5 ms·

Uber and Lyft are expensive but anyone who says they are worse than what they replaced doesn’t remember well the heydays of taxis. Sure, people in big towns li

Uber and Lyft are expensive but anyone who says they are worse than what they replaced doesn’t remember well the heydays of taxis. Sure, people in big towns like NYC could always get one fairly easily, but everyone else was stuck dealing with whatever potentially shady operation they could dig out of a phonebook, and even then getting a car wasn’t guaranteed. Now, anyone anywhere can get a ride, often quickly. I’m not trying to excuse any predatory commercial practices directed at drivers or passengers, which are serious problems deserving of more strict regulation, but I absolutely do not want to go back to the old way.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
specproc 1y ago
I'm really not sure old school taxis are actually that bad. I had two incidents in the UK recently where my app of choice failed me and I was quickly bailed out cheaper by googling "taxi $TOWN" and having a one minute conversation with an operator.
- jen20 1y ago
  They are better than they used to be because of the competition. I remember a time not that long ago where getting a minicab was nigh on impossible, and one miraculously did show up, it would be primary so the driver could try to scam you.
  - jordanb 1y ago
    Not my experience using taxi call services in Chicago. Whenever I called them (before Uber) the taxi was prompt and courteous. The apps did three things that the call services did not do: 1) subsidize drivers with vc money for many years making drivers plentiful and fares cheap 2) use unlicensed cabs so they could saturate areas like Manhattan that had previously limited the amount of cabs that could operate 3) Deprive drivers of info they might use to reject fares they don't want (like destination).
    - robertlagrant 1y ago
      > 2) use unlicensed cabs so they could saturate areas like Manhattan that had previously limited the amount of cabs that could operate This is mostly a problem with the people you pay taxes to who would invent systems to restrict the driver numbers.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        No, restricting the amount of cabs is good, actually. It's very annoying if your city is overrun with cabs. The restriction needs to be reasonable but dense cities like NYC would just trend towards 100% cabs if you let them. And then nobody can drive anywhere.
        robertlagrant 1y ago
        Well no, because that's not what happened with Uber. You get more cab drivers, but there's a population limit on cabs based on various factors, including the fact that people don't always want to take a cab.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      Cabs in Chicago prior to Uber were unbelievably bad unless you were picking them up in the Loop and taking them to a destination within the city limits (reference period: 1995-2010). It could take 45 minutes to get a cab to show up in Lakeview, and it was a crap shoot whether they actually would.
      - jordanb 1y ago
        When I lived in Uptown I could typically get one just by standing on Broadway for a little while. When I lived in Logan Square I'd call and they'd be there in 20 minutes. This is well before either Uptown or Logan Square were particularly gentrified. I can believe if you were going to/from the suburbs it may have been harder. The cabbies could know your destination and could just ignore the dispatcher if they didn't want to run the trip.
- robertlagrant 1y ago
  Yeah some operators use similar proper digitised internal systems now as well. The main amazing thing about Uber is that you can go most places in the world, not know what you're doing with obscure public transport/payments/etc and just get an Uber to your hotel, no problems. It's so, so much better than what came before.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  And you don't consider than just maybe that local taxi service which bailed you out so politely now, in the age of Uber everywhere, is delivering a better experience because it finally needs to compete like it didn't back in the day?
tbrownaw 1y ago
> I’m not trying to excuse any predatory commercial practices directed at drivers or passengers, which are serious problems deserving of more strict regulation, but I absolutely do not want to go back to the old way. So which of the laws that uber broke to get big are what prevented these new issues, and which are what made the old way bad?
- Symbiote 1y ago
  In several European countries they weren't doing the criminal record checks that taxi companies are required to do. I think that's what got them banned in London at some point.
Y-bar 1y ago
I remember the time before Uber arrived here, where ”here” obviously is not USA. I don’t mind the old ways. Taxis had apps before Uber arrived here, they had geolocation with ETA, contactless payment, up-front pricing, and never refused service (because they were required by law to offer service to anyone anywhere). The problem probably never was incumbent taxis, it was how they were regulated (or not).
- jen20 1y ago
  Taxis in the US are one of the most regulated services around, and they were still utterly atrocious. Sure, they’re mandated to not refuse service, but you try getting picked up in Manhattan with a suitcase mid afternoon (when it’s obvious you’ll be taking the fixed fare to JFK in heavy traffic). To this day, the meter being “broken” is a tactic used in taxi strongholds like Las Vegas, even with this regulation. The sweet spot for taxis was London, but I will go out of my way to avoid taking one lest I get forced to listen to the drivers views on Brexit for the entire ride.
  - Y-bar 1y ago
    > most regulated As in most rules on the books, not in actually enforced rules I presume?
    - paleotrope 1y ago
      Enforced when corrupt politicos wanted to squeeze medallion owners.
  - appreciatorBus 1y ago
    > Taxis in the US are one of the most regulated services around, and they were still utterly atrocious. This assumes that “most regulated” correlates with less atrocious. Or that the intentions behind regulations are always good. Regulations can indeed makes things less atrocious, but other regulations can just as easily make things more atrocious. I’d argue that many taxi regulations were more the latter than the former. (I.e arbitrary limit on total number of taxi vehicles, while allowing an unlimited number of non-taxi vehicles)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

specproc 1y ago

I'm really not sure old school taxis are actually that bad. I had two incidents in the UK recently where my app of choice failed me and I was quickly bailed out cheaper by googling "taxi $TOWN" and having a one minute conversation with an operator.

jen20 1y ago
They are better than they used to be because of the competition. I remember a time not that long ago where getting a minicab was nigh on impossible, and one miraculously did show up, it would be primary so the driver could try to scam you.
- jordanb 1y ago
  Not my experience using taxi call services in Chicago. Whenever I called them (before Uber) the taxi was prompt and courteous. The apps did three things that the call services did not do: 1) subsidize drivers with vc money for many years making drivers plentiful and fares cheap 2) use unlicensed cabs so they could saturate areas like Manhattan that had previously limited the amount of cabs that could operate 3) Deprive drivers of info they might use to reject fares they don't want (like destination).
  - robertlagrant 1y ago
    > 2) use unlicensed cabs so they could saturate areas like Manhattan that had previously limited the amount of cabs that could operate This is mostly a problem with the people you pay taxes to who would invent systems to restrict the driver numbers.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      No, restricting the amount of cabs is good, actually. It's very annoying if your city is overrun with cabs. The restriction needs to be reasonable but dense cities like NYC would just trend towards 100% cabs if you let them. And then nobody can drive anywhere.
      - robertlagrant 1y ago
        Well no, because that's not what happened with Uber. You get more cab drivers, but there's a population limit on cabs based on various factors, including the fact that people don't always want to take a cab.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Cabs in Chicago prior to Uber were unbelievably bad unless you were picking them up in the Loop and taking them to a destination within the city limits (reference period: 1995-2010). It could take 45 minutes to get a cab to show up in Lakeview, and it was a crap shoot whether they actually would.
    - jordanb 1y ago
      When I lived in Uptown I could typically get one just by standing on Broadway for a little while. When I lived in Logan Square I'd call and they'd be there in 20 minutes. This is well before either Uptown or Logan Square were particularly gentrified. I can believe if you were going to/from the suburbs it may have been harder. The cabbies could know your destination and could just ignore the dispatcher if they didn't want to run the trip.
robertlagrant 1y ago
Yeah some operators use similar proper digitised internal systems now as well. The main amazing thing about Uber is that you can go most places in the world, not know what you're doing with obscure public transport/payments/etc and just get an Uber to your hotel, no problems. It's so, so much better than what came before.
southernplaces7 1y ago
And you don't consider than just maybe that local taxi service which bailed you out so politely now, in the age of Uber everywhere, is delivering a better experience because it finally needs to compete like it didn't back in the day?

tbrownaw 1y ago

> I’m not trying to excuse any predatory commercial practices directed at drivers or passengers, which are serious problems deserving of more strict regulation, but I absolutely do not want to go back to the old way. So which of the laws that uber broke to get big are what prevented these new issues, and which are what made the old way bad?

Symbiote 1y ago
In several European countries they weren't doing the criminal record checks that taxi companies are required to do. I think that's what got them banned in London at some point.

Y-bar 1y ago

I remember the time before Uber arrived here, where ”here” obviously is not USA. I don’t mind the old ways. Taxis had apps before Uber arrived here, they had geolocation with ETA, contactless payment, up-front pricing, and never refused service (because they were required by law to offer service to anyone anywhere). The problem probably never was incumbent taxis, it was how they were regulated (or not).

jen20 1y ago
Taxis in the US are one of the most regulated services around, and they were still utterly atrocious. Sure, they’re mandated to not refuse service, but you try getting picked up in Manhattan with a suitcase mid afternoon (when it’s obvious you’ll be taking the fixed fare to JFK in heavy traffic). To this day, the meter being “broken” is a tactic used in taxi strongholds like Las Vegas, even with this regulation. The sweet spot for taxis was London, but I will go out of my way to avoid taking one lest I get forced to listen to the drivers views on Brexit for the entire ride.
- Y-bar 1y ago
  > most regulated As in most rules on the books, not in actually enforced rules I presume?
  - paleotrope 1y ago
    Enforced when corrupt politicos wanted to squeeze medallion owners.
- appreciatorBus 1y ago
  > Taxis in the US are one of the most regulated services around, and they were still utterly atrocious. This assumes that “most regulated” correlates with less atrocious. Or that the intentions behind regulations are always good. Regulations can indeed makes things less atrocious, but other regulations can just as easily make things more atrocious. I’d argue that many taxi regulations were more the latter than the former. (I.e arbitrary limit on total number of taxi vehicles, while allowing an unlimited number of non-taxi vehicles)