8 ms·

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 t

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.
    - baddox 13y ago
      I'm not familiar with these regulations which make a distinction for "street-hail." In every city I've used a taxi in, you can call the taxi company and request a cab to your location. Is this a separate service incidental to the street-hail regulations?
    - kkowalczyk 13y ago
      Even accepting your biased wording ("deliberately blurring"), you failed to state what exactly is wrong with Uber competing with taxi companies (in my corner of economics, competition is good). Is this a Bruce Lee thing, an argument without an argument?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Again: the taxi companies Uber is competing with are bound by regulations that Uber isn't bound by; for instance, Uber's business model is based on a 20% surcharge which taxi companies are forbidden by law to apply.
- owenjones 13y ago
  Doesn't the fact the Uber drivers come to the passenger alleviate that fact? Also, anecdotally, from experience living in bad neighborhoods in my city taxi cabs are generally less likely to visit.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Have you looked into whether your local cab companies are required to service every area of the city? It's illegal for an NYC cab to refuse service within NYC's regulated area; it's also illegal for them to, for instance, drop you off short of your destination --- my wife found this out when her cab to LGA dropped her off halfway there because he had to make an appointment, and an NYC cop immediately stopped and ticketed him.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      > an NYC cop immediately stopped and ticketed him. Did she have to alert the cop to what happened, or is there a system in place that notifies police when this happens?
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Neither. The cop just noticed her getting out and immediately trying to flag another cab.
        kkowalczyk 13y ago
        If you have a personal story on how a law was violated and given the fact it was on books for decades, it clearly is ineffectively enforced (taxi drivers apparently prefer to violate the law regularly with a small chance of being ticketed and I can't blame them if that's more profitable for them). If only there was a system where you could call a cab exactly to where you are, monitor its position while it arrives in real time, and one that would drop you off exactly where you wanted to go. A system where you could comment on the quality of the driver after each ride so that the bad ones are permanently kicked off. Wait, there is. It's called Uber. In this case self-regulation and competition work better than government regulations. Uber has self-interest in making sure they work well or else people will move to a better system. Having government erect and then enforce the laws is a costly externality of the taxi system - police officers are paid with your money too.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  It's funny; you say that, but cab drivers are infamous for asking passengers "Where are you going?" and subsequently driving off when they don't like the destination.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I would imagine that behavior precisely why these sorts of regulations arose in the first place.
    - redblacktree 13y ago
      It seems that they weren't very effective...
      - rayiner 13y ago
        I'm not defending the effectiveness of the "regulation in trade for monopoly." I'm pointing out that there is more to the situation than just cab companies trying to unfairly keep competitors out. One way or the other, you have to deal with the fact that cab companies were granted a monopoly (the whole point of which is to keep competitors out) in return for being burdened by certain regulations.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    It's one thing to make it illegal for cabbies to do that. It's another thing to actually stop them. A "requirement" that taxis service a neighborhood is a sop. Call up and ask for a cab from someplace they don't want to service and they'll say "be there in 30-45 minutes," aka "go away."
    - redblacktree 13y ago
      Wow. I would actually expect them to arrive in 30-45 minutes. I guess I'm naive?
johnrob 13y ago
Unfortunately, the influence of the large and powerful group has already been written into law. Asking the city to ignore its own laws is probably not going to be a solution for these new transportation services.

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.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I'm not familiar with these regulations which make a distinction for "street-hail." In every city I've used a taxi in, you can call the taxi company and request a cab to your location. Is this a separate service incidental to the street-hail regulations?
  - kkowalczyk 13y ago
    Even accepting your biased wording ("deliberately blurring"), you failed to state what exactly is wrong with Uber competing with taxi companies (in my corner of economics, competition is good). Is this a Bruce Lee thing, an argument without an argument?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Again: the taxi companies Uber is competing with are bound by regulations that Uber isn't bound by; for instance, Uber's business model is based on a 20% surcharge which taxi companies are forbidden by law to apply.
owenjones 13y ago
Doesn't the fact the Uber drivers come to the passenger alleviate that fact? Also, anecdotally, from experience living in bad neighborhoods in my city taxi cabs are generally less likely to visit.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Have you looked into whether your local cab companies are required to service every area of the city? It's illegal for an NYC cab to refuse service within NYC's regulated area; it's also illegal for them to, for instance, drop you off short of your destination --- my wife found this out when her cab to LGA dropped her off halfway there because he had to make an appointment, and an NYC cop immediately stopped and ticketed him.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > an NYC cop immediately stopped and ticketed him. Did she have to alert the cop to what happened, or is there a system in place that notifies police when this happens?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Neither. The cop just noticed her getting out and immediately trying to flag another cab.
      - kkowalczyk 13y ago
        If you have a personal story on how a law was violated and given the fact it was on books for decades, it clearly is ineffectively enforced (taxi drivers apparently prefer to violate the law regularly with a small chance of being ticketed and I can't blame them if that's more profitable for them). If only there was a system where you could call a cab exactly to where you are, monitor its position while it arrives in real time, and one that would drop you off exactly where you wanted to go. A system where you could comment on the quality of the driver after each ride so that the bad ones are permanently kicked off. Wait, there is. It's called Uber. In this case self-regulation and competition work better than government regulations. Uber has self-interest in making sure they work well or else people will move to a better system. Having government erect and then enforce the laws is a costly externality of the taxi system - police officers are paid with your money too.
redblacktree 13y ago
It's funny; you say that, but cab drivers are infamous for asking passengers "Where are you going?" and subsequently driving off when they don't like the destination.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I would imagine that behavior precisely why these sorts of regulations arose in the first place.
  - redblacktree 13y ago
    It seems that they weren't very effective...
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I'm not defending the effectiveness of the "regulation in trade for monopoly." I'm pointing out that there is more to the situation than just cab companies trying to unfairly keep competitors out. One way or the other, you have to deal with the fact that cab companies were granted a monopoly (the whole point of which is to keep competitors out) in return for being burdened by certain regulations.
- danielweber 13y ago
  It's one thing to make it illegal for cabbies to do that. It's another thing to actually stop them. A "requirement" that taxis service a neighborhood is a sop. Call up and ask for a cab from someplace they don't want to service and they'll say "be there in 30-45 minutes," aka "go away."
  - redblacktree 13y ago
    Wow. I would actually expect them to arrive in 30-45 minutes. I guess I'm naive?

johnrob 13y ago

Unfortunately, the influence of the large and powerful group has already been written into law. Asking the city to ignore its own laws is probably not going to be a solution for these new transportation services.