over-used, but I doubt AirBnB is trying to fight hotel on the cost aspect: most of the time, they tend to be similarly priced. They don’t really recommend price at all. My impression was more that hotels (like taxis) abuse the market by strangling the offer, and forcing people to upgrade when they don’t care about luxury.

The company was started to help political operative (the most amenable form of interns) to find a dry place to nap during conferences: that sounds like a specific, unaddressed need rather than a tax evasion scheme.

> highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not - apartment rents are often rented at submarket prices under rent-control schemes,

Actually, the handful of people operating ‘hotel-like’ plans (short-term flat-share, really) that you refer too are always doing it from recently build, not rent controlled, purchased flats, for all sort of reasons; they all explicitly mention that operating anything significant from a rent-controlled flat will get you out in the street faster than you can list your flat.

The classic case is this ‘let’s limit the number of license for safety reasons’: if you want high-grade manure, that is top-shelf bullshit. I went to San Francisco once, and I never felt so much in danger than in that cab: no seat belts, speed limits were for the wuss that he was honking at through-out, he gave multi-tasking an Olympic status; even looking at the (packed) road was too much for him. To the point we felt the need to call the company, if anything to make sure whomever would surely die in there soon would have proper insurance. Let’s say we were told in no uncertain terms that we were alive, therefore our livelihood was not supposed to be our concern. Same for rats in hotels: I don't mind an accident, but I expect action, not denial. I don’t understand how limiting the market is going to have a positive impact on service when the human touch is… lacking.

I chose AirBnB because they had interesting features, as in, creative business model that make they offer relevant to XXIst century dweller: personal contact, restaurant recommendations from our host that make sense, a Wifi router that I can physically access when it needs rebooting, free access to kitchen that won’t charge me a day’s worth of wage to toast two slices of bread at night, significant rebate when staying more than a couple of days.

> hotel rooms are highly taxed, while most AirBNB rooms are not

As you point out: they are intermediaries, and I’m positive they wouldn’t care charging extra tax. I would put them on a list, and that list could be artificially limited, making them possible victim of a lobbying effort by hotel chains who want to keep a stronghold on a market, rather than admit it has evolved and adapt -- so I understand their reservations. But passing taxes is generally a business-neutral act, so I doubt they care that much. Once again: look and compare, they are not trying to be cheaper than hotels.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#16
post #4

What are the arguments in favor of this regulation? I'm sure that anti-competition lobbies from limos, cabs, etc. play a role, but is there something safety-related as well? And if so, why would 150 Lyft drivers be safer than 400 Lyft drivers?

The arguments in favor are that the taxi cab companies and the local governments have a deal going on. A regular cab pays taxes and fees to the government and if people stop taking regular cabs, all of a sudden a stream of revenue stops coming in. Also, cab companies are losing a lot of drivers and business to services like UberX, Lyft and Sidecar. I've been in many UberX cars in San Francisco where the driver is actually a cab driver, but just hates the way the cab business is run.

The cab companies have an inferior business model and lobbying is the way they compete. Welcome to the political game.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#17

I'm genuinely curious: what is it that distinguishes these services from taxis? Why is it okay for one to be regulated but not the other -- or do proponents of these services generally think that taxis shouldn't be regulated either?

In a big city like NYC, taxis are part of an overall transportation system. Regulating them ensures that they are available where and when they are expected to be. People plan their activities around the functioning of that system. Naturally, a different system might work better or worse. A worse outcome would be more people taking their own cars into the city because they need or want quick access to a vehicle. Regu…

Regulating them ensures that they are available where and when they are expected to be.

But does it really? A study[1] from 2000 shows that the availability is not that great in NYC. Any why should it be, if the regulations cap their number?

Regulating the number of cabs probably helps deal with traffic congestion, and also makes it potentially possible for drivers to earn a living wage.

Why, if most drivers can't afford the medallions and end up having to work for the few that can? In fact, the same study shows that as industry revenue grows, the wages don't follow.

Frankly, this is typical of regulations as they're implemented in the US and other countries (including mine). It's the Bootleggers and Baptists all around, which mostly end up feeding the capitalists at the expense of lower classes.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/17/nyregion/riders-know-study...

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#18
post #12
post #4

What are the arguments in favor of this regulation? I'm sure that anti-competition lobbies from limos, cabs, etc. play a role, but is there something safety-related as well? And if so, why would 150 Lyft drivers be safer than 400 Lyft drivers?

I don't subscribe to it, but: Taxis negotiated their monopoly by giving us concessions for e.g. universal service (a taxi, unlike most businesses, is obligated to serve any customer regardless of whether their custom is the most profitable use of the taxi's time). This allows us to depend on taxis as an outsourced component of our public transportation infrastructure. If competition creams the really desirable fairs…

The universal service concession is the most convincing argument to me; rape and kidnapping the least. After all, each DSX user by necessity has a mobile phone in their hand, and the entire trip from initiation to arrival is scrupulously monitored and recorded by DSX. Not much possibility of crime, at least without being quickly caught.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#19
post #9

I'm genuinely curious: what is it that distinguishes these services from taxis? Why is it okay for one to be regulated but not the other -- or do proponents of these services generally think that taxis shouldn't be regulated either?

Taxis can be flagged down on the street. All you have to go on is that it looks like a taxi, and has a medallion. If they aren't part of a regulated system with mandatory fares, medallion numbers, safety regulations, you have no idea what you'd be getting into when you flag one down without some kind of regulation. These, instead, generally count as livery services. If you are calling a specific business to be picked…

Thanks, this is what I was looking for. There's a livery service in Seattle called "Seattle Town Car" and now I'm wondering what kind of regulation they face. From what I can tell, Seattle isn't quite a city like Chicago or New York where being able to flag down a cab on the street is both common and important, and I wonder to what extent that plays into the dynamic.

I wasn't generally interested in attacking or defending regulation as such, but the most compelling thing I've heard in favor of regulation is that livery services don't have the same legal obligation as taxi companies to offer vehicles which can serve handicapped people.

Re: Uber, Lyft crackdown in Seattle may be followed in other cities

#20

Fuck, I sincerely hope our generation (early-mid 20s) do not react like crusty sheltered curmudgeons in 15-30 years when they occupy these positions of power and are confronted with something they've never seen before. I'm not too hopeful though. One of the few constants in life is that while individually people may change, groups of them rarely do.

of course existing companies are going to fight back by any means possible. You can't expect them to lay down a carpet for Uber.
Post reply on HN