4 ms·

Getting Over Taxis

39 points by waffle_ss 11y ago

aluhut 11y ago
CTRL+F insurance 2 results. Right at the beginning. Nothing more. The main problem with Uber in Germany was the insurance. Fix that. Try again. I think there is a market now but that one will be gone fast as soon as we have the AI driving.
- legulere 11y ago
  Also you need a special drivers license [1], that needs to get renewed every 5 years and entails that you are mentally and physically fit (checked by a doctor) and know much about the region you're going to drive in (checked in a test). They also want to see your criminal record and traffic offense register. [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerschein_zur_Fahrgastbeförderung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerschein_zur_Fahrgastbeför...
  - aluhut 11y ago
    The Ortskundeprüfung ("local knowledge test" = learn a ton of street names) is the only problematic part of it and it needs to be reformed away.
ThomPete 11y ago
I like Uber as a consumer but I simply don't understand why people as smart as even o'reily defend their business despite them knowing the end game. Their main goal of Uber is to replace all their drivers with automated cars. As a consumer that means a lot of good things but not for those who was depending on it as an income. There is a dishonesty either to other people or to themselves that I simply don't get here.
- jayess 11y ago
  Candle makers feel taxi drivers' pain.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Thats not the point. I don't mind progress, I use Uber. But to claim that it's somehow better for the drivers than taxis when the aim is to completely replace drivers is simply missing the problem. Candle makers had plenty of other industries to go into back then and previously societies had the opportunity to re-educate they new generations. Problem is that this phase is picking up leaving more and more without any chance of re-educating themselves.
- seiji 11y ago
  Pretty sure "being a chauffeur" has never really been a growth market.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    No but it's been an income market allowing you to provide for your family. I have nothing against progress, lets just not claim that it's somehow better for the drivers. For us as consumers sure, but not for the drivers.
    - seiji 11y ago
      The goal of startups is to enrich the founders, not be a net benefit for society. If you have to destroy the world and crush employees to increase your net worth, that's just how the game is played.
    - PKop 11y ago
      Until driverless cars exist, it is better for the drivers correct? And, driverless cars, if they do happen, will happen whether uber or lyft were around or not. So in the mean time, having them around is better for drivers.
      - ThomPete 11y ago
        No it's not better for the drivers. It's better for the consumers. The drivers are hired as freelancers but treated like employers. How is that better for the drivers?
        icebraining 11y ago
        That was already the case for most taxi drivers. Except they also had to pay to rent the medallions to some useless rentier like Evgeny Freidman, while Uber doesn't charge.
        douche 11y ago
        They tend to make more money as Uber/Lyft drivers than they do as medallion cab drivers? I've been taking a fair number of Uber rides lately, and the fares are both much lower for me, and much higher for them, because Uber gives them a considerably higher cut than they would get working for a taxi company. Owner-operators might be a different matter.
- omginternets 11y ago
  >Their main goal of Uber is to replace all their drivers with automated cars. Yeah, that's why we're in favor of Uber.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Thats fine then just don't talk about how it's better for the uber drivers.
    - omginternets 11y ago
      1. You're confusing the author's position with my own. I don't claim (and frankly don't care) whether or not taxi drivers get a better deal than Uber drivers. The reason I don't care is that taxi service is terrible, and I consider each taxi ride I've taken to be just shy of theft ... and this in NYC, Philly, Paris, Rome, Lyon, Atlanta, Le Mans, Berlin, Moscow, Abu Dhabi, Bejing and literally every place in the world where I've had the misfortune of hailing a cab. 2. You're categorically insane if you think taxi drivers will survive the arrival of driverless cars. Until that happens, the author's points may well hold.
      - ThomPete 11y ago
        1) I am not confusing anything. You said "we're" unless you talk about yourself in plural. I have had my fare share of cabs around the world too. To claim normal taxi in any normal city is terrible is absurd and just an attempt to pump up your position as being more rational than it is. I don't care who gets a better deal either I just know that both solutions of upsides and downsides thats it. Coming out in defence for one or the other based on what O'reily does is where it goes wrong. 2) Why the strawman? Where did I ever claim such a thing?
        omginternets 11y ago
        No, point 2 is not a strawman. Your argument implied that Uber would be affected by automation, but taxis would not. If you're willing to admit that both services are affected by automation, then your point about Uber welcoming automation is a red herring. Moreover, the article is a rebuttal to an argument that says "Uber = bad, because it treats the drivers unfairly". As such, evidence to the contrary invalidates that argument, even if one doesn't particularly care about driver pay.
- jon-wood 11y ago
  As a society we have to either learn to handle not everyone needing to work, or we need to outlaw any progress which puts someone out of a job. Personally I'd far rather see the dream of automation meaning people are no longer obliged to work. I believe we'd see massive improvements to quiality of life in so many ways, from the person who no longer has to break their back emptying bins to put food on the table, to the improved service in numerous industries where the people working are doing so out of choice. I also believe we could see massive leaps in art and science as people who previously spent their time working jobs they didn't want can dedicate it to something they're passionate about. How many great novels have been sacrificed in order to put food on the table? No doubt some people in this world will choose to spend the time they would have been working drinking beer and watching TV. That's fine by me, supporting them is a price id I'd be willing to pay for people having the opportunity to do what they really love.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    I agree. What I am critiquing is the defence of Uber as if its somehow making it easier for drivers to make money. It's instituting competition between the drivers which is great for consumers. But it's doing so to pay for getting rid of same drivers. Not just sometimes in the future, but actively right now. No love for traditional taxis but as little love for companies who only take the best from hiring people as freelancers and the best from treating them as employees.
- ageek123 11y ago
  Actually Tim O'Reilly is a proponent of Guaranteed Basic Income.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    I know which is why I am puzzled about his stance on this.
- petra 11y ago
  Given the future of technology in this field, what other goal can they have ? and does it even matter ? because it will happen with them, or without them.
omginternets 11y ago
Susan Crawford's argument seems to hinge on taxis being transportation infrastructure, which is well-taken in and of itself, but her conclusions don't follow her premise. If taxi service is such a vital component of transportation infrastructure, then the solution is to make it public. This would address all her concerns about driver exploitation while also preventing another company from undercutting the established infrastructure. If you're in favor of private taxi services, it's hard to be against Uber/Lyft.
idibidiart 11y ago
Some comments here mention "AI driving the car" being the end game. I can't help but wonder what happens when a self driving car gets hacked, doors locked (unlocking disabled) and driven off a cliff. Self driving cars will be magical and transformative but we don't really know what will happen. It may end up requiring a human co-driver to take over in case the algorithm misbehaves. So I do hope that self driving cars will come with regulation that mandates the presence of a licensed driver with ability to take over the manual controls. Update: Here is a small sample of articles about "non-hackable" systems getting hacked... [1] Nuclear power plants: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switche.. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switche.... [2] air-gapped computers: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com.. http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com.... [3] autopilots: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack.. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack.... reply
- adrianN 11y ago
  Self driving cars most likely won't be hackable in that way. Autopilots in planes aren't, why should they be hackable in cars?
  - idibidiart 11y ago
    Hackable? Nuclear Power Stations are hackable [1]. Even machines without any connection to a network are hackable [2] And autopilots have been hacked [3], too. When will the masses wake up and realize that "security" is just a concept. Not an infallible reality. [1] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switches-ies-vulnerabilities/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switche... [2] http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-computer-simple-cell-phone/ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com... [3] http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hacking/hacker-uses-an-android-to-remotely-attack-and-hijack-an-airplane.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack...
    - kjksf 11y ago
sandworm101 11y ago
Get over cabs? I like uber, but when I'm traveling on business there are some things Uber cannot provide me, things I want. (1) When I get off a plane in a strange city my phone doesn't always work, and if it does I probably don't get data. The taxi stand outside an airport is convenient, identifiable, and works reliably no matter the state of my phone. (2) I don't want a ride from someone in their personal car. I want an easily-recognizable vehicle driven by a person licensed by some sort of local authority. I want a visible number or other identifier on the outside of the vehicle. (3) Professional detachment. Uber rides often take an overly-friendly tone. I like chatting with drivers, but I often don't want to chat. Maybe I'm on the phone with a client, maybe I have a client traveling with me. I don't want to feel bad or be down-rated if I don't act friendly. (4) Local knowledge. A professional cabbie will, within a few weeks, develop some serious local knowledge about streets, hotels and restaurants. With Uber drivers it is hit and miss. When it comes to business travel, especially international travel, cabs still provide value uber cannot match.
- ageek123 11y ago
  (1) has never happened to me in a US city, and very rarely in non-US cities. (2) has never bothered me because Uber keeps a log of every ride I take, the rating system gives me a much more confidence in the driver than a random government licensing scheme, and the app tells me the license plate number so the vehicle is easily-recognizable. (3) has never happened to me -- you may be thinking of one of the other ridesharing services where driver and customer are considered peers. (4) presupposes the taxi driver speaks English well enough to communicate their "serious local knowledge" which IME is indeed "hit and miss."
  - username223 11y ago
    > random government licensing scheme Presumably you mean that because there's government, it's arbitrary and likely fraudulent. I'm not sure how that's worse than Alice showing up with a card swiper, or showing up with Bob's card swiper, but... whatever. > ridesharing services where driver and customer are considered peers. The cognitive dissonance here makes my head hurt. What exactly is the person "sharing" their car with you? The "serious knowledge" is the stuff that lets them get you through recent construction to the recently-renamed hotel where Corporate booked you.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
CodeWriter23 11y ago
The author's calculations about how much it costs to make the payments on a car are flawed. Driving for Uber full time, your car won't last as long as the loan. Based on my experience driving for Lyft and Uber last year, you can figure about 5-7K miles per month for a full-time driver.
coderdude 11y ago
I use Uber almost every day. I love it. I also like vending machines. I hope that one day my Uber rides will be entirely like interacting with vending machines.

39 points by waffle_ss 11y ago

CTRL+F insurance 2 results. Right at the beginning. Nothing more. The main problem with Uber in Germany was the insurance. Fix that. Try again. I think there is a market now but that one will be gone fast as soon as we have the AI driving.

legulere 11y ago
Also you need a special drivers license [1], that needs to get renewed every 5 years and entails that you are mentally and physically fit (checked by a doctor) and know much about the region you're going to drive in (checked in a test). They also want to see your criminal record and traffic offense register. [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerschein_zur_Fahrgastbeförderung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerschein_zur_Fahrgastbeför...
- aluhut 11y ago
  The Ortskundeprüfung ("local knowledge test" = learn a ton of street names) is the only problematic part of it and it needs to be reformed away.

ThomPete 11y ago

I like Uber as a consumer but I simply don't understand why people as smart as even o'reily defend their business despite them knowing the end game. Their main goal of Uber is to replace all their drivers with automated cars. As a consumer that means a lot of good things but not for those who was depending on it as an income. There is a dishonesty either to other people or to themselves that I simply don't get here.

jayess 11y ago
Candle makers feel taxi drivers' pain.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Thats not the point. I don't mind progress, I use Uber. But to claim that it's somehow better for the drivers than taxis when the aim is to completely replace drivers is simply missing the problem. Candle makers had plenty of other industries to go into back then and previously societies had the opportunity to re-educate they new generations. Problem is that this phase is picking up leaving more and more without any chance of re-educating themselves.
seiji 11y ago
Pretty sure "being a chauffeur" has never really been a growth market.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  No but it's been an income market allowing you to provide for your family. I have nothing against progress, lets just not claim that it's somehow better for the drivers. For us as consumers sure, but not for the drivers.
  - seiji 11y ago
    The goal of startups is to enrich the founders, not be a net benefit for society. If you have to destroy the world and crush employees to increase your net worth, that's just how the game is played.
  - PKop 11y ago
    Until driverless cars exist, it is better for the drivers correct? And, driverless cars, if they do happen, will happen whether uber or lyft were around or not. So in the mean time, having them around is better for drivers.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      No it's not better for the drivers. It's better for the consumers. The drivers are hired as freelancers but treated like employers. How is that better for the drivers?
      - icebraining 11y ago
        That was already the case for most taxi drivers. Except they also had to pay to rent the medallions to some useless rentier like Evgeny Freidman, while Uber doesn't charge.
      - douche 11y ago
        They tend to make more money as Uber/Lyft drivers than they do as medallion cab drivers? I've been taking a fair number of Uber rides lately, and the fares are both much lower for me, and much higher for them, because Uber gives them a considerably higher cut than they would get working for a taxi company. Owner-operators might be a different matter.
omginternets 11y ago
>Their main goal of Uber is to replace all their drivers with automated cars. Yeah, that's why we're in favor of Uber.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Thats fine then just don't talk about how it's better for the uber drivers.
  - omginternets 11y ago
    1. You're confusing the author's position with my own. I don't claim (and frankly don't care) whether or not taxi drivers get a better deal than Uber drivers. The reason I don't care is that taxi service is terrible, and I consider each taxi ride I've taken to be just shy of theft ... and this in NYC, Philly, Paris, Rome, Lyon, Atlanta, Le Mans, Berlin, Moscow, Abu Dhabi, Bejing and literally every place in the world where I've had the misfortune of hailing a cab. 2. You're categorically insane if you think taxi drivers will survive the arrival of driverless cars. Until that happens, the author's points may well hold.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      1) I am not confusing anything. You said "we're" unless you talk about yourself in plural. I have had my fare share of cabs around the world too. To claim normal taxi in any normal city is terrible is absurd and just an attempt to pump up your position as being more rational than it is. I don't care who gets a better deal either I just know that both solutions of upsides and downsides thats it. Coming out in defence for one or the other based on what O'reily does is where it goes wrong. 2) Why the strawman? Where did I ever claim such a thing?
      - omginternets 11y ago
        No, point 2 is not a strawman. Your argument implied that Uber would be affected by automation, but taxis would not. If you're willing to admit that both services are affected by automation, then your point about Uber welcoming automation is a red herring. Moreover, the article is a rebuttal to an argument that says "Uber = bad, because it treats the drivers unfairly". As such, evidence to the contrary invalidates that argument, even if one doesn't particularly care about driver pay.
jon-wood 11y ago
As a society we have to either learn to handle not everyone needing to work, or we need to outlaw any progress which puts someone out of a job. Personally I'd far rather see the dream of automation meaning people are no longer obliged to work. I believe we'd see massive improvements to quiality of life in so many ways, from the person who no longer has to break their back emptying bins to put food on the table, to the improved service in numerous industries where the people working are doing so out of choice. I also believe we could see massive leaps in art and science as people who previously spent their time working jobs they didn't want can dedicate it to something they're passionate about. How many great novels have been sacrificed in order to put food on the table? No doubt some people in this world will choose to spend the time they would have been working drinking beer and watching TV. That's fine by me, supporting them is a price id I'd be willing to pay for people having the opportunity to do what they really love.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  I agree. What I am critiquing is the defence of Uber as if its somehow making it easier for drivers to make money. It's instituting competition between the drivers which is great for consumers. But it's doing so to pay for getting rid of same drivers. Not just sometimes in the future, but actively right now. No love for traditional taxis but as little love for companies who only take the best from hiring people as freelancers and the best from treating them as employees.
ageek123 11y ago
Actually Tim O'Reilly is a proponent of Guaranteed Basic Income.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  I know which is why I am puzzled about his stance on this.
petra 11y ago
Given the future of technology in this field, what other goal can they have ? and does it even matter ? because it will happen with them, or without them.

omginternets 11y ago

Susan Crawford's argument seems to hinge on taxis being transportation infrastructure, which is well-taken in and of itself, but her conclusions don't follow her premise. If taxi service is such a vital component of transportation infrastructure, then the solution is to make it public. This would address all her concerns about driver exploitation while also preventing another company from undercutting the established infrastructure. If you're in favor of private taxi services, it's hard to be against Uber/Lyft.

idibidiart 11y ago

Some comments here mention "AI driving the car" being the end game. I can't help but wonder what happens when a self driving car gets hacked, doors locked (unlocking disabled) and driven off a cliff. Self driving cars will be magical and transformative but we don't really know what will happen. It may end up requiring a human co-driver to take over in case the algorithm misbehaves. So I do hope that self driving cars will come with regulation that mandates the presence of a licensed driver with ability to take over the manual controls. Update: Here is a small sample of articles about "non-hackable" systems getting hacked... [1] Nuclear power plants: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switche.. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switche.... [2] air-gapped computers: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com.. http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com.... [3] autopilots: http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack.. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack.... reply

adrianN 11y ago
Self driving cars most likely won't be hackable in that way. Autopilots in planes aren't, why should they be hackable in cars?
- idibidiart 11y ago
  Hackable? Nuclear Power Stations are hackable [1]. Even machines without any connection to a network are hackable [2] And autopilots have been hacked [3], too. When will the masses wake up and realize that "security" is just a concept. Not an infallible reality. [1] http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switches-ies-vulnerabilities/ http://www.dailydot.com/politics/industrial-ethernet-switche... [2] http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-computer-simple-cell-phone/ http://www.wired.com/2015/07/researchers-hack-air-gapped-com... [3] http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hacking/hacker-uses-an-android-to-remotely-attack-and-hijack-an-airplane.html http://www.computerworld.com/article/2475081/cybercrime-hack...
  - kjksf 11y ago

sandworm101 11y ago

Get over cabs? I like uber, but when I'm traveling on business there are some things Uber cannot provide me, things I want. (1) When I get off a plane in a strange city my phone doesn't always work, and if it does I probably don't get data. The taxi stand outside an airport is convenient, identifiable, and works reliably no matter the state of my phone. (2) I don't want a ride from someone in their personal car. I want an easily-recognizable vehicle driven by a person licensed by some sort of local authority. I want a visible number or other identifier on the outside of the vehicle. (3) Professional detachment. Uber rides often take an overly-friendly tone. I like chatting with drivers, but I often don't want to chat. Maybe I'm on the phone with a client, maybe I have a client traveling with me. I don't want to feel bad or be down-rated if I don't act friendly. (4) Local knowledge. A professional cabbie will, within a few weeks, develop some serious local knowledge about streets, hotels and restaurants. With Uber drivers it is hit and miss. When it comes to business travel, especially international travel, cabs still provide value uber cannot match.

ageek123 11y ago
(1) has never happened to me in a US city, and very rarely in non-US cities. (2) has never bothered me because Uber keeps a log of every ride I take, the rating system gives me a much more confidence in the driver than a random government licensing scheme, and the app tells me the license plate number so the vehicle is easily-recognizable. (3) has never happened to me -- you may be thinking of one of the other ridesharing services where driver and customer are considered peers. (4) presupposes the taxi driver speaks English well enough to communicate their "serious local knowledge" which IME is indeed "hit and miss."
- username223 11y ago
  > random government licensing scheme Presumably you mean that because there's government, it's arbitrary and likely fraudulent. I'm not sure how that's worse than Alice showing up with a card swiper, or showing up with Bob's card swiper, but... whatever. > ridesharing services where driver and customer are considered peers. The cognitive dissonance here makes my head hurt. What exactly is the person "sharing" their car with you? The "serious knowledge" is the stuff that lets them get you through recent construction to the recently-renamed hotel where Corporate booked you.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

CodeWriter23 11y ago

The author's calculations about how much it costs to make the payments on a car are flawed. Driving for Uber full time, your car won't last as long as the loan. Based on my experience driving for Lyft and Uber last year, you can figure about 5-7K miles per month for a full-time driver.

coderdude 11y ago

I use Uber almost every day. I love it. I also like vending machines. I hope that one day my Uber rides will be entirely like interacting with vending machines.