7 ms·

Why doesn't Uber take the initiative then and ask for a consensus on regulation? It seems clear that cities don't want to be bullied as much as Uber doesn't wa

Why doesn't Uber take the initiative then and ask for a consensus on regulation? It seems clear that cities don't want to be bullied as much as Uber doesn't want to be bullied. The way to resolve disagreement isn't to retreat into respective corners, it's to talk it out. By not talking to each other, the expectations of cities and businesses are going to become more fractured over time. Each city and company will independently come up with its own game plan. This issue doesn't have a perfect solution. It has better ones, and worse ones. The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. If Uber and the top 10 cities in the US can agree on some policies, then they'll all probably be in better shape. Uber gets to operate with some comfort, and city leaders can focus on other things. Also, I read your blog post. I see you declined an invitation to attend a dinner with the mayor on the grounds that it was too secret. Why not just bring a reporter or tape recorder with you? People need to build good relationships before coming up with contracts or legislation. Without that bond, one party can't be too sure of the other. The written word is not always a good substitute for someone's true intent. It's better to meet someone in person on neutral ground first. Should we put microphones on our politicians 24/7 and transcribe every conversation? I think that's a bit much to ask, and would probably result in us losing such freedom ourselves. Alternatively, you can run or support a political campaign for a candidate in whom you believe. Eventually you may find he or she makes some decision with which you do not agree, and then you're back to finding someone else to support. That's a decades long alternative to simply coming to the table to work with imperfect people, particularly when you note that the result is still imperfect people. As Bill Clinton points out, we are over 99% the same [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiNjU8DwJMo

aioprisan 10y ago
Who are they supposed to ask for a concensus on regulation? Every city has their own taxi regulations and very powerful lobbies. Is that even feasible given in how many cities Uber operates in?
- studentrob 10y ago
  10 cities, 10 mayors. Approach each, begin with the relationship, and publicize meeting notes. It can be done. They have probably already tried approaching a few. If U/L are unwilling to take a step back and try this again, the status quo will continue. If they try and fail, status quo. If they try and succeed, well done PR campaigns aren't just about unidirectional mass messaging. Good PR campaigns engage and listen. That's what politicians do. Companies are impacted by votes. They can do the same thing. U/L built their products by listening to a collective demand for better taxis. That was a big leap in terms of local traveler satisfaction. All U/L need to do is take one more tiny step and listen a bit more. U/L and city leaders can come up with a reasonable plan that makes things easier on everyone. Is it easy? No. But, it's better than dealing with different regulations in each city, and if you get the 10 largest to agree, you're more likely to operate smoothly in the next 10. Right now U/L operate in NYC with fingerprinting. NYC is a place other cities often look to for examples of policy. U/L's case against fingerprinting appears hurt by the exception they make for NYC. Perhaps there is more to it. Either way, U/L can do a better job of publicizing their desired policy, whether it's a certain number of fingerprinting centers per capita, square mile, or whatever else might be involved. U/L could have a proposed policy on their website for how they intend to operate in any given city. They could list things that they expect from city Z. When city Z demands X, Uber expects Y. It's a matter of negotiation and communication. By U/L's exit, it's obvious the parties aren't communicating well.
EdHominem 10y ago
The city isn't being bullied, Uber is. Nobody is forcing the mayor to ride in Uber. > The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. No. The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all. The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city. Thanks, but no-thanks, standardized or not.
- studentrob 10y ago
  > The city isn't being bullied, Uber is. I said both are bullying each other. > The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all. "Standard" policy, or just "policy", same thing. The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out. > The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. It's good for the city, and it is more likely they'll get re-elected if they do so. They also need to balance public safety and consider public perception of these issues while constantly sharing facts with the public. It's not an easy job.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > I said both are bullying each other. How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied? If I file a lot of paperwork they get paid for dealing with it. If I scoff at a law, the city employees don't personally suffer. > The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out. The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out. > That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents. We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city. People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points. > They also need to balance public safety They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting; Uber rides are already an order of magnitude safer than cabs because your account is linked to the car you enter, whose path is being logged in the cloud, etc.

aioprisan 10y ago

Who are they supposed to ask for a concensus on regulation? Every city has their own taxi regulations and very powerful lobbies. Is that even feasible given in how many cities Uber operates in?

studentrob 10y ago
10 cities, 10 mayors. Approach each, begin with the relationship, and publicize meeting notes. It can be done. They have probably already tried approaching a few. If U/L are unwilling to take a step back and try this again, the status quo will continue. If they try and fail, status quo. If they try and succeed, well done PR campaigns aren't just about unidirectional mass messaging. Good PR campaigns engage and listen. That's what politicians do. Companies are impacted by votes. They can do the same thing. U/L built their products by listening to a collective demand for better taxis. That was a big leap in terms of local traveler satisfaction. All U/L need to do is take one more tiny step and listen a bit more. U/L and city leaders can come up with a reasonable plan that makes things easier on everyone. Is it easy? No. But, it's better than dealing with different regulations in each city, and if you get the 10 largest to agree, you're more likely to operate smoothly in the next 10. Right now U/L operate in NYC with fingerprinting. NYC is a place other cities often look to for examples of policy. U/L's case against fingerprinting appears hurt by the exception they make for NYC. Perhaps there is more to it. Either way, U/L can do a better job of publicizing their desired policy, whether it's a certain number of fingerprinting centers per capita, square mile, or whatever else might be involved. U/L could have a proposed policy on their website for how they intend to operate in any given city. They could list things that they expect from city Z. When city Z demands X, Uber expects Y. It's a matter of negotiation and communication. By U/L's exit, it's obvious the parties aren't communicating well.

EdHominem 10y ago

The city isn't being bullied, Uber is. Nobody is forcing the mayor to ride in Uber. > The lack of a standardized policy around ridesharing-apps is something I think we can all agree is worse. No. The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all. The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city. Thanks, but no-thanks, standardized or not.

studentrob 10y ago
> The city isn't being bullied, Uber is. I said both are bullying each other. > The problem isn't the lack of a standard policy, but a policy at all. "Standard" policy, or just "policy", same thing. The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out. > The policies are all designed to protect incumbents and funnel money to the city That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. It's good for the city, and it is more likely they'll get re-elected if they do so. They also need to balance public safety and consider public perception of these issues while constantly sharing facts with the public. It's not an easy job.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > I said both are bullying each other. How can a city - a bureaucracy - be bullied? If I file a lot of paperwork they get paid for dealing with it. If I scoff at a law, the city employees don't personally suffer. > The solution to this problem is for the parties to talk it out. The city has nothing to offer except to stop interfering and they win simply by dragging the process out. > That's a good thing. City officials are incentivized to bring in more tax money. Yes, they are incentivized to do it but those incentives don't align with the residents. We could extract more money by raising your personal tax rate to 100% but while that would superficially help revenue it would ultimately hurt the community (you'll feel robbed by your neighbors) and the business climate in the city. People already pay sales tax on Uber rides, and Uber (drivers) pay tax on gasoline, cars, etc. The city is already collecting at multiple points. > They also need to balance public safety They've shown that's not a concern with this nonsense over fingerprinting; Uber rides are already an order of magnitude safer than cabs because your account is linked to the car you enter, whose path is being logged in the cloud, etc.