5 ms·

LA sides with taxi companies, sends cease-and-desists to Lyft, Uber, and Sidecar

49 points by chwitta9000 13y ago

chwitta9000 13y ago
Sorry, but I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for these LA cabbies when every time I try to use my credit card to pay they act like I just skipped out on the fare.
- akama 13y ago
  Something very similar happened to me the other day. A cab driver refused to let me pay by credit card. He said that he loses money on every ride that uses a credit card.
  - chwitta9000 13y ago
    I've been told by cabbies that it takes the cab companies a week or so to process (at least in LA) and that's why the drivers hate it so much.
- owenjones 13y ago
  Happens all the time here. Only once has a cabbie ever let me pay with card, he was angry at all the other taxi drivers who only accept cash so as to not report the income.
mehmehshoe 13y ago
The article stated that taxi activists would be protesting today. I wonder if the protesters are the people that own the medallions? I doubt the drivers making $8 an hour have time to protest. The medallion scheme needs reform or replacement. Further reading: http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of-the-taxi-medallions http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of...
sdoowpilihp 13y ago
These kind of actions on the part of existing taxi and limo services are to be expected. When a large and powerful group can't win on merit or the quality of their product, they will attempt to win through any other means, including litigation or politics. This move reeks of desperation, and if I were any of the three companies mentioned, I would see this as a glass half full scenario. Time to lawyer up.
- rayiner 13y ago
  That's one explanation of the situation (and there is certainly an element of that). The other element of the situation is that people use litigation and politics to protect existing bargains. Cabs are regulated, for various reasons. Cities use them as an extension of their public transit infrastructure, and impose restrictions like requiring them to service the whole city, instead of just the profitable neighborhoods. In return, the cab companies are given a monopoly. So if the cities allow Uber to skim off all the premium business, without requiring Uber to serve the sketchy/marginal neighborhoods, then that's the city going back on its side of the bargain. The cabs can't "win on merit" when they're playing with one hand tied behind their back. The fair thing to do is either enforce the existing monopoly and keep out Uber, or alternatively to get rid of the monopoly and the regulations too.
  - jrockway 13y ago
    You're confusing taxi services and car services. Taxis are for street-hail, but that's not what Uber does; Uber is a car service. Their app handles the dispatch and payment processing, but is otherwise the same business that car services have always had. (Car services aren't supposed to be "on demand", however, but find me one car service in the world that won't come get you immediately and we'll talk...)
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Uber is deliberately blurring the lines by offering "Uber Taxi" alongside the black car service; they are putting themselves directly into competition with regulated cab services. Uber Taxi isn't intended to be a market substitute for cab service; it's intended as a replacement for cab service. Incidentally, the "on-demand" nature of taxicabs versus the "call-ahead" nature of car services is not a distinction made in every city or state. Arlington's "taxi cab" definition pretty clearly captures car services as well.
untog 13y ago
I feel a little sorry for Uber being bunched in with Lyft and Sidecar- the latter two use a sort of nebulous "rideshare" concept to skirt around being considered taxi cabs, but Uber uses licensed drivers, as far as I can tell.
- ngoel36 13y ago
  This infuriates me beyond belief. How is Uber not in everybody's best interests? The end-user experience is clearly far superior, I can't find a soul who can argue with that (except for the understandable price differential which will diminish with scale). I haven't personally talked to a driver for either service, but the experience for them has to be better. Uber, as a private company, can optimize for extraneous costs, ultimately leaving a larger margin to be paid to the drivers. But I digress, why make bold claims as to which is better, I just wish municipalities would let the free market decide. Let the boys play, goddammit. In a magical world where I could change all city cabs into Ubers, I can't imagine there would be too many complaints. The situation reminds me of local food merchants in my parents' hometown in India. They fucking hate Walmart, and they've got every city official in their pockets to make sure Walmart (or any large grocery store) ever lays a brick there. They hate the fact that Walmart will have lower, standardized prices; better, consistently fresh produce; well-trained, honest workers. They hate that Walmart might kill their business. What they don't realize is if they just went and worked for Walmart, their life might be better than it is while running their own shitty little tomato stand. Where they have to work their ass off all summer so their wives can buy a winter jacket. Where one little tomato pest can kill their entire crop, and in turn, their kid's chance of going to school that year. Where another tomato farmer can undercut their prices and move their cart next door whenever they want. It's a bummer that some people will always be resistant to change.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    It's easy to show how Uber isn't in everyone's best interests: cabs are required to service well-defined metro areas at a standardized fare; in return for agreeing to operate under a set of regulations that makes them part of the transit fabric of a city, regulated cab services is granted a monopoly. That system doesn't work if cabs are forced to compete at a disadvantage with other services that don't operate under the same constraints.
JosephBrown 13y ago
Why shouldn't the regulations that apply to one group of people who charge money to drive others around on public roads not apply to every group of people who charge to drive people around for money?
- ryanmcbride 13y ago
  Extrapolate this, am I not allowed to accept gas money from a friend if I drive them around? Of course I wouldn't be fined for that, but where is the line drawn? Do I have to know a person very well before I can accept their money for a ride? A friend of a friend? Will I be asked to answer a series of questions about the person if I am pulled over?
  - TillE 13y ago
    Running a business vs not is already pretty well established in tax law.
  - johnrob 13y ago
    If that argument were valid, none of the current taxi companies would buy transportation licenses or commercial insurance.
Shivetya 13y ago
For many industries to be regulated is to be protected. This issue is very little different from others we have read about here, a prime example would be either AirBnB or even Tesla. The root of all of these is government. Your going to have to push for less regulation to get into many markets. To get there means one or more strategies. Changing who is government, for that you will need to convince people there is a benefit in doing that. Second to that would be reducing the size of government, put limits on what it can do. Third, you could try and get the people making the laws on your side, but your up against numbers. So whether its taxi rides, rooms for rent, cars to sell, hair dressers, or even where you kid can go to school, its all about regulation and protection of those regulated. Don't get mad at those who work in regulated fields, find a way to reduce that regulation to give them choices, you choices, and customers of all a choice.
chwitta9000 13y ago
For those of you that care or for those of you that live in LA, there is a petition going around. Not sure how effective these are, but I signed. Here--> https://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-los-angeles-repeal-the-cease-and-desist-order-on-uber-lyft-and-sidecar https://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-los-angeles-repeal-...

49 points by chwitta9000 13y ago

Sorry, but I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for these LA cabbies when every time I try to use my credit card to pay they act like I just skipped out on the fare.

akama 13y ago
Something very similar happened to me the other day. A cab driver refused to let me pay by credit card. He said that he loses money on every ride that uses a credit card.
- chwitta9000 13y ago
  I've been told by cabbies that it takes the cab companies a week or so to process (at least in LA) and that's why the drivers hate it so much.
owenjones 13y ago
Happens all the time here. Only once has a cabbie ever let me pay with card, he was angry at all the other taxi drivers who only accept cash so as to not report the income.

mehmehshoe 13y ago

The article stated that taxi activists would be protesting today. I wonder if the protesters are the people that own the medallions? I doubt the drivers making $8 an hour have time to protest. The medallion scheme needs reform or replacement. Further reading: http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of-the-taxi-medallions http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of...

sdoowpilihp 13y ago

These kind of actions on the part of existing taxi and limo services are to be expected. When a large and powerful group can't win on merit or the quality of their product, they will attempt to win through any other means, including litigation or politics. This move reeks of desperation, and if I were any of the three companies mentioned, I would see this as a glass half full scenario. Time to lawyer up.

rayiner 13y ago
That's one explanation of the situation (and there is certainly an element of that). The other element of the situation is that people use litigation and politics to protect existing bargains. Cabs are regulated, for various reasons. Cities use them as an extension of their public transit infrastructure, and impose restrictions like requiring them to service the whole city, instead of just the profitable neighborhoods. In return, the cab companies are given a monopoly. So if the cities allow Uber to skim off all the premium business, without requiring Uber to serve the sketchy/marginal neighborhoods, then that's the city going back on its side of the bargain. The cabs can't "win on merit" when they're playing with one hand tied behind their back. The fair thing to do is either enforce the existing monopoly and keep out Uber, or alternatively to get rid of the monopoly and the regulations too.
- jrockway 13y ago
  You're confusing taxi services and car services. Taxis are for street-hail, but that's not what Uber does; Uber is a car service. Their app handles the dispatch and payment processing, but is otherwise the same business that car services have always had. (Car services aren't supposed to be "on demand", however, but find me one car service in the world that won't come get you immediately and we'll talk...)
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Uber is deliberately blurring the lines by offering "Uber Taxi" alongside the black car service; they are putting themselves directly into competition with regulated cab services. Uber Taxi isn't intended to be a market substitute for cab service; it's intended as a replacement for cab service. Incidentally, the "on-demand" nature of taxicabs versus the "call-ahead" nature of car services is not a distinction made in every city or state. Arlington's "taxi cab" definition pretty clearly captures car services as well.

untog 13y ago

I feel a little sorry for Uber being bunched in with Lyft and Sidecar- the latter two use a sort of nebulous "rideshare" concept to skirt around being considered taxi cabs, but Uber uses licensed drivers, as far as I can tell.

ngoel36 13y ago
This infuriates me beyond belief. How is Uber not in everybody's best interests? The end-user experience is clearly far superior, I can't find a soul who can argue with that (except for the understandable price differential which will diminish with scale). I haven't personally talked to a driver for either service, but the experience for them has to be better. Uber, as a private company, can optimize for extraneous costs, ultimately leaving a larger margin to be paid to the drivers. But I digress, why make bold claims as to which is better, I just wish municipalities would let the free market decide. Let the boys play, goddammit. In a magical world where I could change all city cabs into Ubers, I can't imagine there would be too many complaints. The situation reminds me of local food merchants in my parents' hometown in India. They fucking hate Walmart, and they've got every city official in their pockets to make sure Walmart (or any large grocery store) ever lays a brick there. They hate the fact that Walmart will have lower, standardized prices; better, consistently fresh produce; well-trained, honest workers. They hate that Walmart might kill their business. What they don't realize is if they just went and worked for Walmart, their life might be better than it is while running their own shitty little tomato stand. Where they have to work their ass off all summer so their wives can buy a winter jacket. Where one little tomato pest can kill their entire crop, and in turn, their kid's chance of going to school that year. Where another tomato farmer can undercut their prices and move their cart next door whenever they want. It's a bummer that some people will always be resistant to change.
- tptacek 13y ago
  It's easy to show how Uber isn't in everyone's best interests: cabs are required to service well-defined metro areas at a standardized fare; in return for agreeing to operate under a set of regulations that makes them part of the transit fabric of a city, regulated cab services is granted a monopoly. That system doesn't work if cabs are forced to compete at a disadvantage with other services that don't operate under the same constraints.

JosephBrown 13y ago

Why shouldn't the regulations that apply to one group of people who charge money to drive others around on public roads not apply to every group of people who charge to drive people around for money?

ryanmcbride 13y ago
Extrapolate this, am I not allowed to accept gas money from a friend if I drive them around? Of course I wouldn't be fined for that, but where is the line drawn? Do I have to know a person very well before I can accept their money for a ride? A friend of a friend? Will I be asked to answer a series of questions about the person if I am pulled over?
- TillE 13y ago
  Running a business vs not is already pretty well established in tax law.
- johnrob 13y ago
  If that argument were valid, none of the current taxi companies would buy transportation licenses or commercial insurance.

Shivetya 13y ago

For many industries to be regulated is to be protected. This issue is very little different from others we have read about here, a prime example would be either AirBnB or even Tesla. The root of all of these is government. Your going to have to push for less regulation to get into many markets. To get there means one or more strategies. Changing who is government, for that you will need to convince people there is a benefit in doing that. Second to that would be reducing the size of government, put limits on what it can do. Third, you could try and get the people making the laws on your side, but your up against numbers. So whether its taxi rides, rooms for rent, cars to sell, hair dressers, or even where you kid can go to school, its all about regulation and protection of those regulated. Don't get mad at those who work in regulated fields, find a way to reduce that regulation to give them choices, you choices, and customers of all a choice.

chwitta9000 13y ago

For those of you that care or for those of you that live in LA, there is a petition going around. Not sure how effective these are, but I signed. Here--> https://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-los-angeles-repeal-the-cease-and-desist-order-on-uber-lyft-and-sidecar https://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-los-angeles-repeal-...