5 ms·

> For example, right now and for the past week or so, almost every cab in SF is telling their riders that their credit card machine is broken. "Thanks for the

> For example, right now and for the past week or so, almost every cab in SF is telling their riders that their credit card machine is broken. "Thanks for the free ride!" - At least in Chicago, it's a part of the passenger "bill of rights" that you are able to pay by credit card. They've pulled the same thing on me a few times and, assuming I'm not in a rush, I've offered to ride with the meter turned off to the closest ATM...then the machine suddenly works.

tptacek 15y ago
Same experience. They always back down. I would never in a million years offer to ride to a nearby ATM. They can do card-not-present auth with their dispatchers even if "their machine is broken".
- patio11 15y ago
  Same experience. They always back down. Not to continue an old argument, but to continue an old argument, these are the good medallioned guys who are regulated by the state so that they can't scam you. This is supposed to provide an advantage over e.g. Ubercab, where the perils of unregulated capitalism would allow a driver to cheat you. But they still try to scam you and their medallion is not going to get yanked for it. Meanwhile, Uber solves this technologically: they can't run payment scams because the system doesn't trust drivers with any part of the payment flow aside from hitting "The Ride Is Over."
  - tptacek 15y ago
    So: * Regulations need to catch up to Uber, fast. Uber is good. * Cabs should be regulated, for public safety and consumer protection. They're a unique intersection of low-barrier-to-entry, vulnerable-consumer, and serious externalities. * Cabs are not well regulated now. * I am ambivalent about business plans premised on "everyone recognizes that reg X is broken, so we'll force the issue by ignoring the reg and going right to market". If Uber gets to, maybe so do investment banks.
    - gojomo 15y ago
      Until there's evidence of abuse, why do "regulations need to catch up to Uber, fast"? (Unless by 'catch up to' you mean 'legalize unconditionally'.) Perhaps smartphone-dispatching, sticky reputations, and non-cash payments solve all the safety and 'consumer protection' issues better than the corrupt, captured, regulatory-commission system. That regulatory system, despite decades (or centuries!) of head-start, has resulted in a situation where "cabs are not well regulated now".
      - hartror 15y ago
        Until there's evidence of abuse, why do "regulations need to catch up to Uber, fast"? The ideal of course is regulators are proactive in regulating, rather than waiting for the horse to bolt before deciding the door should be kept closed. The Ubercab situation is a strong signal to regulators that the landscape is changing and they should be considering changes.
        yummyfajitas 15y ago
        The ideal of course is regulators are proactive in regulating, rather than waiting for the horse to bolt before deciding the door should be kept closed. This is a good idea in the case of low probability, high impact events. For example, counterparty contagion in the financial system or oil spills. But in the case of low impact events, it's pointless. Take a few obvious precautions (e.g., track all the drivers) but otherwise just wait for problems to arise before fixing them. The risk of an unregulated system is very low - a few consumers get scammed out of $12. The risk of regulation is very high - many consumers may be deprived of a considerable consumer surplus (i.e., they may not get a ride at all, or may be forced to overpay for a regulated cab).
        tptacek 15y ago
        Consumer protection is one goal of taxi regulation, but public safety is another.
kucin 15y ago
Why should they be forced to subsidize your credit card fees? Do you understand that they are barely surviving living in a high cost area such as San Francisco? The city shouldn't be a place where only the rich tech billionaires can live. They're forced to save costs anyway they can because of the large income gap that they're suffering. Capitalism has stolen from the poor and elevated the rich. It's classic 21st century colonialism.
- mixmastamyk 15y ago
  Why not just add another ~5% if paying by card? Solution seems easy enough.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    Generally the card issuer doesn't like that, because they don't really want cardholders to be aware of the cost of using cards.
    - BrandonM 15y ago
      This is correct. One loophole is to have the displayed price be the +5% one, and then give a (possibly advertised) cash discount.
      - vacri 15y ago
        That's how it used to be here in Aus, but they finally fixed the law to give vendors the right to charge a surcharge for cards. Most vendors only do 2-3% (around the actual chard, though Amex is higher) but there are a few bad apples who go a bit higher.
    - kingkilr 15y ago
      I'm pretty sure most of the cards agreements actually forbid you from passing on their charges to the consumer.
      - 15y ago
tbgvi 15y ago
I'm in Chicago as well, and I've had drivers give me a 'free' ride when I try to pay with a card. It's only happened a couple times, but both times they were quick trips less than $5. When I pulled my card out they would have some choice words telling me to get out of the cab...

tptacek 15y ago

Same experience. They always back down. I would never in a million years offer to ride to a nearby ATM. They can do card-not-present auth with their dispatchers even if "their machine is broken".

patio11 15y ago
Same experience. They always back down. Not to continue an old argument, but to continue an old argument, these are the good medallioned guys who are regulated by the state so that they can't scam you. This is supposed to provide an advantage over e.g. Ubercab, where the perils of unregulated capitalism would allow a driver to cheat you. But they still try to scam you and their medallion is not going to get yanked for it. Meanwhile, Uber solves this technologically: they can't run payment scams because the system doesn't trust drivers with any part of the payment flow aside from hitting "The Ride Is Over."
- tptacek 15y ago
  So: * Regulations need to catch up to Uber, fast. Uber is good. * Cabs should be regulated, for public safety and consumer protection. They're a unique intersection of low-barrier-to-entry, vulnerable-consumer, and serious externalities. * Cabs are not well regulated now. * I am ambivalent about business plans premised on "everyone recognizes that reg X is broken, so we'll force the issue by ignoring the reg and going right to market". If Uber gets to, maybe so do investment banks.
  - gojomo 15y ago
    Until there's evidence of abuse, why do "regulations need to catch up to Uber, fast"? (Unless by 'catch up to' you mean 'legalize unconditionally'.) Perhaps smartphone-dispatching, sticky reputations, and non-cash payments solve all the safety and 'consumer protection' issues better than the corrupt, captured, regulatory-commission system. That regulatory system, despite decades (or centuries!) of head-start, has resulted in a situation where "cabs are not well regulated now".
    - hartror 15y ago
      Until there's evidence of abuse, why do "regulations need to catch up to Uber, fast"? The ideal of course is regulators are proactive in regulating, rather than waiting for the horse to bolt before deciding the door should be kept closed. The Ubercab situation is a strong signal to regulators that the landscape is changing and they should be considering changes.
      - yummyfajitas 15y ago
        The ideal of course is regulators are proactive in regulating, rather than waiting for the horse to bolt before deciding the door should be kept closed. This is a good idea in the case of low probability, high impact events. For example, counterparty contagion in the financial system or oil spills. But in the case of low impact events, it's pointless. Take a few obvious precautions (e.g., track all the drivers) but otherwise just wait for problems to arise before fixing them. The risk of an unregulated system is very low - a few consumers get scammed out of $12. The risk of regulation is very high - many consumers may be deprived of a considerable consumer surplus (i.e., they may not get a ride at all, or may be forced to overpay for a regulated cab).
        tptacek 15y ago
        Consumer protection is one goal of taxi regulation, but public safety is another.

kucin 15y ago

Why should they be forced to subsidize your credit card fees? Do you understand that they are barely surviving living in a high cost area such as San Francisco? The city shouldn't be a place where only the rich tech billionaires can live. They're forced to save costs anyway they can because of the large income gap that they're suffering. Capitalism has stolen from the poor and elevated the rich. It's classic 21st century colonialism.

mixmastamyk 15y ago
Why not just add another ~5% if paying by card? Solution seems easy enough.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  Generally the card issuer doesn't like that, because they don't really want cardholders to be aware of the cost of using cards.
  - BrandonM 15y ago
    This is correct. One loophole is to have the displayed price be the +5% one, and then give a (possibly advertised) cash discount.
    - vacri 15y ago
      That's how it used to be here in Aus, but they finally fixed the law to give vendors the right to charge a surcharge for cards. Most vendors only do 2-3% (around the actual chard, though Amex is higher) but there are a few bad apples who go a bit higher.
  - kingkilr 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure most of the cards agreements actually forbid you from passing on their charges to the consumer.
    - 15y ago

tbgvi 15y ago

I'm in Chicago as well, and I've had drivers give me a 'free' ride when I try to pay with a card. It's only happened a couple times, but both times they were quick trips less than $5. When I pulled my card out they would have some choice words telling me to get out of the cab...