9 ms·

> competed on unfair terms Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN

> competed on unfair terms Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some regret... > I would love for the taxi industry to be liberalised but just not for the benefit of a few Silicon Valley billionaires And the consumer...

donatj 9y ago
I’d say the major dip in drunk drivers has benefited humanity at large.
- JohnnyConatus 9y ago
  That's one hell of a post hoc justification to justify the unethical and illegal behavior of the 1% to capture even more of the economic pie.
  - abakker 9y ago
    It is backed up by evidence, though[0]. I think it was meant to validate that the model of ride sharing isn't morally bankrupt merely because it is owned by venture capitalists. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-driving-prevention.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-drivi...
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Ride sharing isn't morally bankrupt when properly delivered and regulated. Uber is morally bankrupt, regardless of the positive impacts they've had. There are some holes that are simply too deep to be dug out of.
      - abakker 9y ago
        Probably. It is a very interesting case study in corporate culture and corporate viability. Unless the culture changes, it seems difficult to believe that they can stay operational. it is also interesting to watch something with that much inertia slowing down by inches.
        toomuchtodo 9y ago
        The wheels of justice and government turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.
  - ErikVandeWater 9y ago
    > post hoc justification I don't think it matters that the justification is after the fact. I think you could actually predict a decrease in drunk driving with better access to transportation that Uber provides before the fact. > capture even more of the economic pie I think Uber expands the economic pie more than it takes a share of it. And once there are self-driving cars, services like Uber will become a commodity because there are no network effects on the driver side. Any company with a billion dollars will be able to create a sufficient scale of self-driving cars in a city to compete with the rest of the self-driving car services. The rich people capturing the value will be the ones who own the technology to navigate the car.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Why shouldn't people who develop a new product that solves a real problem and is in high demand not capture more of the economic pie? Seems to me they should be rewarded.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Has it caused a major dip in drunk drivers in the EU, though? Drunk driving has seemed comparably rare here, v. the US, for a long time.
cat199 9y ago
> Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. It is when that's the law.. The fact that these people have been able to profit with high visibility and applause when basically the source of their advantage is breaking the law is mind boggling. Are taxi regulations ridiculous? yes. But that doesn't mean that rampant illegal behaviour is the answer.
rhino369 9y ago
>Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some regret... This myth of the taxi companies lobbying to avoid competition doesn't seem based in reality. Taxis didn't seek out regulation to protect themselves. Cities began regulating fares, service areas, and the business model. Cities put rules on them for the public good. The medallion is there is to balance out the price regulations placed on taxi companies and to ensure that the rules didn't make the taxi business unprofitable. I've never seen any indication they sought out these regulations. Really it smells like a smear campaign to make a bunch of immigrants driving cars 12 hours a day the bad guys and to make the 60 billion dollar corporate titan the underdog.
- an_account 9y ago
  Immigrants driving cars 12 hours a day werent the ones making money off medallions. Rich investors bought medallions as very lucrative investments, until Uber came along.
  - cptskippy 9y ago
    The OP seems to be oblivious to the fact that most drivers rent or lease medallions and don't own them.
- mynameisvlad 9y ago
  They didn't seek out the regulations, but they're definitely lobbying against the competition now. As early as 2014 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/31/the-taxi-industry-is-crushing-uber-and-lyft-on-the-lobbying-front-3500-to-1/?utm_term=.00fef1e39038 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/31/the-t...) and specifically in Europe they merged taxi unions to form a united lobbying front a few days ago (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ezpqne/european-taxi-unions-merge-to-create-united-front-against-uber-lobby https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ezpqne/european-t...). And who can blame them, really. When it costs thousands of dollars to get a medallion, you want to protect your investment and do whatever you can to maximize your profits.
phicoh 9y ago
The Netherlands tried the experiment to, from one day to another, just remove almost all requirements to operate a taxi. Basically, the only requirements were that you had to have a vehicle that passes inspection, a valid drivers license, and register with the city government that you operate a taxi. In Amsterdam, the result was absolute chaos. Ignoring for the moment the unhappy existing taxi drivers and companies (that was complete mess, way beyond what the police were able to control), many new entrants behaved less than professional. I.e., competing aggressively for the lucrative rides, being poorly equipped to actually deliver a taxi services. The situation got so bad, that the old taxi company that everybody hated, was now suddenly was the most reliable taxi service. The question then becomes how you view the taxi market. Is it a market where anything goes. Where sometimes, in the middle of the night, there is just no taxi that wants to take you (home) for a price you can afford. Where taxi drivers claim that tourists agreed to pay an insane amount of money per person for a short ride from the airport to a nearby hotel. Or do you want something that is mostly predictable. Maybe not very efficient, certainly not nice. But with reasonable expectation that if you order a taxi, one will show up and take you where you need to go?
- FeepingCreature 9y ago
  Or maybe you can get good parts from both approaches?
- wils1245 9y ago
  Would you describe the present environment as chaotic? Rideshare companies have solved the problems you describe. You can debate whether it’s fair that they’ve profited by breaking the rules. But they’ve made a very compelling case that the rules aren’t needed anymore.
- pas 9y ago
  So what was the problem? No price transparency for the customers at the airport, no vetting of the drivers, and no reputation market for the drivers. All of these are/could be/would have been solved by mandating the use of an app. The City of Amsterdam should have made an app, drivers register, that keeps track of their fares and manages supply-demand surges. Economically it's a race to the bottom unless there's a constrained supply. Especially when [not if] self driving cars start operating as taxis. If Amsterdam wants to treat taxis as a public good (to get reliable night transport for example), then it can regulate it as such, pay some money for drivers (or otherwise compensate them) to be available at night if natural demand is (or would be) too low. Just out of curiosity, what were the requirements that got lifted?
Barrin92 9y ago
>And the consumer... Sorry, but as a consumer I welcome this. I will gladly pay a few bucks more or wait five minutes more for a taxi than having every industry taken over by the absentee landlord class that is the tech industry. In the case of Uber spying on their employees, having no obligations any other employer has, paying no taxes and misusing the data of their customers and drivers. From time to time people would do well do understand that everybody is not just consumer but also a worker, or in the end you'll end up in a bad spot yourself. One just needs to look at the fact that these businesses have customers and drivers rate each other, which is nothing but undignified and gamified surveillance. Don't give up essential freedoms for the sake of convenience.
- pivo 9y ago
  I feel the same. If only I could hail a taxi with an app instead of having to stand in the street and wave like an idiot at drivers that have riders but who have neglected to turn off their light (as they all do in my city.) And if only when I have to call for a cab I could give them my GPS location so they don't get lost and never show up and if I could provide my destination so they don't take the long way, either on purpose or accidentally. And if only there was a way to see that the cab was actually en route to my location and see an ETA. If the cab industry could develop an app that works like Uber/Lyft I think they'd be competitive again. I use cabs when they're right there and I know the city, otherwise I reluctantly use Lyft or whatever's available.
  - lr 9y ago
    Not sure what city you live in, but the ad on the top of the cab is not "the light". I can't imagine a fare system that is not hooked directly to the actual "driver is available for a fare" light, i.e., once the fare is underway, the light switches off. Also, there are apps now in several cities to hail cabs, and some cab companies have their own apps (kind of like Uber, i.e., you can't hail a Lyft or Via via Uber, so why should there be a universal app to hail any cab -- but that would depend on your city and how cabs operate).
    - 9y ago
Kalium 9y ago
I was in San Francisco, the birthplace of Uber, in 2009/2010. If you wanted a taxi pickup, you generally had to call two or three taxi companies and wait 30-45 minutes for a two in three chance of a taxi showing. That doesn't happen anymore. Not after Uber.
- ohsnapman 9y ago
  Whoa, taxis showed up 2 out of 3 times for you? The official study has it at 49%: https://archives.sfmta.com/cms/rtaxi/documents/2005TaxiAvailabilityStudy.pdf https://archives.sfmta.com/cms/rtaxi/documents/2005TaxiAvail... I even remember when the number was lower ...
  - Kalium 9y ago
    If you called three companies and waited half an hour, odds favored at least one showing up. But, yeah. Things were pretty miserable unless you were somewhere taxis actually wanted to be.
Aunche 9y ago
I don't want Uber to disappear, but they brought this ruling upon themselves. A lot of taxi regulations are stupid. However, Uber chose to ignore the reasonable ones as well with the "we aren't a taxi company excuse." If they weren't as blatant with subverting the law, I would have more sympathy towards them.
cryptonector 9y ago
This attitude that it's terrible that some people get rich is silly at the very least -- destructive at its very worst. And in particular as to ride-sharing services. The net benefit to the consumer has been unbelievably good, and it points to a future where there are fewer personal vehicles and more vehicles for hire, which in turn will have (I think) significant benefits for traffic, city planning, etc. For example, as the number of private cars in NYC goes down, it might be possible to ban parking on more streets, thus increasing their traffic carrying capacity and alleviating traffic problems. But no, some people got rich doing this. And monopolists got hurt (we're really going to feel sorry for them?!). What a crock. Imagine missing out on all this dynamism and sticking to a measly 13,000 taxis in Manhattan (none in the boroughs, not really) because those millionaires who own taxi fleets and multi-million dollar medallions might suffer while some people in SV make billions. The story is the same around the world. No, I won't feel sorry for the taxi medallion owners, nor the banks that lent to them that lost money when medallion prices crashed.

donatj 9y ago

I’d say the major dip in drunk drivers has benefited humanity at large.

JohnnyConatus 9y ago
That's one hell of a post hoc justification to justify the unethical and illegal behavior of the 1% to capture even more of the economic pie.
- abakker 9y ago
  It is backed up by evidence, though[0]. I think it was meant to validate that the model of ride sharing isn't morally bankrupt merely because it is owned by venture capitalists. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-driving-prevention.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-drivi...
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Ride sharing isn't morally bankrupt when properly delivered and regulated. Uber is morally bankrupt, regardless of the positive impacts they've had. There are some holes that are simply too deep to be dug out of.
    - abakker 9y ago
      Probably. It is a very interesting case study in corporate culture and corporate viability. Unless the culture changes, it seems difficult to believe that they can stay operational. it is also interesting to watch something with that much inertia slowing down by inches.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        The wheels of justice and government turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine.
- ErikVandeWater 9y ago
  > post hoc justification I don't think it matters that the justification is after the fact. I think you could actually predict a decrease in drunk driving with better access to transportation that Uber provides before the fact. > capture even more of the economic pie I think Uber expands the economic pie more than it takes a share of it. And once there are self-driving cars, services like Uber will become a commodity because there are no network effects on the driver side. Any company with a billion dollars will be able to create a sufficient scale of self-driving cars in a city to compete with the rest of the self-driving car services. The rich people capturing the value will be the ones who own the technology to navigate the car.
- refurb 9y ago
  Why shouldn't people who develop a new product that solves a real problem and is in high demand not capture more of the economic pie? Seems to me they should be rewarded.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gsnedders 9y ago
Has it caused a major dip in drunk drivers in the EU, though? Drunk driving has seemed comparably rare here, v. the US, for a long time.

cat199 9y ago

> Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. It is when that's the law.. The fact that these people have been able to profit with high visibility and applause when basically the source of their advantage is breaking the law is mind boggling. Are taxi regulations ridiculous? yes. But that doesn't mean that rampant illegal behaviour is the answer.

rhino369 9y ago

>Albeit the taxi companies created the unfair terms. Obviously it is not necessary to have a medallion to drive someone around. HN is generally anti-lobbying to protect corporate interest, but now that Uber is big there is some regret... This myth of the taxi companies lobbying to avoid competition doesn't seem based in reality. Taxis didn't seek out regulation to protect themselves. Cities began regulating fares, service areas, and the business model. Cities put rules on them for the public good. The medallion is there is to balance out the price regulations placed on taxi companies and to ensure that the rules didn't make the taxi business unprofitable. I've never seen any indication they sought out these regulations. Really it smells like a smear campaign to make a bunch of immigrants driving cars 12 hours a day the bad guys and to make the 60 billion dollar corporate titan the underdog.

an_account 9y ago
Immigrants driving cars 12 hours a day werent the ones making money off medallions. Rich investors bought medallions as very lucrative investments, until Uber came along.
- cptskippy 9y ago
  The OP seems to be oblivious to the fact that most drivers rent or lease medallions and don't own them.
mynameisvlad 9y ago
They didn't seek out the regulations, but they're definitely lobbying against the competition now. As early as 2014 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/31/the-taxi-industry-is-crushing-uber-and-lyft-on-the-lobbying-front-3500-to-1/?utm_term=.00fef1e39038 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/31/the-t...) and specifically in Europe they merged taxi unions to form a united lobbying front a few days ago (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ezpqne/european-taxi-unions-merge-to-create-united-front-against-uber-lobby https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ezpqne/european-t...). And who can blame them, really. When it costs thousands of dollars to get a medallion, you want to protect your investment and do whatever you can to maximize your profits.

phicoh 9y ago

The Netherlands tried the experiment to, from one day to another, just remove almost all requirements to operate a taxi. Basically, the only requirements were that you had to have a vehicle that passes inspection, a valid drivers license, and register with the city government that you operate a taxi. In Amsterdam, the result was absolute chaos. Ignoring for the moment the unhappy existing taxi drivers and companies (that was complete mess, way beyond what the police were able to control), many new entrants behaved less than professional. I.e., competing aggressively for the lucrative rides, being poorly equipped to actually deliver a taxi services. The situation got so bad, that the old taxi company that everybody hated, was now suddenly was the most reliable taxi service. The question then becomes how you view the taxi market. Is it a market where anything goes. Where sometimes, in the middle of the night, there is just no taxi that wants to take you (home) for a price you can afford. Where taxi drivers claim that tourists agreed to pay an insane amount of money per person for a short ride from the airport to a nearby hotel. Or do you want something that is mostly predictable. Maybe not very efficient, certainly not nice. But with reasonable expectation that if you order a taxi, one will show up and take you where you need to go?

FeepingCreature 9y ago
Or maybe you can get good parts from both approaches?
wils1245 9y ago
Would you describe the present environment as chaotic? Rideshare companies have solved the problems you describe. You can debate whether it’s fair that they’ve profited by breaking the rules. But they’ve made a very compelling case that the rules aren’t needed anymore.
pas 9y ago
So what was the problem? No price transparency for the customers at the airport, no vetting of the drivers, and no reputation market for the drivers. All of these are/could be/would have been solved by mandating the use of an app. The City of Amsterdam should have made an app, drivers register, that keeps track of their fares and manages supply-demand surges. Economically it's a race to the bottom unless there's a constrained supply. Especially when [not if] self driving cars start operating as taxis. If Amsterdam wants to treat taxis as a public good (to get reliable night transport for example), then it can regulate it as such, pay some money for drivers (or otherwise compensate them) to be available at night if natural demand is (or would be) too low. Just out of curiosity, what were the requirements that got lifted?

Barrin92 9y ago

>And the consumer... Sorry, but as a consumer I welcome this. I will gladly pay a few bucks more or wait five minutes more for a taxi than having every industry taken over by the absentee landlord class that is the tech industry. In the case of Uber spying on their employees, having no obligations any other employer has, paying no taxes and misusing the data of their customers and drivers. From time to time people would do well do understand that everybody is not just consumer but also a worker, or in the end you'll end up in a bad spot yourself. One just needs to look at the fact that these businesses have customers and drivers rate each other, which is nothing but undignified and gamified surveillance. Don't give up essential freedoms for the sake of convenience.

pivo 9y ago
I feel the same. If only I could hail a taxi with an app instead of having to stand in the street and wave like an idiot at drivers that have riders but who have neglected to turn off their light (as they all do in my city.) And if only when I have to call for a cab I could give them my GPS location so they don't get lost and never show up and if I could provide my destination so they don't take the long way, either on purpose or accidentally. And if only there was a way to see that the cab was actually en route to my location and see an ETA. If the cab industry could develop an app that works like Uber/Lyft I think they'd be competitive again. I use cabs when they're right there and I know the city, otherwise I reluctantly use Lyft or whatever's available.
- lr 9y ago
  Not sure what city you live in, but the ad on the top of the cab is not "the light". I can't imagine a fare system that is not hooked directly to the actual "driver is available for a fare" light, i.e., once the fare is underway, the light switches off. Also, there are apps now in several cities to hail cabs, and some cab companies have their own apps (kind of like Uber, i.e., you can't hail a Lyft or Via via Uber, so why should there be a universal app to hail any cab -- but that would depend on your city and how cabs operate).
  - 9y ago

Kalium 9y ago

I was in San Francisco, the birthplace of Uber, in 2009/2010. If you wanted a taxi pickup, you generally had to call two or three taxi companies and wait 30-45 minutes for a two in three chance of a taxi showing. That doesn't happen anymore. Not after Uber.

ohsnapman 9y ago
Whoa, taxis showed up 2 out of 3 times for you? The official study has it at 49%: https://archives.sfmta.com/cms/rtaxi/documents/2005TaxiAvailabilityStudy.pdf https://archives.sfmta.com/cms/rtaxi/documents/2005TaxiAvail... I even remember when the number was lower ...
- Kalium 9y ago
  If you called three companies and waited half an hour, odds favored at least one showing up. But, yeah. Things were pretty miserable unless you were somewhere taxis actually wanted to be.

Aunche 9y ago

I don't want Uber to disappear, but they brought this ruling upon themselves. A lot of taxi regulations are stupid. However, Uber chose to ignore the reasonable ones as well with the "we aren't a taxi company excuse." If they weren't as blatant with subverting the law, I would have more sympathy towards them.

cryptonector 9y ago

This attitude that it's terrible that some people get rich is silly at the very least -- destructive at its very worst. And in particular as to ride-sharing services. The net benefit to the consumer has been unbelievably good, and it points to a future where there are fewer personal vehicles and more vehicles for hire, which in turn will have (I think) significant benefits for traffic, city planning, etc. For example, as the number of private cars in NYC goes down, it might be possible to ban parking on more streets, thus increasing their traffic carrying capacity and alleviating traffic problems. But no, some people got rich doing this. And monopolists got hurt (we're really going to feel sorry for them?!). What a crock. Imagine missing out on all this dynamism and sticking to a measly 13,000 taxis in Manhattan (none in the boroughs, not really) because those millionaires who own taxi fleets and multi-million dollar medallions might suffer while some people in SV make billions. The story is the same around the world. No, I won't feel sorry for the taxi medallion owners, nor the banks that lent to them that lost money when medallion prices crashed.