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

Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 303 posts

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#111

Post by StanislavPetrov »

jrockway wrote: post #81
colinbartlett wrote: post #29

If the problem they are trying to solve is "too many vehicles" then we need a congestion tax. They should certainly not be limiting vehicles that are more likely to take multiple people with a Pool option. If the problem they are trying to solve is "drivers aren't making enough" then they should impose a minimum wage on drivers or force an actual employee relationship. If the problem they are trying to solve is a bai…

Yup. I'm no fan of Uber but at least the service is consistent. I remember on my first trip to NYC many years ago, I wanted to go to the airport during rush hour. No cab would stop and take me, because I looked like someone who wanted to go to the airport, which is out of their way. Apparently this is a known problem, so you're supposed to kind of hide your bag so they don't notice, then get in the cab, close the doo…

Agree with all of this except the part about enforcing the traffic laws against cars parked in the bike lanes. The NYPD is most certainly lazy and incompetent (as well as corrupt), but the issue is the bike lanes themselves. Most of the city, especially the most congested parts, simple have no room for a bike lane. The vast majority of vehicles blocking the bike lanes are making pickups or deliveries. There is simply nowhere else for them to pull over (much less park). This fact was ignored by Bloomberg and his friends when they drew bike lanes all over the place on congested roads. It may be a noble goal to have plenty of space for bikers and pedestrians, but that isn't the way New York was designed, and its not feasible as long as the residents and the businesses depend on a steady stream of deliveries, pickups, garbage removal and other assorted vehicles associated with living in a city. Giving tickets to the UPS driver who has to deliver a package at a location is just going to cost him money, not deter him from pulling over - he has no choice.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#112

Post by deltaeerie »

jroblak wrote: post #94
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the standard, clean, regulated experience I have every time I jump into a yellow or green cab Huh, haven't been in one where the driver wasn't on the phone in ages. Two weeks ago, my black friend was refused pick-up. Brooklyn-based friends are regularly refused transport. At least the credit card machine broken trick stopped a few years ago.

Every single one of those things is illegal, and can be reported.

Yeah buddy, no one does illegal things! That'd be illegal!

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#113

Post by cryptonector »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #49
romwell wrote: post #22

Alternative title: "NYC Taxi mafia strikes back, gives Uber 12 months to come up with a large enough bribe". Really, the life of nearly everyone (who's not a taxi driver, perhaps) improved a bit since Uber entered the city. Even the fabled subway in its theoretical best has been dysfunctional in Brooklyn since the takedown of streetcars a hundred years ago (see how all the tracks are running towards Manhattan and ver…

100k Uber cars is fantastic. Let's boost that to 1M and get 10x the benefit. There is a limit where all these cars become a true public nuisance. It might be less than 100k.

At some point people might stop bothering with car ownership. That would open up a number of interesting possibilities. Imagine removing all parking on some (not all) streets during the day, thus doubling or tripling their bandwidth, and also increasing the number of cars that can be operated at the same time. I'm not saying that's the answer, but that there are lots of things that could be tried here.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#114

Post by jorts »

romwell wrote: post #95
strict9 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Really, the life of nearly everyone improved a bit since Uber entered the city. Except for bus riders and cyclists that deal with much more congestion. And transit riders that deal with services changes as a result of decreased transit ridership. Not to mention behavior like drivers randomly stopping in places that weren't designed for stopped cars.

>Except for bus riders [..] that deal with much more congestion. Seattle might have a word about that. Or two. The words that start with "bus" and end with "lane". >And cyclists that deal with much more congestion. Pretty please, really? >And transit riders that deal with services changes as a result of decreased transit ridership. Right, blame decreased ridership on Uber, instead of all the problems that make people…

Cars blocking bike lanes is super dangerous, so I think it's a fair point.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#115

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

komali2 wrote: post #90
jrockway wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. I'm no fan of Uber but at least the service is consistent. I remember on my first trip to NYC many years ago, I wanted to go to the airport during rush hour. No cab would stop and take me, because I looked like someone who wanted to go to the airport, which is out of their way. Apparently this is a known problem, so you're supposed to kind of hide your bag so they don't notice, then get in the cab, close the doo…

Thank God there's no electronic push scooters there, though. That would be the tipping point /s

If you have a substantive point to make, make it.

As someone who doesn’t live in the USA it’s difficult for me to determine if your comment refers to some context I’m unfamiliar with.

Are you implying electric push scooters are a solution for people who live 20 kilometres out of the city but work there?

I’ve never been, but doesn’t it snow in NYC?

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#116

Post by cryptonector »

anonu wrote: post #64
romwell wrote: post #22

Alternative title: "NYC Taxi mafia strikes back, gives Uber 12 months to come up with a large enough bribe". Really, the life of nearly everyone (who's not a taxi driver, perhaps) improved a bit since Uber entered the city. Even the fabled subway in its theoretical best has been dysfunctional in Brooklyn since the takedown of streetcars a hundred years ago (see how all the tracks are running towards Manhattan and ver…

The flipside is this may actually be good for NYC Uber drivers. Generally I feel like they have to sweat and toil to make a living, more so than Uber drivers in other cities. This may give them some relief as supply stays constant.

That's the argument for limiting the number of taxi medallions low. And what of the drivers who now don't have that job?? Sure, you might [artificially] increase the income of the drivers that remain, but by lowering the income of the drivers that are ejected from the system. Yes, they can find themselves other jobs, but presumably if there are other jobs they could do for more money, then they already would be taking those and leaving driving behind.

Your argument is a fallacy. You ignore the harm to those drivers who end up losing their jobs.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#117

Post by tzs »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #46
pradn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real issue is that cab drivers are committing suicide because of their debts. Simple market analysis ignores the real human toll these technological changes are making. Yes, better service should be rewarded. But those hurting should get some relief. (I personally don't care too much about medallion-owning companies/groups.)

That issue is present with everyone else also, not just cab drivers. I don't see why they should be singled out for relief. If we want to provide a safety net for people obviated by technology, that has nothing to do with Uber or Lyft.

One difference between taxis and "everyone else" is that with everyone else, the business that does in their business is usually legal.

Uber and Lyft were largely operating illegally when they started in most cities. They ignored expensive licensing requirements. They ignored safety regulations. They ignored insurance requirements. They ignored price controls on fares. They ignored requirements to accommodate disabled people.

Taxi companies who were obeying all these rules (which all imposed costs on the taxi companies that Uber and Lyft did not have) had a reasonable expectation, perhaps even a right, to expect the city would force Uber and Lyft to follow those rules too, or would shut them down. But the cities didn't, so I think a good case can be made that the cities owe the taxi drivers a bailout.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#118

Post by newfocogi »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #46
pradn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real issue is that cab drivers are committing suicide because of their debts. Simple market analysis ignores the real human toll these technological changes are making. Yes, better service should be rewarded. But those hurting should get some relief. (I personally don't care too much about medallion-owning companies/groups.)

That issue is present with everyone else also, not just cab drivers. I don't see why they should be singled out for relief. If we want to provide a safety net for people obviated by technology, that has nothing to do with Uber or Lyft.

I think this concept is address well in Neil Postman's "Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change" [1]

[1] http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/classes/188/materials/pos...

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#119

Post by prolikewh0a »

misiti3780 wrote: post #79
romwell wrote: post #22

Alternative title: "NYC Taxi mafia strikes back, gives Uber 12 months to come up with a large enough bribe". Really, the life of nearly everyone (who's not a taxi driver, perhaps) improved a bit since Uber entered the city. Even the fabled subway in its theoretical best has been dysfunctional in Brooklyn since the takedown of streetcars a hundred years ago (see how all the tracks are running towards Manhattan and ver…

i live in nyc and im glad this is happening. we have a traffic congestion problem here - i dont want more ubers, lyfts or yellow cabs on the street, i want less. i wish nyc would copy london and actually tax people for enter every bridge, tunnel etc in rush hours to stop it. the law of diminishing returns is in full effect here, regardless of what the engineers and SC want to tell themselves.

I want to see a high congestion tax placed in Seattle as well. Delivery, buses, and city residents exempt...possibly vehicles with multi passengers. We're starting to get NYC traffic. I bus every morning and it takes longer to get off the exit and into the city than it does for the entire rest of the ride. I look at who's driving into the city every day, and it's 95%+ single occupant vehicles, which is unacceptable.

We have a mayor who's very anti-public transit so it will not happen anytime soon.

Re: Uber Hit with Cap as New York City Takes Lead in Crackdown

#120

Post by cm2012 »

As someone who lives in Eastern Queens, Uber has changed my life. There is no other kind of reliable taxi out here, and uber lets me live without a car.

I had to take a yellow cab the other day from a dispatcher at JFK. I normally take Uber all the time. We were going literally 20 min away to Queens.

I tell him we're going to Queens. He literally screams, "Queens?!" and storms out of the car to the dispatcher. He comes back in 2 minutes and starts driving, muttering to himself for 10 minutes after I give him the address, whining like a little bitch that he didn't get to go to Manhattan.

Fuck yellow cabs.

Post reply on HN