5 ms·

Maybe I'm just misinformed but... basically they're running a taxi service without a license to do that, then acting surprised when the city calls them on it?

by corin_ 16y ago

Maybe I'm just misinformed but... basically they're running a taxi service without a license to do that, then acting surprised when the city calls them on it? There's a taxi company I use whenever I'm in London called Addison Lee, and they've done the same as UberCab - using nice technology to know where you are, where the nearest available cars are, how long it will take for a car to get to you... In actual fact, at least based on http://www.ubercab.com/learn http://www.ubercab.com/learn, AdLee is better: it has all the benefits of UberCab, plus they tell you the price of the journey before you book the car (it won't become more expensive if you get stuck in traffic, or if the driver takes a longer route), which always works out cheaper than a black cab, in my experience. Oh, and in adition to letting you pay with the credit card on your account, you can chose to pay by cash if you so wish. Anyway, my point? Seems that Addison Lee have been (albeit in a different city/country) doing what UberCab is doing, slightly better, and for quite a bit longer: and they actually bothered to pay to be a licensed taxi provider, meaning that the London officials don't have a problem with them.

josefresco 16y ago
Maybe taxi license requirements are vastly different between the two countries making it prohibitively expensive or unrealistic to do the same in the US?
- corin_ 16y ago
  I couldn't comment on the costs involved in either country, but that really isn't relevant. If you can't balance a company's finances without saying "we won't follow the law because it's too expensive" then you're doing something wrong. That argument sounds semi-reasonable when coming from a teenager downloading films illegaly, not from a serious company avoiding paying for a license it needs.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - uvdiv 16y ago
    >If you can't balance a company's finances without saying "we won't follow the law because it's too expensive" then you're doing something wrong. No, it's the law that is wrong. It is corrupt, it is repressive, it is evil. First of all, you can't just "pay for a license" to operate a taxi in S.F., because competition is illegal. The industry is a closed, city-enforced cartel, and the taxi "licenses" -- "medallions" -- first of all, have a mandatory cap of 1,400 taxis, secondly, are "allocated to individual drivers on the basis of seniority on a waiting list": http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/02/24/feb-26-cab-industry-changes-radically http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/02/24/feb-26-cab-industry-... Your standard labor cartel. Even better. They are piloting a program to "liberalize" the "licensing" (that SFBG news story), which mean under certain conditions you can actually "pay for a license" -- at a cost of $250,000 apiece. Although, naturally, the government quotas are still in effect, and you have to be a S.F. taxi union member to begin with, and who gets to buy the licenses is in order of seniority, etc., etc.: >Under the pilot program, only certain medallions can be sold: those held by individuals 70 years old or older or who are permanently disabled and cannot fulfill the driving requirement. While no medallion holder is required to sell, only those who elect to participate in the pilot program have the option to sell at this time. The other set of medallions being sold are those in the possession of the SFMTA due to the death of a medallion holder or through revocation proceedings. The price for a medallion is $250,000. >The medallion buyers are subject to the same rules as other current medallion holders, such as the full-time driving requirement and driving a San Francisco taxi for at least four of the past five years. Under the pilot program, available medallions are offered to qualified buyers in the order of seniority on the waiting list and after that in order of the driver A-Card permit seniority. The decision to buy is voluntary, but interested buyers had to notify the SFMTA of their interest in participating in the pilot. http://www.sfmta.com/cms/apress/SFMTAAnnouncesFirstTaxiMedallionSale.htm http://www.sfmta.com/cms/apress/SFMTAAnnouncesFirstTaxiMedal... More about S.F. taxi licenses, from the cartel's own webpage: http://www.medallionholders.com/medallions.html http://www.medallionholders.com/medallions.html Many other union-infected city governments do the same thing. NYC stands out: its taxi "licenses" now cost $825,000 each: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-06/nyc-taxi-medallions-wheel-in-profits-rivaling-s-p-500.html http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-06/nyc-taxi-medalli... Disclaimer: IANAL, all I know is what I read in news articles.
sutro 16y ago
I believe the loophole they operate under is that the ability to pick people up randomly on the street in SF requires a license, but picking people up who call ahead is simply a car service and not subject to taxi licensure. The fact that UberCab has made doing the latter effectively as easy and convenient as doing the former is indeed a challenge to the old guard, whom you can bet is working behind the scenes to close the aformentioned loophole as quickly as possible. Taxi service in SF is truly horrible and is ripe for disruption. I hope these guys win. Go UberCab!
- 2arrs2ells 16y ago
  As horrible as it is in San Francisco, it's worse in other cities (Boston, for one).
tkalanick 16y ago
Ubercab is not a taxi service and does not own or operate limo vehicles. We simply connect consumers with existing Limo Drivers. We do make sure that all limo drivers that connect are properly licensed and have the appropriate insurance.
- corin_ 16y ago
  "Its cars don’t have insurance equivalent to taxis’ insurance" is taken directly from the TC article. As to the logic of "we are not a taxi service, we just make money putting customers into taxis", I really can't comment on how the law views this. If the SF Metro Transit Authority withdraws the cease and desist order then please accept my apologies for making bad assumptions, but given the law enforcers say what you are doing is not allowed, I can only assume that it is, indeed, not allowed, regardless of how you word what exactly you do. Either way, I hope you get it resolved (whether that means them backing down, or you agreeing to whatever they're wanting of you), other than this current situation your service looks pretty great, and I'm sure I'll use you some day when I'm on your side of the pond.
  - mustpax 16y ago
    If the SF Metro Transit Authority withdraws the cease and desist order then please accept my apologies for making bad assumptions, but given the law enforcers say what you are doing is not allowed, I can only assume that it is, indeed, not allowed, regardless of how you word what exactly you do. I'm sorry but you're arguing that SF MTA is infallible and you are wrong.
    - corin_ 16y ago
      My views have been based on the facts I've been given. I'm not from SF, until I'm given a reason to believe that the MTA isn't actually following the law, I'll keep assuming they are. Maybe I should have been more specific before: I'll also apologise if the MTA don't withdraw, but are instead shown to be in the wrong.
  - johnrice 16y ago
ig1 16y ago
AdLee is different, in that they actually own all their cars (and lease them to their drivers) and they make guarantees on the quality of the cars, etc. And while they're cheaper than black cabs, they're more expensive than minicabs (for non-londoners: Black Cabs can be hailed off the street, minicabs you have to call) which is a closer comparison. What UberCab seem to be doing (I may be wrong as I've never used their service) is aggregating drivers from multiple limo services into an on-demand system. It seems that in SF that limo services have to be pre-booked an hour in advanced, which suggests that UberCab would firstly have to get a taxi service licence and secondly get all of their limo drivers licensed and insured as taxi drivers (as opposed to limo drivers). I imagine the later is the bigger problem than the first.
- gojomo 16y ago
  It seems that in SF that limo services have to be pre-booked an hour in advanced Actually, did you notice the finesse in the (unattributed but blockquoted) objections TC provides from the 'incumbent taxi industry'? They say, "Limos in U.S. cities usually have to prebook an hour in advance". They don't say "SF requires limos to prebook an hour in advance". Maybe SF hasn't quite locked-out competition as strictly as elsewhere -- perhaps even by mistake. (Industries protected by political favors can get lazy and sloppy, though they're nasty when awoken.)
ramanujan 16y ago
Ubercab is a great example of disruption of an inefficient, expensive system. The measure of whether something works has never been whether it makes some London official happy. Of course they won't like something that's taking tax revenue out of their pockets.

lolname 16y ago

Ubercab is not a taxi service It's hard to read that and think of you as anything other than a liar (or perhaps an obnoxious pedant). That's truly meant as constructive feedback. edit: seriously. I figured it'd be better somebody tell him that on HN before he says it to a media personality without thinking of how it will be perceived by some.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sp4rki 16y ago
It's not a taxi service. It's a Limousine/Black car service. And Ubercab only provides the dispatch operations and facilitate payment, not the transportation service itself
- lolname 16y ago
  Look at their website and blog: "The cab stand in your hand". Tags of "taxi", "cab" and "taxi stand". A name that includes the word "cab". They're clearly positioning themselves as a taxi company, then saying "oh, but we are not a taxi company!" when called on it. The whole thing reminds me of Napster when they tried to claim they had nothing to do with all the pirated music available via Napster. Other apps, like taximagic, avoid the trouble by simply dispatching a taxi instead of playing this limo / taxi licensing game. I find it fairly offensive that they're trying to complain that they're just too innovative, when the reality is that they entered a heavily regulated market and made a conscious decision to ignore the regulation. Too bad, so sad, deal with it. Mobile taxi hailing is obviously coming, but I'd back the horse that is smart enough not to piss off the taxi and limousine commissions in the launch city. That seems like an action that's likely to get them extra governmental attention in every new market they address.
  - sp4rki 16y ago
    How you market your brand doesn't make your company automagically drop out of its sector and join another just because. When you use Ubercab you don't get a beat up yellow taxi cab and a talkative taxi driver with too many stories to tell, you get a black sedan limousine with a professional, licensed, and insured limo driver (and sometimes fresh water bottles!). They comply with all the California regulations and are only available from dispatch and not from street hail. You could argue that then they are fooling the public, and I'd certainly give you that point, by saying this is a cab service. I understand the reasons for it though, people are used to the idea that limo service is for the rich and famous, when it's not much more expensive in contrast to a cab. So now how exactly does Taximagic avoid anything by dispatching a taxi? I'll tell you how, by sharing profit with established taxi companies. Both Taximagic and Ubercab do the exact same thing, the difference is Ubercab simply does not want to use taxi companies, and instead use limo services exclusively, not breaking any regulations by doing so. You know what I find offensive? That the medallion industry is going after Ubercab because they want to get a piece of the pie. It's a perfect way to show the world that this is really a mob in all its glory. It's in a slightly twisted way no different than a mobster sending a payment collector to every store in the neighborhood to get protection money or drive them out of business if they don't pay up. If Ubercab doesn't win this, it's an example of how rottenly corrupt the system is. PD: Napster and music piracy is no way similar to Ubercab and taxicabs. Pirated music did pass through Napster, but I see no taxi cabs being used by Ubercab.