14 ms·

I take a bunch of ubers, by which I mean I take maybe 4 or 5 ubers a week. Before I took ubers, I didn't take cabs, I took the train. I walked five minutes to g

by hug 9y ago

I take a bunch of ubers, by which I mean I take maybe 4 or 5 ubers a week. Before I took ubers, I didn't take cabs, I took the train. I walked five minutes to get on a tram to the train station, I switched to a train, and then I walked ten minutes home. I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I mean, y'know, cab drivers are legally obliged to take you on any distance journey but the lack of accountability meant that they wouldn't. Sometimes there were no choices: Cab home or you won't get there. In those cases, I'd take cabs. The cab driver would be rubbing his eyes, swerving all over the road, tired after working a 16 hour shift, while talking on the phone to, I guess, whoever would listen. Doing anything they could not to pay attention to driving, apparently. And now I take ubers instead. It's not because I like uber. It's not because I think that the laws around the cab drivers should be ignored and uber should be allowed to flaunt that however they like. It's because I think that, at least right now, uber works better than laws. At least right now. Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not. I don't have lyft available to me. If I did, I'd probably use lyft. I'm happy with being slightly conscientious and paying a bit more, knowing that I'm not ripping off some guy who can't do any better. Anecdotally, most of my friends think the same thing. But what I won't do is support the existing cab industry.

jasonkostempski 9y ago
It works better than law mostly because of the amount of privacy both employees and customer have to sacrifice. Most things would "work better" with that trade-off. Edit: Does this mean people can now hail an Uber without needing an account or the app?
- candiodari 9y ago
  And the tax evasion (executed by the driver, on behalf of Uber). Without that, would there even be uber ?
madsbuch 9y ago
According to this ruling, you support the taxi industry by using Uber in EU. Probably the Uber drivers will also start acting like you have described. After all, they are ordinary taxi driver now. So I guess: Back to trams and walking?
- hug 9y ago
  You know what used to happen if I got upset about a taxi driver driving irresponsibly? I'd call up. I'd complain. They told me they'd take the feedback onboard, and they'd definitely do something. And then, of course, they hung up and went back to doing whatever it is they did rather than providing customer service. I can only assume this is because it wasn't worth it to them to bother, but I also know it's why there's a value proposition that supports uber, at least for my use case. I don't know if uber drivers earn less than cab drivers, but I do know that uber drivers they tell me they earn more that their former cab jobs. I don't know if uber is a horrible company or not, but I do know that when I complain, they promise I'll never see that driver again. I know that uber will actually show up to pick me up. I know that the drivers are held accountable. That's worth a lot. Worth enough to you? I don't know. Worth enough to me that I'd pay more than the going taxi rate, though.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    > That's worth a lot. Worth enough to you? I don't know. Worth enough to me that I'd pay more than the going taxi rate, though. Uber has "invested" billions of dollars (double digits) in making itself cheap. That tells me that if they were even just comparable in price to taxis, they would never be able to survive.
    - hug 9y ago
      > if they were even just comparable in price to taxis, they would never be able to survive In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, [citation needed]. Uber has invested millions of dollars into something. One of those things is, undoubtedly, expanding. One of the facets of expanding is, undoubtedly, lowering fares. Does this mean that an uber-like service must run at a net loss in order to provide their service? Of course not.
badestrand 9y ago
Same for me. I absolutely understand the criticism of Uber but saying that they are just a taxi app doesn't cut it. To add more advantages to the list: Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles, no driver searching for change for several minutes until you let him keep it. And, like McDonald's did for fastfood, it creates a world wide standard for taxi services. I had a driver in India that took me to tourist stores instead of my destination and in Mexico City they warn you about taxi drivers robbing you - all not happening in an Uber.
- gaius 9y ago
  To add more advantages to the list: Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles, no driver searching for change for several minutes until you let him keep i The local cab firm that exists only in my small home town has all these "innovations" too.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Yep, as do cab firms all around the globe, including apps that offer the same experience with regular registered cab drivers.
    - samsonradu 9y ago
      Not sure if you're being sarcastic but that's a big overstatement. There are a lot of big cities (capitals) around the globe where the cab industry is a pure scam. There's no such thing as GPS tracking, price transparency, apps and whatsoever. No wonder Uber took over.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        That's true too. Maybe, in a way, Uber was a necessary evil. From following the discussions about it here for years now, I realize there are many places around the world where taxi situation is absolutely horrible. All of that created an opportunity for a bunch of evil assholes (and I'm not using these words lightly) with VC money to take over and earn money breaking laws, knowing in full that the locals will appreciate the increase in quality and decrease in price to the point of actually defending them from regulators.
te_chris 9y ago
Which is another reason why the EU would want to class uber as transport. In switching from PT to Uber you create congestion, which cities will want to regulate.
- hug 9y ago
  I hope that what I said didn't come across as supporting a lack of regulation. I'm pro-regulation. I'm anti-luddism, though, and sometimes it's hard to figure out where on the line I should stand. The point is not that uber is good for ignoring regulation, the point is that the current regulations, borne from an age where things such as uber could not have existed, don't quite hold up in the age where things such as uber do exist. If the choice for me is "behave according to inane regulation", or "break the regulations", or "update the regulations to reflect the reality of the situation" I will, in every case, like to see what's behind door number three. Phrasing the uber-versus-taxis debate without the third option is just suffering under the yoke of bureaucracy. We can do better.
  - te_chris 9y ago
    Nope, think we agree with each other :) Just pointing out why the EU would want to be able to deal with Uber as Transport.
- wnoise 9y ago
  The sane way to handle congestion would be to have a congestion fee (as London does) for driving in the urban core. Make it apply to taxis as well as private cars, and the created incentives will balance uses well.
rovek 9y ago
Same. If Uber were to stop operating in London I would just take the Night Tube home or not go out (weekdays).
- pmlnr 9y ago
  Win-win. Less pollution and you spend less.
  - Sargos 9y ago
    Also less quality of life.
    - pmlnr 9y ago
      That depends. If your quality if life is measured by nights out, it's true. However if I look back at my life my most satisfying and memorable happenings were either the ones I has to wait and long for, and the ones happened completely randomly - both completely irrelevant to going out or not on weekdays. Your life will not be less if you go out less - go out when you have a reason, a concert, a band playing, a movie you actually want to see, and not for the sake of going out. BTW, I lived in London, public transport is not at all that bad; it's acceptable in Budapest, where I also used it quite a few times. If you can and are willing to afford a taxi, get a taxi, otherwise public transport is fine. (Not in Cambridge, though, there is no public transport in the night.)
chrisper 9y ago
But compared to tram and train, Uber is much more expensive, is it not? Maybe it depends on the country you are from.
- hug 9y ago
  Sure. I pay twice as much, on average, to get home in a lot less than half the time. I also support public transport. I pay for a monthly pass, every month. Do I want that to be my only option? No.
  - zulln 9y ago
    > I pay for a monthly pass, every month. So in practise you pay more than double, as the additional public transportation you take is 'free'? Just being curious.
- deadbunny 9y ago
  I'm kinda the same as GP. I used to get train then tube, not I get train then Uber. For me it's about 2x as expensive but 5 minutes shorter journey without having to deal with this[1] on 4 tubes a day. This also means I avoid this[2] at least twice a month when the tube inevitably breaks down. It doesn't avoid the misery of the train which suffers from overcrowding every day and frequent cataclysmic failures adding anything from 30 mins to hours to your commute. If only more companies would get on board with remote working. There is literally no need for 90% of people to be in the office 5 days a week. 1. https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/tube-596111.jpg https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/tube-596... 2. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/05/17/2B201BF400000578-3186134-image-a-2_1438792487649.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/05/17/2B201BF40000057...
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    You could try working somewhere other than London. You'd likely take a paycut, but you'd also probably have cheaper living. Edinburgh and Newcastle both have thriving tech scenes with plenty of startups needing problems solved badly.
Erwin 9y ago
My local (Denmark) taxi company has an app that is pretty much like Uber: I enter start and end address and can prepay. But, they do obey the law unlike Uber. I suppose Uber's ease of use has inspired other companies, so it's great there was some competition. But now if Uber wants to return to Denmark, they must also obey the law. I think in Europe we prefer to not have too much "disruption" and "lobbyism". The big ongoing corruption case in Denmark right now is an IT company that paid for a $50,000 Dubai "research" trip with IT-bosses from the the local government (in hope of making it back for selling too-expensive IT equipment to the state) There's a lot of people involved -- so far, a government employee has received a 4 month non-suspended prison sentence for receiving about $7,000 worth of iPhones etc.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  We had app ride hailing in Nottingham, UK before Uber was even founded. It was an inevitability everywhere. Rather funnily, we had a Twilio in Nottingham too many years before Twilio was founded. The difference between EU and American startups is that there are VCs investing huge sums in US companies so they can do mass advertising.
  - falsedan 9y ago
    Also becuase of difference between EU VC and US VC: US VCs are happy to invest in something that might not pay off, EU funding are more insistent about ROI.
  - jouls 9y ago
    It's unfortunately not that surprising though. The tech giants have operated in Europe largely without paying taxes. Avoiding corporate income taxes with help of Ireland, The Netherlands and US tax law. As well as avoiding VAT with special deals with Luxembourg. They have essentially operated with a large discount compared to local competitors. It's of course a lot harder to get investments in the shadow of such competition. I don't think funding as such is the main problem in Europe though. We do have a few really rich tech people, as well as a lot of old wealth. What we don't have is the thousands of semi-rich people in the wake of the tech giants that can "repeat the cycle". Something especially needed since we haven't been spared the increase in housing costs.
coldtea 9y ago
>I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. None of the above is a problem when ordering cabs from a cab company's app. You don't need Uber to get accountable cabs, or to not have to haul them on the street.
- hug 9y ago
  You don't, but I do. All of the above continue to be a problem on the incumbent taxi provider apps. (For reference, I'm in Australia.)
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    Good for you. This ruling is re the EU.
mattmanser 9y ago
You could have phoned a private hire firm? They're the same taxi drivers you're paying, they're just using an app now. Bit of a silly stance and rant in my opinion.
- hug 9y ago
  Find me a private hire firm, operating across the entirety of metropolitan Melbourne (Australia), with a pickup time of under 30 minutes, with a rate that is available to someone you wouldn't describe as "independently wealthy". I'll wait. Of course, I've tasked you with an impossibility. You're saying I should use a service that doesn't exist. The only way that services like the one we're talking about work is by having a surfeit of vehicles available, and the only service that has that in Melbourne is uber. You can call what I was saying a "silly stance", but you're saying that from a position of ignorance. Perhaps, for a moment, you should consider the outside perspective. On the other hand, if you do find the service I described, please let me know. I'd like to use it.
  - mattmanser 9y ago
    It's not ignorance, if there were such a massive opportunity for a taxi firm in Melbourne, without rides being subsidised by Uber's deep coffers, why didn't one spring up? It's the same taxi drivers driving you today as would be driving you 4 years ago.
- hrktb 9y ago
  There’s a threshold where the service fundamentally changes. Phoning a cab here is looking for the local cab company number, getting shitty call quality, argue with an operator where you are, wait who knows how long for a cab you don’t how it looks like, explain the driver where you’re supposed to go, do the “fucking let me pay by card” dance. Even trying one of the national cab company’s app only reduced that shittiness by half. It can be the same drivers at the wheel, the delivered service difference is still night and day.
alkonaut 9y ago
> Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I You are citing some problems that aren't "uber vs taxi" but seem to be due to a lack of competition among taxis. - Taxis shouldn't be allowed to reject you - Taxis should all take cards, and preferably pre-payment - Taxis should be bookable with apps - Taxis should compete for service meaning a nice attitude and a nice car will be common. So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi. Once the monopoly is out, Uber will just be like every other taxi company. And better still, all the taxi companies will be like Uber. It might be that "taxi" in a lot of cities, especially US cities, are monopolies, have shitty cars, no apps, rude drivers etc. But that isn't because they are taxis, it's because they are a monopoly. Uber should be considered a taxi company, because they are taxi. But they should of course be allowed also to operate as a taxi, everywhere they want.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  > So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi. But that's not true. Uber doesn't fix these issues by being an "alternative", it fixes them by switching the incentives around. What this is about is "order a cab" vs. "hail a cab". By letting drivers opt into a ride, all of GP's issues disappear. Of course you still do need competition once you're past that layer, yeah; taxi monopolies do sometimes offer cab-ordering services but those services still suck (Only available by phonecall with waiting time, no notifications, no prepayment etc). Simply removing the monopoly would not fix the issue entirely.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    I'm speaking from the perspective of an unregulated market. I can order a regular taxi via an app that is as good as Ubers, or hail one in the street, or go to a taxi stand (I doubt there will be an Uber at the stand, but there is nothing stopping them I suppose). Or I can order an Uber-. I'm not sure if I could actually hail an Uber on the street, but hypothetically if an uber driver was idling and saw I needed a taxi, I'm sure I could just take a seat and order the ride using the app from the passenger seat before we drive off. Regardless of whether I order a regular taxi or an Uber, I can prepay, track it in the app etc. And regardless of whether I order an Uber or a regular car, I expect a nice driver and a reasonably new car (Not rarely a Tesla). My point is: when there is no monopoly, the others can't afford to have an app, cars, or services that are worse than Ubers. Also, when there is no taxi monopoly, it's pretty natural that Uber is "taxi" like all the other taxi companies. They provide nothing that the others don't!
watwut 9y ago
I never had such huge problems with taxi. Just about the only one I can relate to is them taking only cash. When I call for taxi, they ask where I want to go, so the whole window situation never happen.
richev 9y ago
So, Uber is giving you the taxi cab service you always wanted? That's great, and that's why they should be regulated as such.
- eddieroger 9y ago
  One could make the argument that regulation got regular cabs to the position they're in today, and applying that to Uber would ruin the service. A functioning system would have been more resistant to disruption. Perhaps the regulations cabs already have aren't enforceable?
  - xxs 9y ago
    Do you have specific area in mind within the EU where the statement "regulation got regular cabs to the position" is based on?
jordache 9y ago
all the superficial issues you've described simply reinforces how similar new car hailing service are to legacy cabs. Your argument is akin to arguing juciero is not a juice machine. it's a connected juice delivery experience that is uniquely distinguishable from the act of making juice from solids.
OJFord 9y ago
> I didn't take cabs, I took the train. And then a new cab company came to town, and were sufficiently innovative in the market to convince you to stop taking the train, and take their cabs.
collyw 9y ago
Yours seems like a fairly usual reply when either Airbnb or Uber are discussed - "it works for me". Great that it works for you. I have never had a problem with the cabs where I live (and Uber is banned) Anyway to add my anecdote as a counter to yours. I was back home in Scotland at Christmas last year. Private Cabs were all busy, so we tried an Uber wanted to charge nearly three times what the monopolistic black cabs (the ones you hail from the street) charge. My one and only experience with Uber and it didn't seem good.
- baby 9y ago
  Cabs are shit in most places around the world. What's great with Uber is that you will avoid that while traveling.
  - themistocle 9y ago
    I traveled recently in a foreign country where I did not speak the local language. Uber allowed me to enter my destination and location without confusing the driver. I could never have done this with a traditional taxi cab.
    - thinkpad20 9y ago
      You couldn’t show them the address written down?
      - reaperducer 9y ago
        I've tried that in most countries I've been to. The results have been hit-and-miss. Japan: Works great Turkey: Nope. Thailand: Nope. France: Works, but not always well In a lot of countries, cab drivers are illiterate. And I don't mean functionally illiterate. I mean simply CAN NOT read. Not even a map. If you don't speak the language absolutely fluently, you're screwed.
      - themistocle 9y ago
        I could, but sometimes addresses are not so clear. In my experience taxi drivers like it when you can explain directions and negotiate price. Without common language for me that is quite difficult.
rusk 9y ago
I agree, but this experience can be delivered without the dodgy business model. Hailo did this, all within the bounds of the standard regulatory framework by joining independent drivers to customers with all of the advantages that you provide. They never annoyed anybody. Sadly it seems they tried and failed to take on the less regulated markets and this was their undoing. I miss Hailo and I hope somebody comes along with a credible replacement soon. MyTaxi is just plain awful and is probably the best marketing for Uber round these parts there has ever been! There really isn't any critical intellectual property or secret sauce that should stand in the way ... just pure graft required. Hopefully this will do the trick http://www.whistletaxiapp.com/ http://www.whistletaxiapp.com/
CapacitorSet 9y ago
>Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not. The contractors thing is a tax avoidance scheme at the sole advantage, and responsibility, of Uber.
allengeorge 9y ago
“Is this contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should They pay their “driver partners” more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is Uber’s fault? Most definitely not.” What? Uber is the sole party that structures the relationship with its drivers and determines the rate it would pay them. Why is it not their problem or fault? And, if it’s not their problem, whose is it?
- brixon 9y ago
  If you had the option to hire one of two people that will do the same job at the same performance level and one costs you $10 an hour and the other $20 an hour, which one do you choose? Is it the company to blame for picking the $10 an hour person?
  - allengeorge 9y ago
    The company is definitely at fault if it achieved that $10 rate by misclassifying the individual as a contractor.
    - brixon 9y ago
      Then the government that made the contractor vs employee laws needs to apply it. If a law is not enforced then it is not really a law. Companies are not obligated to do better than enforced laws, they are not charities or social organizations here to make the world a better place, they are here to make money for their shareholders. I think the EU is doing the right thing. It sometimes takes a while for government laws or competition to catch up and balance out issues, but I don't for a second think that any company is going to play nice if it does not have to.
      - Nursie 9y ago
        >> Companies are not obligated to do better than enforced laws They really are. You seem to be effectively saying "well, if they can get away with it there's nothing wrong with that" >> they are not charities or social organizations here to make the world a better place, they are here to make money for their shareholders. There's a lot more to it than that, we are not a pure, unfettered capitalistic society in Europe.
tombrm 9y ago
+1 So Uber is a better cab service, than the original one. Hopefully the upcoming regulations will result in only slightly increased pricing and a more sustainable system (keeping the drivers in mind).
Nursie 9y ago
You take cabs. You take cabs with a company who have a history of all sorts of shady dealings, a history of evading laws, evading employment rights, evading inspections, avoiding taxes, duping inspectors, not cooperating with police and a ton of other stuff. But it's OK because you don't like the way other firms operate a service you think is a bit shabby. You might want to take more of a look around at what you're supporting. Lots of stuff can work better without the laws, until it doesn't and you realise the laws were there for a reason.
bdcravens 9y ago
> Cab drivers with shitty attitudes Not always rosey with Uber drivers. My first was in San Diego a few years ago: driver had been in town 2 days, asked us for directions, and spent the entire drive asking me about sexual activities he could find on Craigslist that was illegal in his country. Presumably it could have been a fraudulent situation and he was driving for someone else, which would likely get that person removed from Uber, but still, not a great intro to the service.
malandrew 9y ago
My understanding is that Uber and Lyft drivers earn about the same. Lyft pays more per trip, but Uber is more efficient at getting drivers a greater number of trips per hour. The end result is that they both pay about the same on a per/hour basis.

by hug 9y ago

jasonkostempski 9y ago

It works better than law mostly because of the amount of privacy both employees and customer have to sacrifice. Most things would "work better" with that trade-off. Edit: Does this mean people can now hail an Uber without needing an account or the app?

candiodari 9y ago
And the tax evasion (executed by the driver, on behalf of Uber). Without that, would there even be uber ?

madsbuch 9y ago

According to this ruling, you support the taxi industry by using Uber in EU. Probably the Uber drivers will also start acting like you have described. After all, they are ordinary taxi driver now. So I guess: Back to trams and walking?

hug 9y ago
You know what used to happen if I got upset about a taxi driver driving irresponsibly? I'd call up. I'd complain. They told me they'd take the feedback onboard, and they'd definitely do something. And then, of course, they hung up and went back to doing whatever it is they did rather than providing customer service. I can only assume this is because it wasn't worth it to them to bother, but I also know it's why there's a value proposition that supports uber, at least for my use case. I don't know if uber drivers earn less than cab drivers, but I do know that uber drivers they tell me they earn more that their former cab jobs. I don't know if uber is a horrible company or not, but I do know that when I complain, they promise I'll never see that driver again. I know that uber will actually show up to pick me up. I know that the drivers are held accountable. That's worth a lot. Worth enough to you? I don't know. Worth enough to me that I'd pay more than the going taxi rate, though.
- candiodari 9y ago
  > That's worth a lot. Worth enough to you? I don't know. Worth enough to me that I'd pay more than the going taxi rate, though. Uber has "invested" billions of dollars (double digits) in making itself cheap. That tells me that if they were even just comparable in price to taxis, they would never be able to survive.
  - hug 9y ago
    > if they were even just comparable in price to taxis, they would never be able to survive In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, [citation needed]. Uber has invested millions of dollars into something. One of those things is, undoubtedly, expanding. One of the facets of expanding is, undoubtedly, lowering fares. Does this mean that an uber-like service must run at a net loss in order to provide their service? Of course not.

badestrand 9y ago

Same for me. I absolutely understand the criticism of Uber but saying that they are just a taxi app doesn't cut it. To add more advantages to the list: Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles, no driver searching for change for several minutes until you let him keep it. And, like McDonald's did for fastfood, it creates a world wide standard for taxi services. I had a driver in India that took me to tourist stores instead of my destination and in Mexico City they warn you about taxi drivers robbing you - all not happening in an Uber.

gaius 9y ago
To add more advantages to the list: Full price transparency, pre-agreed price so you don't need to worry that you drive in circles, no driver searching for change for several minutes until you let him keep i The local cab firm that exists only in my small home town has all these "innovations" too.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Yep, as do cab firms all around the globe, including apps that offer the same experience with regular registered cab drivers.
  - samsonradu 9y ago
    Not sure if you're being sarcastic but that's a big overstatement. There are a lot of big cities (capitals) around the globe where the cab industry is a pure scam. There's no such thing as GPS tracking, price transparency, apps and whatsoever. No wonder Uber took over.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      That's true too. Maybe, in a way, Uber was a necessary evil. From following the discussions about it here for years now, I realize there are many places around the world where taxi situation is absolutely horrible. All of that created an opportunity for a bunch of evil assholes (and I'm not using these words lightly) with VC money to take over and earn money breaking laws, knowing in full that the locals will appreciate the increase in quality and decrease in price to the point of actually defending them from regulators.

te_chris 9y ago

Which is another reason why the EU would want to class uber as transport. In switching from PT to Uber you create congestion, which cities will want to regulate.

hug 9y ago
I hope that what I said didn't come across as supporting a lack of regulation. I'm pro-regulation. I'm anti-luddism, though, and sometimes it's hard to figure out where on the line I should stand. The point is not that uber is good for ignoring regulation, the point is that the current regulations, borne from an age where things such as uber could not have existed, don't quite hold up in the age where things such as uber do exist. If the choice for me is "behave according to inane regulation", or "break the regulations", or "update the regulations to reflect the reality of the situation" I will, in every case, like to see what's behind door number three. Phrasing the uber-versus-taxis debate without the third option is just suffering under the yoke of bureaucracy. We can do better.
- te_chris 9y ago
  Nope, think we agree with each other :) Just pointing out why the EU would want to be able to deal with Uber as Transport.
wnoise 9y ago
The sane way to handle congestion would be to have a congestion fee (as London does) for driving in the urban core. Make it apply to taxis as well as private cars, and the created incentives will balance uses well.

rovek 9y ago

Same. If Uber were to stop operating in London I would just take the Night Tube home or not go out (weekdays).

pmlnr 9y ago
Win-win. Less pollution and you spend less.
- Sargos 9y ago
  Also less quality of life.
  - pmlnr 9y ago
    That depends. If your quality if life is measured by nights out, it's true. However if I look back at my life my most satisfying and memorable happenings were either the ones I has to wait and long for, and the ones happened completely randomly - both completely irrelevant to going out or not on weekdays. Your life will not be less if you go out less - go out when you have a reason, a concert, a band playing, a movie you actually want to see, and not for the sake of going out. BTW, I lived in London, public transport is not at all that bad; it's acceptable in Budapest, where I also used it quite a few times. If you can and are willing to afford a taxi, get a taxi, otherwise public transport is fine. (Not in Cambridge, though, there is no public transport in the night.)

chrisper 9y ago

But compared to tram and train, Uber is much more expensive, is it not? Maybe it depends on the country you are from.

hug 9y ago
Sure. I pay twice as much, on average, to get home in a lot less than half the time. I also support public transport. I pay for a monthly pass, every month. Do I want that to be my only option? No.
- zulln 9y ago
  > I pay for a monthly pass, every month. So in practise you pay more than double, as the additional public transportation you take is 'free'? Just being curious.
deadbunny 9y ago
I'm kinda the same as GP. I used to get train then tube, not I get train then Uber. For me it's about 2x as expensive but 5 minutes shorter journey without having to deal with this[1] on 4 tubes a day. This also means I avoid this[2] at least twice a month when the tube inevitably breaks down. It doesn't avoid the misery of the train which suffers from overcrowding every day and frequent cataclysmic failures adding anything from 30 mins to hours to your commute. If only more companies would get on board with remote working. There is literally no need for 90% of people to be in the office 5 days a week. 1. https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/tube-596111.jpg https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/tube-596... 2. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/05/17/2B201BF400000578-3186134-image-a-2_1438792487649.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/05/17/2B201BF40000057...
- vertex-four 9y ago
  You could try working somewhere other than London. You'd likely take a paycut, but you'd also probably have cheaper living. Edinburgh and Newcastle both have thriving tech scenes with plenty of startups needing problems solved badly.

Erwin 9y ago

My local (Denmark) taxi company has an app that is pretty much like Uber: I enter start and end address and can prepay. But, they do obey the law unlike Uber. I suppose Uber's ease of use has inspired other companies, so it's great there was some competition. But now if Uber wants to return to Denmark, they must also obey the law. I think in Europe we prefer to not have too much "disruption" and "lobbyism". The big ongoing corruption case in Denmark right now is an IT company that paid for a $50,000 Dubai "research" trip with IT-bosses from the the local government (in hope of making it back for selling too-expensive IT equipment to the state) There's a lot of people involved -- so far, a government employee has received a 4 month non-suspended prison sentence for receiving about $7,000 worth of iPhones etc.

mattmanser 9y ago
We had app ride hailing in Nottingham, UK before Uber was even founded. It was an inevitability everywhere. Rather funnily, we had a Twilio in Nottingham too many years before Twilio was founded. The difference between EU and American startups is that there are VCs investing huge sums in US companies so they can do mass advertising.
- falsedan 9y ago
  Also becuase of difference between EU VC and US VC: US VCs are happy to invest in something that might not pay off, EU funding are more insistent about ROI.
- jouls 9y ago
  It's unfortunately not that surprising though. The tech giants have operated in Europe largely without paying taxes. Avoiding corporate income taxes with help of Ireland, The Netherlands and US tax law. As well as avoiding VAT with special deals with Luxembourg. They have essentially operated with a large discount compared to local competitors. It's of course a lot harder to get investments in the shadow of such competition. I don't think funding as such is the main problem in Europe though. We do have a few really rich tech people, as well as a lot of old wealth. What we don't have is the thousands of semi-rich people in the wake of the tech giants that can "repeat the cycle". Something especially needed since we haven't been spared the increase in housing costs.

coldtea 9y ago

>I never, really, took cabs. I can explain the multitude of reasons: Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. None of the above is a problem when ordering cabs from a cab company's app. You don't need Uber to get accountable cabs, or to not have to haul them on the street.

hug 9y ago
You don't, but I do. All of the above continue to be a problem on the incumbent taxi provider apps. (For reference, I'm in Australia.)
- vertex-four 9y ago
  Good for you. This ruling is re the EU.

mattmanser 9y ago

You could have phoned a private hire firm? They're the same taxi drivers you're paying, they're just using an app now. Bit of a silly stance and rant in my opinion.

hug 9y ago
Find me a private hire firm, operating across the entirety of metropolitan Melbourne (Australia), with a pickup time of under 30 minutes, with a rate that is available to someone you wouldn't describe as "independently wealthy". I'll wait. Of course, I've tasked you with an impossibility. You're saying I should use a service that doesn't exist. The only way that services like the one we're talking about work is by having a surfeit of vehicles available, and the only service that has that in Melbourne is uber. You can call what I was saying a "silly stance", but you're saying that from a position of ignorance. Perhaps, for a moment, you should consider the outside perspective. On the other hand, if you do find the service I described, please let me know. I'd like to use it.
- mattmanser 9y ago
  It's not ignorance, if there were such a massive opportunity for a taxi firm in Melbourne, without rides being subsidised by Uber's deep coffers, why didn't one spring up? It's the same taxi drivers driving you today as would be driving you 4 years ago.
hrktb 9y ago
There’s a threshold where the service fundamentally changes. Phoning a cab here is looking for the local cab company number, getting shitty call quality, argue with an operator where you are, wait who knows how long for a cab you don’t how it looks like, explain the driver where you’re supposed to go, do the “fucking let me pay by card” dance. Even trying one of the national cab company’s app only reduced that shittiness by half. It can be the same drivers at the wheel, the delivered service difference is still night and day.

alkonaut 9y ago

> Cab drivers with shitty attitudes, refusing to unlock the doors and just cracking open the window to ask how far it was you were planning to go: Too short? Don't want to take you, fare is too small. Too long? Don't want to take you, won't get a fare back. I You are citing some problems that aren't "uber vs taxi" but seem to be due to a lack of competition among taxis. - Taxis shouldn't be allowed to reject you - Taxis should all take cards, and preferably pre-payment - Taxis should be bookable with apps - Taxis should compete for service meaning a nice attitude and a nice car will be common. So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi. Once the monopoly is out, Uber will just be like every other taxi company. And better still, all the taxi companies will be like Uber. It might be that "taxi" in a lot of cities, especially US cities, are monopolies, have shitty cars, no apps, rude drivers etc. But that isn't because they are taxis, it's because they are a monopoly. Uber should be considered a taxi company, because they are taxi. But they should of course be allowed also to operate as a taxi, everywhere they want.

scrollaway 9y ago
> So this isn't about "uber vs taxi" this is about monopoly taxi vs. non-monopoly taxi. But that's not true. Uber doesn't fix these issues by being an "alternative", it fixes them by switching the incentives around. What this is about is "order a cab" vs. "hail a cab". By letting drivers opt into a ride, all of GP's issues disappear. Of course you still do need competition once you're past that layer, yeah; taxi monopolies do sometimes offer cab-ordering services but those services still suck (Only available by phonecall with waiting time, no notifications, no prepayment etc). Simply removing the monopoly would not fix the issue entirely.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  I'm speaking from the perspective of an unregulated market. I can order a regular taxi via an app that is as good as Ubers, or hail one in the street, or go to a taxi stand (I doubt there will be an Uber at the stand, but there is nothing stopping them I suppose). Or I can order an Uber-. I'm not sure if I could actually hail an Uber on the street, but hypothetically if an uber driver was idling and saw I needed a taxi, I'm sure I could just take a seat and order the ride using the app from the passenger seat before we drive off. Regardless of whether I order a regular taxi or an Uber, I can prepay, track it in the app etc. And regardless of whether I order an Uber or a regular car, I expect a nice driver and a reasonably new car (Not rarely a Tesla). My point is: when there is no monopoly, the others can't afford to have an app, cars, or services that are worse than Ubers. Also, when there is no taxi monopoly, it's pretty natural that Uber is "taxi" like all the other taxi companies. They provide nothing that the others don't!

watwut 9y ago

I never had such huge problems with taxi. Just about the only one I can relate to is them taking only cash. When I call for taxi, they ask where I want to go, so the whole window situation never happen.

richev 9y ago

So, Uber is giving you the taxi cab service you always wanted? That's great, and that's why they should be regulated as such.

eddieroger 9y ago
One could make the argument that regulation got regular cabs to the position they're in today, and applying that to Uber would ruin the service. A functioning system would have been more resistant to disruption. Perhaps the regulations cabs already have aren't enforceable?
- xxs 9y ago
  Do you have specific area in mind within the EU where the statement "regulation got regular cabs to the position" is based on?

jordache 9y ago

all the superficial issues you've described simply reinforces how similar new car hailing service are to legacy cabs. Your argument is akin to arguing juciero is not a juice machine. it's a connected juice delivery experience that is uniquely distinguishable from the act of making juice from solids.

OJFord 9y ago

> I didn't take cabs, I took the train. And then a new cab company came to town, and were sufficiently innovative in the market to convince you to stop taking the train, and take their cabs.

collyw 9y ago

Yours seems like a fairly usual reply when either Airbnb or Uber are discussed - "it works for me". Great that it works for you. I have never had a problem with the cabs where I live (and Uber is banned) Anyway to add my anecdote as a counter to yours. I was back home in Scotland at Christmas last year. Private Cabs were all busy, so we tried an Uber wanted to charge nearly three times what the monopolistic black cabs (the ones you hail from the street) charge. My one and only experience with Uber and it didn't seem good.

baby 9y ago
Cabs are shit in most places around the world. What's great with Uber is that you will avoid that while traveling.
- themistocle 9y ago
  I traveled recently in a foreign country where I did not speak the local language. Uber allowed me to enter my destination and location without confusing the driver. I could never have done this with a traditional taxi cab.
  - thinkpad20 9y ago
    You couldn’t show them the address written down?
    - reaperducer 9y ago
      I've tried that in most countries I've been to. The results have been hit-and-miss. Japan: Works great Turkey: Nope. Thailand: Nope. France: Works, but not always well In a lot of countries, cab drivers are illiterate. And I don't mean functionally illiterate. I mean simply CAN NOT read. Not even a map. If you don't speak the language absolutely fluently, you're screwed.
    - themistocle 9y ago
      I could, but sometimes addresses are not so clear. In my experience taxi drivers like it when you can explain directions and negotiate price. Without common language for me that is quite difficult.

rusk 9y ago

I agree, but this experience can be delivered without the dodgy business model. Hailo did this, all within the bounds of the standard regulatory framework by joining independent drivers to customers with all of the advantages that you provide. They never annoyed anybody. Sadly it seems they tried and failed to take on the less regulated markets and this was their undoing. I miss Hailo and I hope somebody comes along with a credible replacement soon. MyTaxi is just plain awful and is probably the best marketing for Uber round these parts there has ever been! There really isn't any critical intellectual property or secret sauce that should stand in the way ... just pure graft required. Hopefully this will do the trick http://www.whistletaxiapp.com/ http://www.whistletaxiapp.com/

CapacitorSet 9y ago

>Is the contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should they pay their "driver partners" more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is uber's fault? Most definitely not. The contractors thing is a tax avoidance scheme at the sole advantage, and responsibility, of Uber.

allengeorge 9y ago

“Is this contractor thing a little bit on the suspicious side? Definitely. Should They pay their “driver partners” more? Definitely. Do I think that this problem is Uber’s fault? Most definitely not.” What? Uber is the sole party that structures the relationship with its drivers and determines the rate it would pay them. Why is it not their problem or fault? And, if it’s not their problem, whose is it?

brixon 9y ago
If you had the option to hire one of two people that will do the same job at the same performance level and one costs you $10 an hour and the other $20 an hour, which one do you choose? Is it the company to blame for picking the $10 an hour person?
- allengeorge 9y ago
  The company is definitely at fault if it achieved that $10 rate by misclassifying the individual as a contractor.
  - brixon 9y ago
    Then the government that made the contractor vs employee laws needs to apply it. If a law is not enforced then it is not really a law. Companies are not obligated to do better than enforced laws, they are not charities or social organizations here to make the world a better place, they are here to make money for their shareholders. I think the EU is doing the right thing. It sometimes takes a while for government laws or competition to catch up and balance out issues, but I don't for a second think that any company is going to play nice if it does not have to.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      >> Companies are not obligated to do better than enforced laws They really are. You seem to be effectively saying "well, if they can get away with it there's nothing wrong with that" >> they are not charities or social organizations here to make the world a better place, they are here to make money for their shareholders. There's a lot more to it than that, we are not a pure, unfettered capitalistic society in Europe.

tombrm 9y ago

+1 So Uber is a better cab service, than the original one. Hopefully the upcoming regulations will result in only slightly increased pricing and a more sustainable system (keeping the drivers in mind).

Nursie 9y ago

You take cabs. You take cabs with a company who have a history of all sorts of shady dealings, a history of evading laws, evading employment rights, evading inspections, avoiding taxes, duping inspectors, not cooperating with police and a ton of other stuff. But it's OK because you don't like the way other firms operate a service you think is a bit shabby. You might want to take more of a look around at what you're supporting. Lots of stuff can work better without the laws, until it doesn't and you realise the laws were there for a reason.

bdcravens 9y ago

> Cab drivers with shitty attitudes Not always rosey with Uber drivers. My first was in San Diego a few years ago: driver had been in town 2 days, asked us for directions, and spent the entire drive asking me about sexual activities he could find on Craigslist that was illegal in his country. Presumably it could have been a fraudulent situation and he was driving for someone else, which would likely get that person removed from Uber, but still, not a great intro to the service.

malandrew 9y ago

My understanding is that Uber and Lyft drivers earn about the same. Lyft pays more per trip, but Uber is more efficient at getting drivers a greater number of trips per hour. The end result is that they both pay about the same on a per/hour basis.