13 ms·

Uber to pay $272M to Australian taxi operators

87 points by schappim 3y ago

farhanhubble 3y ago
Does someone know the real story? How can a company be fined for disrupting an existing business?
- andyferris 3y ago
  When Uber entered the market, what they were doing was technically illegal (the taxi industry was regulated, Uber wasn't a registered provider, its drivers didn't own a taxi permit (which no longer exist), etc). You can generally sue for illegal behavior that causes you losses.
  - lysp 3y ago
    Further to that, taxi licences were limited in number and sought after. So it became less of driving a taxi and more about financial investment. People bought dozens of licences and leased them out. It no longer became about driving taxis and was more an investment. As soon as Uber came, those who invested heavily were left holding a useless (or heavily reduced) investment.
    - farhanhubble 3y ago
      Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.
      - BadHumans 3y ago
        I feel like you just ignored everything else that was said and just zeroed in on the one thing that aligns with your viewpoint.
        zo1 3y ago
        Not OP. But I theorize that almost every single ill plaguing society on a large level ATM can be traced back to a specific government action or refusal by the government to act. Homelessness? Check. Drunk driving fatalities? Check. Domestic violence? Check. Abusive monopolies on single-person transportation? Check.
        littlecosmic 3y ago
        In theory government can do almost anything so it’s hard for this statement to be wrong…
      - protocolture 3y ago
        Correct. And the screeching from the taxi lobby was thunderous. We are better off now this has occurred, really its a sovereign risk issue and they should have sued the government instead.
      - Izkata 3y ago
        The argument I've heard before (about the medallion system in the US, which had the same result as what GP described with licenses) was that since roads are a limited resource, this prevented too many taxis from causing excess traffic just driving around looking for customers. It's an interesting argument because having the app connect customers means they don't have to drive around aimlessly, which almost sidesteps the problem (they still have to pull over somewhere but aren't necessarily causing traffic).
        Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
        They could fix the whole system by issuing as many medallians as people want. Fixed reasonable price, renewable each year. You have to meet certain criteria for public safety, like good driving record, not a sex offender, the car must pass annual safety inspections, etc. But other that, let the market decide how many taxis.
        Ekaros 3y ago
        It makes level of sense to limit number of medallions. And then also at same time cap prices and mandate availability. That is if you have a medallion you must have car on order or on road at all times. This could be achieved by multiple medallion owners working together so that there is a taxi available Wed-Thu night during rainstorm. Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living. Now transferability outside selling whole business is stupid.
        aeyes 3y ago
        > cap prices > Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living Do you really think that some government agency can come up with the correct price and license cap using Excel magic? Of course not, most likely this will just lead to corruption and an inferior service. Let the free market find the price. If it's not possible to make a living people won't drive. Where I live taxis usually charge whatever Uber is showing.
    - musiciangames 3y ago
      I can't find a reference, but I'm pretty sure that someone on the Australian Financial Review's rich list, got rich from Taxi medallions. When Melbourne was to host the olympics, the licence authority decided there would not be enough taxis. They invited people to apply for free licences, and lots of people did apply for a licence. One person applied for a shedfull - something like 200?, and received them all.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    Sounds like a racket. So still hard to fathom the legality.
  - _kb 3y ago
    Lobbying by the taxi industry has also been persistent for the past decade or so [0]. Along with some fairly excellent return political stunts from early days Uber [1]. [0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-drivers-are-prepared-to-pay-12-million-to-take-down-uber https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-driv... [1]: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-horse-and-carriage-to-deliver-hardcopy-emails-of-support/news-story/f3f8575d8528bae6912a2285782c13b7 https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-hor...
- jabroni_salad 3y ago
  Taxis are regulated and would be barred from operating if they fall out of compliance. this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. Since Uber lobbied the govt for permission to operate without these, their value have freefalled and Uber is compensating the holders of those licenses. That protectionism hasn't stepped up properly the past ten years only shows that maybe governments found they would benefit from letting the taxis get slapped around a bit. There will probably be more stories like this in the future as Uber has become entrenched and now will be pressured to get more proper.
  - plantain 3y ago
    "Taxis are regulated" - well, kinda... They're only just now thinking up maybe potentially one day working towards regulating them. https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-be-blacklisted-in-nsw/88f8be65-619d-4300-8aed-36fd7cb332d0 https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-b...
  - protocolture 3y ago
    >this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. An unjust situation created by the government. Uber didnt pass the unjust laws protecting cabcharges monopoly.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lozenge 3y ago
  Take a look at page 79 of the first 'key document' https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-class-action/uber-class-action/ https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-cla... The law said you need a license to provide taxi services. Uber and its drivers didn't have that license. So the lawsuit is for the damages caused by Uber's illegal behaviour.
  - farhanhubble 3y ago
    But Uber wasn't and still isn't a taxi company. It's just an aggregator as they call it.
    - Retric 3y ago
      They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.
      - nonethewiser 3y ago
        How are they a taxi company? Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing.
        kijalo 3y ago
        Disagree there. I think most people would prefer uber over taxi for service/convenience/cost, but I doubt modern uber would be considered that different to a taxi service.
        joshuaissac 3y ago
        > Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing Uber operates primarily as a taxi service with an app Ride sharing is a non-core feature called UberPool, which lets users share Uber taxis with other users.
        TillE 3y ago
        "Ride sharing" is the silliest euphemism, it's not sharing a ride unless the driver was going there already. If you don't want to lump them in with taxis, they're a car service with contract workers. That's all they are.
joegibbs 3y ago
It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then you sue them and win for beating you? Imagine that in any other scenario. Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers. Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instead of suing. The last time I got a taxi it was $80 for a 10km trip that's $32 on Uber. If they weren't so terrible then Uber would have never had an in on the market in the first place.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  Uber settled, they didn't lose the suit. An Uber spokesperson even went as far as admitting there were "legacy issues" that they wanted to put behind them. > "Since 2018, Uber has made significant contributions into various state-level taxi compensation schemes, and with today's proposed settlement, we put these legacy issues firmly in our past," an Uber spokesperson said in an emailed response.
  - NoPicklez 3y ago
    I don't think they missed reading that. Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.
    - kevingadd 3y ago
      They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead. In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.
      - protocolture 3y ago
        >They could have spent all this money lobbying So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change? That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber? Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?
codedokode 3y ago
What is the difference between taxi licenses and medieval monopolies (corporations)? Corporations had exclusive right to do some trade (e.g. make bread or produce salt) and nobody else was allowed to do it.
- brainphreeze 3y ago
  Government taking their cut(s) wherever possible
bouncycastle 3y ago
they didn't break the law. Otherwise, if your boss asked you to drive their friend to the airport, then that would be illegal.
- mihaic 3y ago
  In many places it is illegal to ask someone to drive if that's not their explicit job. Either way, not sure how you can equate asking something of an employee and asking the same from a gig worker. Uber has broken the law in plenty of places, and have always tried to wing it.
  - xeromal 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mihaic 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - crowcroft 3y ago
        'Being forced' is doing a lot of work in that statement. What if I'm asked to drive an employee and I willingly want to help out and drive someone around, and I then simply file expenses and get reimbursed for mileage? Are taxi companies going to sue every company that has ever done something like that? Two sales reps in one car driving around – sue them as well?
        mihaic 3y ago
        What you're doing is bad-faith arguing. There's a clear difference between someone doing something in a very limited capacity and a company that's basing their entire revenue on the same thing. For instance, me recommending to a colleague some off-the-shelf painkiller or someone without a medical license doing this through an app are not the same thing.
pjd7 3y ago
Taxi's in NSW/Sydney are much better these days. Uber X are typically shit by comparison. A $95 UberX ride home is about $109 in a taxi for me. Talking to a few friends who also live a similar distant from the CBD/downtown find that Taxi's are the better / more reliable option these days too. The taxi is pretty much always newer, with a professional driver who usually isn't almost falling asleep behind the wheel. The quality of the driving is typically significantly higher. It feels like a safer ride. Of the recent UberX's I have caught, the car was typically in need of a suspension replacement or significant servicing and around 6-7 years old or older. Most recent taxi rides I have had a car around 12 months old or less. Taxi's are better regulated and provide a better service. I'll happily pay the little premium there is in this market to use one over an Uber. On a recent trip to NZ the uber to taxi price comparison was massively different.. Taxi was like 2.5x more expensive..
- resolutebat 3y ago
  And why are they better "these days"? Because competition from Uber forced them to up their game. They still suck though, and ripoffs and even sexual assault remain legion.
- protocolture 3y ago
  I ordered an uber from one side of the Sydney CBD to the other. We got to talking about ubers situation in the CBD. He told me he doesnt normally accept fares in the CBD because he gets pushed around by the police. As he was saying that, a motorcycle cop ordered him to pull over for an inspection. I thanked him and decided to walk the rest of the trip. Anyway, now armed with the reason I couldn't get an uber reliably in the CBD I found that Uber into the CBD, taxi out of the CBD was the best way forward.
  - aragilar 3y ago
    Or, you know, public transport...
    - theshackleford 3y ago
resolutebat 3y ago
It's worth noting that Australian taxis are generally terrible. They're expensive and notorious for ripoffs, particularly from the airport: scenic routes, bogus surcharges, "broken" credit card machines (plus 5% surcharge when they do work), drivers refusing destinations (by law they're not allowed to), and to top it all off they're not even safe, with taxi drivers responsible for a long string of sexual assaults. Uber and its competitors have their own problems, but they're still way better, and they've forced positive change onto taxis as well with 13CABS (the largest company) now offering an Uber clone app with fixed fares, tracking, etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ghoomketu 3y ago
  Same here in India. A lot of people hate Uber but speaking for me personally it's been a godsend upgrade over the black yellow taxis we had here before. I believe they are the #1 reason why foreigner tourists are scared of coming to India. The amount of scam and harrasment done by these old taxi drivers is just another level. The luxury and straightforwardness of app taxis is unparalleled to what we used to have before.
  - somishere 3y ago
    I loved getting taxis in India for exactly these reasons, I used to get taken to random shops way out of the way of where I needed to go ... I'd just go along along with it, total adventure time! But I can see how it could grate after the novelty wore off. Or if you were maybe being a bit cautious as a traveller.
    - Atotalnoob 3y ago
      This can be really scary for women who are traveling. You could be possibly sexually assaulted, trafficked, or other things.
      - 3y ago
tianqi 3y ago
This is like compensating purse snatchers because the promotion of mobile payments reduces their income. Sydney's taxi is a shame to this wonderful city. I still remember when I first just arrived in Sydney, I took a taxi from the airport to Waterloo and was charged $95, which made me fearful of Sydney prices. It took me time to realise that I had just run into a scam and that the ride should have cost just $20+. Nowadays I would never take taxi. That's why "they lost income when Uber entered".
- tensor 3y ago
  Toronto is notorious for this too. Either the credit card machine is broken and you must pay too much cash, or the credit card machine steals your card number, or you are refused a ride because it’s not far enough. Even travelling through Europe I’ve been refused a ride because it was too short, and got overcharged by 2-3x once. I’d use Uber at this point even if it’s more expensive than a taxi.
  - papruapap 3y ago
    In 90% of all countries really, most common scam ever. That is why travelers use Uber more than natives.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Either the credit card machine is broken and you must pay too much cash... Wouldn't you just respond "Sorry, no cash!" and walk away? It's literally true for me - I rarely have more than $10 cash on hand, because I never need it.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Because they’re threatening
      - alistairSH 3y ago
        I guess it depends on the location. I had a car service pull this on my at Denver International a few years ago. He wasn't asking for more than the flat-fee from downtown to the airport, so I hit the ATM and gave him the cash. But if I had been in a hurry, he would have been SOL, I would have gone straight to security and not given it a second thought.
chx 3y ago
All these takes here. Two preambles: Y'all need to read Invisible Hands, really need to. That book is about how various losely connected sometimes even competing groups of businessmen worked to roll the New Deal back. It's not a conspiracy theory, there was no shadow cabal behind the scenes -- but the goal was common. https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/ https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/ Second, Amazon was started to become a monopoly in retail and only begun with books because it was a relatively easy thing to work with. Similarly, while Uber started with fancy cars soon enough it became a means to destroy the protections organized labor managed to get in the last hundred or so years. Or at least what remained of them. In this the company was exceptionally successful by creating what is called the "gig economy". As people hate taxis, using that market for this purpose was the easy way. If you think past the introduction of UberX in 2012 Uber had anything to do with transportation then, pardon the pun, you have been taken for a ride.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
RomanPushkin 3y ago
My friend drives Red Cab in San Francisco. A couple of weeks ago he charged ~$500 from SFO airport to San Jose (taxi meter price). He informed the passenger, since he thought it's going to be too much for her, and gotten the response he shouldn't count her own money, and should just drive there, lol.
- robk 3y ago
  How in the world is that $500?!
dbetteridge 3y ago
This entire thread is people arguing that breaking laws you disagree with is fine or even a "moral imperative". You can hold that opinion, but as with most things it doesn't excuse you from the consequences of your actions.
egmontcolbert 3y ago
[dead]
egmontcolbert 3y ago
[dead]

87 points by schappim 3y ago

farhanhubble 3y ago

Does someone know the real story? How can a company be fined for disrupting an existing business?

andyferris 3y ago
When Uber entered the market, what they were doing was technically illegal (the taxi industry was regulated, Uber wasn't a registered provider, its drivers didn't own a taxi permit (which no longer exist), etc). You can generally sue for illegal behavior that causes you losses.
- lysp 3y ago
  Further to that, taxi licences were limited in number and sought after. So it became less of driving a taxi and more about financial investment. People bought dozens of licences and leased them out. It no longer became about driving taxis and was more an investment. As soon as Uber came, those who invested heavily were left holding a useless (or heavily reduced) investment.
  - farhanhubble 3y ago
    Ah! So the government created artificial scarcity just as they do in housing.
    - BadHumans 3y ago
      I feel like you just ignored everything else that was said and just zeroed in on the one thing that aligns with your viewpoint.
      - zo1 3y ago
        Not OP. But I theorize that almost every single ill plaguing society on a large level ATM can be traced back to a specific government action or refusal by the government to act. Homelessness? Check. Drunk driving fatalities? Check. Domestic violence? Check. Abusive monopolies on single-person transportation? Check.
        littlecosmic 3y ago
        In theory government can do almost anything so it’s hard for this statement to be wrong…
    - protocolture 3y ago
      Correct. And the screeching from the taxi lobby was thunderous. We are better off now this has occurred, really its a sovereign risk issue and they should have sued the government instead.
    - Izkata 3y ago
      The argument I've heard before (about the medallion system in the US, which had the same result as what GP described with licenses) was that since roads are a limited resource, this prevented too many taxis from causing excess traffic just driving around looking for customers. It's an interesting argument because having the app connect customers means they don't have to drive around aimlessly, which almost sidesteps the problem (they still have to pull over somewhere but aren't necessarily causing traffic).
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
        They could fix the whole system by issuing as many medallians as people want. Fixed reasonable price, renewable each year. You have to meet certain criteria for public safety, like good driving record, not a sex offender, the car must pass annual safety inspections, etc. But other that, let the market decide how many taxis.
        Ekaros 3y ago
        It makes level of sense to limit number of medallions. And then also at same time cap prices and mandate availability. That is if you have a medallion you must have car on order or on road at all times. This could be achieved by multiple medallion owners working together so that there is a taxi available Wed-Thu night during rainstorm. Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living. Now transferability outside selling whole business is stupid.
        aeyes 3y ago
        > cap prices > Also you do not want to give out so many medallions that owners cannot possibly make a living Do you really think that some government agency can come up with the correct price and license cap using Excel magic? Of course not, most likely this will just lead to corruption and an inferior service. Let the free market find the price. If it's not possible to make a living people won't drive. Where I live taxis usually charge whatever Uber is showing.
  - musiciangames 3y ago
    I can't find a reference, but I'm pretty sure that someone on the Australian Financial Review's rich list, got rich from Taxi medallions. When Melbourne was to host the olympics, the licence authority decided there would not be enough taxis. They invited people to apply for free licences, and lots of people did apply for a licence. One person applied for a shedfull - something like 200?, and received them all.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Sounds like a racket. So still hard to fathom the legality.
- _kb 3y ago
  Lobbying by the taxi industry has also been persistent for the past decade or so [0]. Along with some fairly excellent return political stunts from early days Uber [1]. [0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-drivers-are-prepared-to-pay-12-million-to-take-down-uber https://www.vice.com/en/article/gq9jzm/queenslands-taxi-driv... [1]: https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-horse-and-carriage-to-deliver-hardcopy-emails-of-support/news-story/f3f8575d8528bae6912a2285782c13b7 https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/uber-uses-hor...
jabroni_salad 3y ago
Taxis are regulated and would be barred from operating if they fall out of compliance. this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. Since Uber lobbied the govt for permission to operate without these, their value have freefalled and Uber is compensating the holders of those licenses. That protectionism hasn't stepped up properly the past ten years only shows that maybe governments found they would benefit from letting the taxis get slapped around a bit. There will probably be more stories like this in the future as Uber has become entrenched and now will be pressured to get more proper.
- plantain 3y ago
  "Taxis are regulated" - well, kinda... They're only just now thinking up maybe potentially one day working towards regulating them. https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-be-blacklisted-in-nsw/88f8be65-619d-4300-8aed-36fd7cb332d0 https://www.9news.com.au/national/rogue-taxi-drivers-could-b...
- protocolture 3y ago
  >this specific story is about taxi licenses which are of limited availability and costs a lot of money to get. An unjust situation created by the government. Uber didnt pass the unjust laws protecting cabcharges monopoly.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lozenge 3y ago
Take a look at page 79 of the first 'key document' https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-class-action/uber-class-action/ https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/class-actions/join-a-cla... The law said you need a license to provide taxi services. Uber and its drivers didn't have that license. So the lawsuit is for the damages caused by Uber's illegal behaviour.
- farhanhubble 3y ago
  But Uber wasn't and still isn't a taxi company. It's just an aggregator as they call it.
  - Retric 3y ago
    They can call themselves a hotdog stand, that doesn’t mean the courts agree.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      How are they a taxi company? Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing.
      - kijalo 3y ago
        Disagree there. I think most people would prefer uber over taxi for service/convenience/cost, but I doubt modern uber would be considered that different to a taxi service.
      - joshuaissac 3y ago
        > Certainly not thought of that way by your average person. Its taxis vs ride sharing Uber operates primarily as a taxi service with an app Ride sharing is a non-core feature called UberPool, which lets users share Uber taxis with other users.
      - TillE 3y ago
        "Ride sharing" is the silliest euphemism, it's not sharing a ride unless the driver was going there already. If you don't want to lump them in with taxis, they're a car service with contract workers. That's all they are.

joegibbs 3y ago

It's ridiculous - you provide bad quality service with high fees and scammy operators, another competitor enters the market and takes your market share, then you sue them and win for beating you? Imagine that in any other scenario. Not to mention, every trip in NSW has a $1.32 fee to help compensate taxi drivers. Taxi operators should have tried competing on merits like price and cracking down on dodgy drivers instead of suing. The last time I got a taxi it was $80 for a 10km trip that's $32 on Uber. If they weren't so terrible then Uber would have never had an in on the market in the first place.

mvdtnz 3y ago
Uber settled, they didn't lose the suit. An Uber spokesperson even went as far as admitting there were "legacy issues" that they wanted to put behind them. > "Since 2018, Uber has made significant contributions into various state-level taxi compensation schemes, and with today's proposed settlement, we put these legacy issues firmly in our past," an Uber spokesperson said in an emailed response.
- NoPicklez 3y ago
  I don't think they missed reading that. Just that regardless, the whole reason for the suit in the first place is just because a new company beat Taxi's at their game and the Taxi companies decided to complain rather than innovate.
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    They broke the law, if they didn't want to potentially pay fines or a settlement, they shouldn't have broken the law. They could have spent all this money lobbying in advance to get laws repealed or get an exception instead. In the grand scheme of things it seems like it worked out for them.
    - protocolture 3y ago
      >They could have spent all this money lobbying So the valid response to an unjust situation is to throw money at it and pray for change? That our laws should be decided on who has the most money? Cabcharge V Uber? Or that, the law being stupid and unjust, was ignored by Uber, to the benefit of millions of australians, who experienced cheaper fares, resulting in a massive push to get the law changed from the bottom up?

codedokode 3y ago

What is the difference between taxi licenses and medieval monopolies (corporations)? Corporations had exclusive right to do some trade (e.g. make bread or produce salt) and nobody else was allowed to do it.

brainphreeze 3y ago
Government taking their cut(s) wherever possible

bouncycastle 3y ago

they didn't break the law. Otherwise, if your boss asked you to drive their friend to the airport, then that would be illegal.

mihaic 3y ago
In many places it is illegal to ask someone to drive if that's not their explicit job. Either way, not sure how you can equate asking something of an employee and asking the same from a gig worker. Uber has broken the law in plenty of places, and have always tried to wing it.
- xeromal 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mihaic 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - crowcroft 3y ago
      'Being forced' is doing a lot of work in that statement. What if I'm asked to drive an employee and I willingly want to help out and drive someone around, and I then simply file expenses and get reimbursed for mileage? Are taxi companies going to sue every company that has ever done something like that? Two sales reps in one car driving around – sue them as well?
      - mihaic 3y ago
        What you're doing is bad-faith arguing. There's a clear difference between someone doing something in a very limited capacity and a company that's basing their entire revenue on the same thing. For instance, me recommending to a colleague some off-the-shelf painkiller or someone without a medical license doing this through an app are not the same thing.

pjd7 3y ago

Taxi's in NSW/Sydney are much better these days. Uber X are typically shit by comparison. A $95 UberX ride home is about $109 in a taxi for me. Talking to a few friends who also live a similar distant from the CBD/downtown find that Taxi's are the better / more reliable option these days too. The taxi is pretty much always newer, with a professional driver who usually isn't almost falling asleep behind the wheel. The quality of the driving is typically significantly higher. It feels like a safer ride. Of the recent UberX's I have caught, the car was typically in need of a suspension replacement or significant servicing and around 6-7 years old or older. Most recent taxi rides I have had a car around 12 months old or less. Taxi's are better regulated and provide a better service. I'll happily pay the little premium there is in this market to use one over an Uber. On a recent trip to NZ the uber to taxi price comparison was massively different.. Taxi was like 2.5x more expensive..

resolutebat 3y ago
And why are they better "these days"? Because competition from Uber forced them to up their game. They still suck though, and ripoffs and even sexual assault remain legion.
protocolture 3y ago
I ordered an uber from one side of the Sydney CBD to the other. We got to talking about ubers situation in the CBD. He told me he doesnt normally accept fares in the CBD because he gets pushed around by the police. As he was saying that, a motorcycle cop ordered him to pull over for an inspection. I thanked him and decided to walk the rest of the trip. Anyway, now armed with the reason I couldn't get an uber reliably in the CBD I found that Uber into the CBD, taxi out of the CBD was the best way forward.
- aragilar 3y ago
  Or, you know, public transport...
  - theshackleford 3y ago

resolutebat 3y ago

It's worth noting that Australian taxis are generally terrible. They're expensive and notorious for ripoffs, particularly from the airport: scenic routes, bogus surcharges, "broken" credit card machines (plus 5% surcharge when they do work), drivers refusing destinations (by law they're not allowed to), and to top it all off they're not even safe, with taxi drivers responsible for a long string of sexual assaults. Uber and its competitors have their own problems, but they're still way better, and they've forced positive change onto taxis as well with 13CABS (the largest company) now offering an Uber clone app with fixed fares, tracking, etc.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ghoomketu 3y ago
Same here in India. A lot of people hate Uber but speaking for me personally it's been a godsend upgrade over the black yellow taxis we had here before. I believe they are the #1 reason why foreigner tourists are scared of coming to India. The amount of scam and harrasment done by these old taxi drivers is just another level. The luxury and straightforwardness of app taxis is unparalleled to what we used to have before.
- somishere 3y ago
  I loved getting taxis in India for exactly these reasons, I used to get taken to random shops way out of the way of where I needed to go ... I'd just go along along with it, total adventure time! But I can see how it could grate after the novelty wore off. Or if you were maybe being a bit cautious as a traveller.
  - Atotalnoob 3y ago
    This can be really scary for women who are traveling. You could be possibly sexually assaulted, trafficked, or other things.
    - 3y ago

tianqi 3y ago

This is like compensating purse snatchers because the promotion of mobile payments reduces their income. Sydney's taxi is a shame to this wonderful city. I still remember when I first just arrived in Sydney, I took a taxi from the airport to Waterloo and was charged $95, which made me fearful of Sydney prices. It took me time to realise that I had just run into a scam and that the ride should have cost just $20+. Nowadays I would never take taxi. That's why "they lost income when Uber entered".

tensor 3y ago
Toronto is notorious for this too. Either the credit card machine is broken and you must pay too much cash, or the credit card machine steals your card number, or you are refused a ride because it’s not far enough. Even travelling through Europe I’ve been refused a ride because it was too short, and got overcharged by 2-3x once. I’d use Uber at this point even if it’s more expensive than a taxi.
- papruapap 3y ago
  In 90% of all countries really, most common scam ever. That is why travelers use Uber more than natives.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Either the credit card machine is broken and you must pay too much cash... Wouldn't you just respond "Sorry, no cash!" and walk away? It's literally true for me - I rarely have more than $10 cash on hand, because I never need it.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Because they’re threatening
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      I guess it depends on the location. I had a car service pull this on my at Denver International a few years ago. He wasn't asking for more than the flat-fee from downtown to the airport, so I hit the ATM and gave him the cash. But if I had been in a hurry, he would have been SOL, I would have gone straight to security and not given it a second thought.

chx 3y ago

All these takes here. Two preambles: Y'all need to read Invisible Hands, really need to. That book is about how various losely connected sometimes even competing groups of businessmen worked to roll the New Deal back. It's not a conspiracy theory, there was no shadow cabal behind the scenes -- but the goal was common. https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/ https://wwnorton.com/books/Invisible-Hands/ Second, Amazon was started to become a monopoly in retail and only begun with books because it was a relatively easy thing to work with. Similarly, while Uber started with fancy cars soon enough it became a means to destroy the protections organized labor managed to get in the last hundred or so years. Or at least what remained of them. In this the company was exceptionally successful by creating what is called the "gig economy". As people hate taxis, using that market for this purpose was the easy way. If you think past the introduction of UberX in 2012 Uber had anything to do with transportation then, pardon the pun, you have been taken for a ride.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

RomanPushkin 3y ago

My friend drives Red Cab in San Francisco. A couple of weeks ago he charged ~$500 from SFO airport to San Jose (taxi meter price). He informed the passenger, since he thought it's going to be too much for her, and gotten the response he shouldn't count her own money, and should just drive there, lol.

robk 3y ago
How in the world is that $500?!

dbetteridge 3y ago

This entire thread is people arguing that breaking laws you disagree with is fine or even a "moral imperative". You can hold that opinion, but as with most things it doesn't excuse you from the consequences of your actions.

egmontcolbert 3y ago

[dead]

egmontcolbert 3y ago

[dead]