3 ms·

No, what happened was that technology obsoleted the laws that said "A taxi is something you hail on the street". Even in NYC, there were car services predating

by rsj_hn 4y ago

No, what happened was that technology obsoleted the laws that said "A taxi is something you hail on the street". Even in NYC, there were car services predating Uber that you call and arrange a ride, and those drivers were not required to have medallions. The medallion was needed to pick up rides on the street. With the advent of portable phones, cities did not update their regulations (which cities do?) and so Uber exploited this loophole to create a car service that you requested with your phone, but which had a similar (but not identical) user experience to hailing a cab. In fact, the first Ubers were designed as a car service -- it was higher end cars and the cheaper UberX happened only later. Even today, you still can't hail an Uber. That would make it a taxi. Every ride is pre-arranged over the phone. So it's not true that Uber just ignored the rules for taxis, because Ubers aren't taxis. They are a car service. It's the cities that missed the whole mobile phone phenomena and didn't update their laws. In other words, Uber was a bit more sophisticated about this than "Let's just ignore the taxi laws" -- and understanding the difference is kinda important. I can join you in criticizing Uber, but they are not cartoonishly bad, and they did actually think these issues through.

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
This is the argument that Uber used in NYC, though its validity is highly questionable. In countless cities around the world, however, Uber's operations were blatantly illegal. Uber pretty effectively used its customer base to lobby local governments against enforcing regulations, though, and Uber's operations were legalized in many places.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  > This is the argument that Uber used in NYC, though its validity is highly questionable Why do you think it's questionable? This is really cut and dried, which is why NYC was unable to challenge Uber, as they had no case. Not liking something doesn't make it questionable. > In countless cities around the world, however, Uber's operations were blatantly illegal So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. I know of cases where cities decided to pass laws against Uber after they were established in the local market, in which case Uber obeyed those laws and pulled out, but of course lobbied to have the laws changed. Absolutely nothing about that sequence of events is "blatantly illegal".
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    > Why do you think it's questionable? Because standing at the curb and hailing a nearby car on an app is much more like sticking out your hand and waiving down a cab than it is like calling up a limo company the day before and booking a ride. "We're using an app" is not a good excuse for flooding the market with unlicensed taxicabs. > So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. Uber was considered illegal in NYC, SF and LA, and I'm sure many other cities. They eventually came to agreements with Uber, and Uber's operations were legalized by new legislation across the US. However, the initial strategy appears to have been to just expand everywhere, regardless of what they local regulations were, and then to get permission afterwards. This didn't always work out that well internationally, at least at first. For example, Uber executives were arrested in France for running an unlicensed taxicab operation. Addendum: Uber was apparently aware that its operations were illegal in many places, according to leaked internal documents from the company: [0]. I wasn't aware of just how brazen they were. 0. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak....
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      > Because standing at the curb and hailing a nearby car on an app is much more like sticking out your hand and waiving down a cab than it is like calling up a limo company the day before and booking a ride. The law has to define what is a cab and a what is a car service in a way that doesn't rely on feelings and impressions, but in a rigorous way, and Uber met that law even if using Uber leaves you with the impression of a cab like experience. In fact, Uber met it in such an obvious and clear manner that no city (at least no major US city) tried to go after Uber by claiming it was a taxi company. They went after Uber for arguing that workers were misclassified as contractors rather than employees, but not for being an unlicensed taxi. Your insistence that Uber was blatantly breaking this law then creates a puzzle -- why didn't the cities see this "blatant illegality"? Perhaps they didn't know their own city codes as well as you do -- you should have written them a letter and explained how it was obvious that Uber was in violation of their codes. Also, the link you provide doesn't actually say that Uber was aware it was really a taxi company. It is mostly a collection of documents intended to portray Uber as having an offensive culture. How many indictments came out of those leaks? None.

by rsj_hn 4y ago

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

This is the argument that Uber used in NYC, though its validity is highly questionable. In countless cities around the world, however, Uber's operations were blatantly illegal. Uber pretty effectively used its customer base to lobby local governments against enforcing regulations, though, and Uber's operations were legalized in many places.

rsj_hn 4y ago
> This is the argument that Uber used in NYC, though its validity is highly questionable Why do you think it's questionable? This is really cut and dried, which is why NYC was unable to challenge Uber, as they had no case. Not liking something doesn't make it questionable. > In countless cities around the world, however, Uber's operations were blatantly illegal So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. I know of cases where cities decided to pass laws against Uber after they were established in the local market, in which case Uber obeyed those laws and pulled out, but of course lobbied to have the laws changed. Absolutely nothing about that sequence of events is "blatantly illegal".
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  > Why do you think it's questionable? Because standing at the curb and hailing a nearby car on an app is much more like sticking out your hand and waiving down a cab than it is like calling up a limo company the day before and booking a ride. "We're using an app" is not a good excuse for flooding the market with unlicensed taxicabs. > So examples would be nice here, at least in the U.S. Uber was considered illegal in NYC, SF and LA, and I'm sure many other cities. They eventually came to agreements with Uber, and Uber's operations were legalized by new legislation across the US. However, the initial strategy appears to have been to just expand everywhere, regardless of what they local regulations were, and then to get permission afterwards. This didn't always work out that well internationally, at least at first. For example, Uber executives were arrested in France for running an unlicensed taxicab operation. Addendum: Uber was apparently aware that its operations were illegal in many places, according to leaked internal documents from the company: [0]. I wasn't aware of just how brazen they were. 0. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak-reveals-global-lobbying-campaign https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-files-leak....
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    > Because standing at the curb and hailing a nearby car on an app is much more like sticking out your hand and waiving down a cab than it is like calling up a limo company the day before and booking a ride. The law has to define what is a cab and a what is a car service in a way that doesn't rely on feelings and impressions, but in a rigorous way, and Uber met that law even if using Uber leaves you with the impression of a cab like experience. In fact, Uber met it in such an obvious and clear manner that no city (at least no major US city) tried to go after Uber by claiming it was a taxi company. They went after Uber for arguing that workers were misclassified as contractors rather than employees, but not for being an unlicensed taxi. Your insistence that Uber was blatantly breaking this law then creates a puzzle -- why didn't the cities see this "blatant illegality"? Perhaps they didn't know their own city codes as well as you do -- you should have written them a letter and explained how it was obvious that Uber was in violation of their codes. Also, the link you provide doesn't actually say that Uber was aware it was really a taxi company. It is mostly a collection of documents intended to portray Uber as having an offensive culture. How many indictments came out of those leaks? None.