5 ms·

Vote Clears Way for Taxi Rider Apps in NYC

42 points by sethbannon 14y ago

newishuser 14y ago
We don't need to be able to hail yellow cabs with an app, we need to be able to hail black cars with an app. Cabs aren't going to come to BK because they got a text message, they all swarm around Manhattan looking for short fares, but black car services are local and could benefit from easier dispatch and payment. If you ask me this is the TLC anticipating public demand for the app and stepping in the way of it actually being useful under the guise of playing along.
nlh 14y ago
Gotta hand it to Uber (and the others) here. They are making good on their strategy: Disrupt now, break the rules, apologize & make nice later. It's remarkable how the tables are turning in their direction with respect to the local governments. Keep it up guys! (And as an avid AirBNB user, I hope the tide goes in the same direction for them on this score...)
- rayiner 14y ago
  As someone who doesn't use AirBNB, when can I expect a check to compensate me for the risk you expose me to buy running a hotel out of your residential dwelling?
  - nlh 14y ago
    Somewhat OT, but I suppose I brought it up in my comment. Can you clarify your question? Are you referring to "you" as in AirBNB or "you" as in the host/owner of the apartment? And by "me" do you mean yourself as a host or yourself as an AirBNB user/guest? Who do you think owes you a check and for what risk exactly?
    - rayiner 14y ago
      AirBnB's business model is built on violating zoning regulations. Cities zone hotels specially because a place with a constant stream of transient tenants has a very different risk profile than a place with long-term tenants. When people buy a condo or apartment or house in a residential area, they rely on that zoning. All else being equal, a home in a completely residential area is going to cost more than one next to say a hotel. When you effectively run a hotel in a residential area by being an "avid AirBNB user", you expose your neighbors to more risk than they bargained for, without compensating them. This kind of thing is just a great way to make money. Take a little bit away from a very large number of people in a way that makes it hard for any single affected person to challenge the system as a whole.
      - jvm 14y ago
        Sorry I'm having trouble following this argument, what is the risk? A couple guesses I had: -Do you think they'll start a fire and burn the neighborhood down? I think I can safely say that that virtually never happens in the contemporary US. -Do you think airbnb guests are likely to be violent criminals? To which I would answer, when a criminal stays at a hotel and then attacks me does the hotel owe me money? In my opinion they do not.
        tptacek 14y ago
        This question is disingenuous. The risks involved here are obvious. When you acquire a lease from a landlord, the landlord screens you. Many check references. Arbitrary apartments in arbitrary buildings are not a product offered anonymously, like candy bars or Macbooks. In addition to the lurid- but- non-negligible risks you bring up, there are more pedestrian problems with transient tenants: * They may leave outer door locks unlocked * They may let random strangers into the building * They create noise * They can damage the building * They create fire and electrical hazards * They create unsafe unsanitary conditions It is, again, disingenuous to imply that these are new concerns brought up to stymie offerings like Airbnb. These have always been concerns. Do a Google news search for "hotel zoning". People protest, often successfully, proposed zoning changes that would allow new hotels.
  - noarchy 14y ago
    Why do you need a compensation check if no damages have occurred? There might be legitimate insurance questions here, for example, but that's a separate matter.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Partly because you're lowering property values by changing peoples' bargained-for risk expectations, and also because you're almost certainly not carrying enough insurance, if you're even carrying any insurance. You're exposing people to risk they didn't bargain for and almost certainly can't compensate them if something bad happens.
      - wtvanhest 14y ago
        It is hard to quantify the value of noise, trash etc. which is one of the many reasons we have zoning over just people suing each other. On the risk side, you are exposing people to the potential threat of physical harm which money cannot replace. Risks like rape, murder etc. while low are definitely increased when you open apartment buildings to random people. I'm an AirBnB user, but their business model isn't as neatly disruptive as Uber's IMO.
- akharris 14y ago
  Sorry, but that's not at all what happened here. This is a function of Hailo and others actually working within the system to change it, rather than disrupting/breaking rules/making nice. If you look at the series of events, Kalanick and Uber broke laws (not just rules) after trying to get around those rules behind the scenes. Then, when they were called out for it, they launched into pseudo-randian tirades about the unfairness and injustice of it all. They whined about how the governments just kept beating up on the little guy and how they'd stop at nothing to promote the free market. And after all that, this played out the way it should have - there was a vote on the laws that allowed a new behavior. All of a sudden, Bloomberg is a good guy! New York is amazing! Uber triumphs over the forces of darkness...by playing the game they should have from the start.
  - Zak 14y ago
    And after all that, this played out the way it should have You seem to have a very specific idea about how things should work. That's fine, but it's important to recognize that not everybody feels the way you do.
htf 14y ago
> Those companies have aggressively lobbied the TLC not to permit apps that they feel would break down the existing ban on “prearrangement” of rides between yellow cab drivers and customers, saying that to do so could severely threaten their business. That argument held sway among some TLC commissioners, who said they feared the impact on jobs of allowing the apps to be used. Good thing those people were not around when the computer was invented.
- rayiner 14y ago
  > Good thing those people were not around when the computer was invented. That's a trope that's misapplied here. These people aren't just fighting "progress" in some vague sense. They're fighting something that disrupts their arrangement with the City of New York. And this isn't same sweet-heart, back-room arrangement. Cabs are a basic part of the transportation infrastructure in the city. More than half of households in New York don't have a car (75% in Manhattan). It's also one of the top tourist destinations in the country. The city regulates cab companies heavily, and in return for things like requiring them to serve riders regardless of destination, it gives them certain protections from competition. Cab companies in the city are basically like public utility companies. Uber is not subject to these regulations. The cab drivers are entirely justified in pushing back to force a discussion on how Uber should fit into this semi-public/semi-private transportation system.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - netfire 14y ago
    Plenty of industries are subject to local and federal government regulation, but that doesn't mean they should be protected from competition. Where does the motivation to provide good service at competitive rates come from if you are protected from competition? Such an agreement, in my opinion, is inherently bad for progress and for consumers in general.
    - rayiner 14y ago
noarchy 14y ago
This sort of thing shouldn't have been held up by waiting for a government body to vote on it. To build an use an app should simply require drivers willing to use it, and paying passengers. That tells you just how extensive the regulation of that industry is, when the city keeps it locked down to such a degree.
bdcravens 14y ago
Good for Uber! We love disruption. So when we talk about developers working for $5/hour outsourced, that's disruption too, right? Discussion of that tends to go a bit differently ....

42 points by sethbannon 14y ago

We don't need to be able to hail yellow cabs with an app, we need to be able to hail black cars with an app. Cabs aren't going to come to BK because they got a text message, they all swarm around Manhattan looking for short fares, but black car services are local and could benefit from easier dispatch and payment. If you ask me this is the TLC anticipating public demand for the app and stepping in the way of it actually being useful under the guise of playing along.

nlh 14y ago

Gotta hand it to Uber (and the others) here. They are making good on their strategy: Disrupt now, break the rules, apologize & make nice later. It's remarkable how the tables are turning in their direction with respect to the local governments. Keep it up guys! (And as an avid AirBNB user, I hope the tide goes in the same direction for them on this score...)

rayiner 14y ago
As someone who doesn't use AirBNB, when can I expect a check to compensate me for the risk you expose me to buy running a hotel out of your residential dwelling?
- nlh 14y ago
  Somewhat OT, but I suppose I brought it up in my comment. Can you clarify your question? Are you referring to "you" as in AirBNB or "you" as in the host/owner of the apartment? And by "me" do you mean yourself as a host or yourself as an AirBNB user/guest? Who do you think owes you a check and for what risk exactly?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    AirBnB's business model is built on violating zoning regulations. Cities zone hotels specially because a place with a constant stream of transient tenants has a very different risk profile than a place with long-term tenants. When people buy a condo or apartment or house in a residential area, they rely on that zoning. All else being equal, a home in a completely residential area is going to cost more than one next to say a hotel. When you effectively run a hotel in a residential area by being an "avid AirBNB user", you expose your neighbors to more risk than they bargained for, without compensating them. This kind of thing is just a great way to make money. Take a little bit away from a very large number of people in a way that makes it hard for any single affected person to challenge the system as a whole.
    - jvm 14y ago
      Sorry I'm having trouble following this argument, what is the risk? A couple guesses I had: -Do you think they'll start a fire and burn the neighborhood down? I think I can safely say that that virtually never happens in the contemporary US. -Do you think airbnb guests are likely to be violent criminals? To which I would answer, when a criminal stays at a hotel and then attacks me does the hotel owe me money? In my opinion they do not.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        This question is disingenuous. The risks involved here are obvious. When you acquire a lease from a landlord, the landlord screens you. Many check references. Arbitrary apartments in arbitrary buildings are not a product offered anonymously, like candy bars or Macbooks. In addition to the lurid- but- non-negligible risks you bring up, there are more pedestrian problems with transient tenants: * They may leave outer door locks unlocked * They may let random strangers into the building * They create noise * They can damage the building * They create fire and electrical hazards * They create unsafe unsanitary conditions It is, again, disingenuous to imply that these are new concerns brought up to stymie offerings like Airbnb. These have always been concerns. Do a Google news search for "hotel zoning". People protest, often successfully, proposed zoning changes that would allow new hotels.
- noarchy 14y ago
  Why do you need a compensation check if no damages have occurred? There might be legitimate insurance questions here, for example, but that's a separate matter.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Partly because you're lowering property values by changing peoples' bargained-for risk expectations, and also because you're almost certainly not carrying enough insurance, if you're even carrying any insurance. You're exposing people to risk they didn't bargain for and almost certainly can't compensate them if something bad happens.
    - wtvanhest 14y ago
      It is hard to quantify the value of noise, trash etc. which is one of the many reasons we have zoning over just people suing each other. On the risk side, you are exposing people to the potential threat of physical harm which money cannot replace. Risks like rape, murder etc. while low are definitely increased when you open apartment buildings to random people. I'm an AirBnB user, but their business model isn't as neatly disruptive as Uber's IMO.
akharris 14y ago
Sorry, but that's not at all what happened here. This is a function of Hailo and others actually working within the system to change it, rather than disrupting/breaking rules/making nice. If you look at the series of events, Kalanick and Uber broke laws (not just rules) after trying to get around those rules behind the scenes. Then, when they were called out for it, they launched into pseudo-randian tirades about the unfairness and injustice of it all. They whined about how the governments just kept beating up on the little guy and how they'd stop at nothing to promote the free market. And after all that, this played out the way it should have - there was a vote on the laws that allowed a new behavior. All of a sudden, Bloomberg is a good guy! New York is amazing! Uber triumphs over the forces of darkness...by playing the game they should have from the start.
- Zak 14y ago
  And after all that, this played out the way it should have You seem to have a very specific idea about how things should work. That's fine, but it's important to recognize that not everybody feels the way you do.

htf 14y ago

> Those companies have aggressively lobbied the TLC not to permit apps that they feel would break down the existing ban on “prearrangement” of rides between yellow cab drivers and customers, saying that to do so could severely threaten their business. That argument held sway among some TLC commissioners, who said they feared the impact on jobs of allowing the apps to be used. Good thing those people were not around when the computer was invented.

rayiner 14y ago
> Good thing those people were not around when the computer was invented. That's a trope that's misapplied here. These people aren't just fighting "progress" in some vague sense. They're fighting something that disrupts their arrangement with the City of New York. And this isn't same sweet-heart, back-room arrangement. Cabs are a basic part of the transportation infrastructure in the city. More than half of households in New York don't have a car (75% in Manhattan). It's also one of the top tourist destinations in the country. The city regulates cab companies heavily, and in return for things like requiring them to serve riders regardless of destination, it gives them certain protections from competition. Cab companies in the city are basically like public utility companies. Uber is not subject to these regulations. The cab drivers are entirely justified in pushing back to force a discussion on how Uber should fit into this semi-public/semi-private transportation system.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- netfire 14y ago
  Plenty of industries are subject to local and federal government regulation, but that doesn't mean they should be protected from competition. Where does the motivation to provide good service at competitive rates come from if you are protected from competition? Such an agreement, in my opinion, is inherently bad for progress and for consumers in general.
  - rayiner 14y ago

noarchy 14y ago

This sort of thing shouldn't have been held up by waiting for a government body to vote on it. To build an use an app should simply require drivers willing to use it, and paying passengers. That tells you just how extensive the regulation of that industry is, when the city keeps it locked down to such a degree.

bdcravens 14y ago

Good for Uber! We love disruption. So when we talk about developers working for $5/hour outsourced, that's disruption too, right? Discussion of that tends to go a bit differently ....