7 ms·

The article concentrates on aspects that are certainly archaic - the expectancy that a taxi driver knows every street in a city. On the other hand, it totally i

by Argorak 12y ago

The article concentrates on aspects that are certainly archaic - the expectancy that a taxi driver knows every street in a city. On the other hand, it totally ignores the benefits of the regulation: the client can have normalized expectations over all businesses. E.g. in germany, your insurance status if an Uber car crashes is unknown - it depends whether the driver is insured. On the other hand, it is clearly regulated what happens when a registered taxi crashes down to what fees you have (or do not have) to pay. I do agree that the regulation is probably outdated, but many of the aspects make sense if you see a Taxi network as an important piece of infrastructure.

lukasm 12y ago
Is that really a problem? If he's not insured you're just gonna sue him or Uber.
- codingbeer 12y ago
  And who should pay for that lawsuit?
  - lukasm 12y ago
    You or lawyer takes the cut after winning. Case like that will make Uber to require insurance from all drivers. Problem solved without extra regulations and bureaucracy that will cause problem in the future, as we have now.
    - wowwhat 12y ago
      That's right, you won't find any regulations or bureaucracy in the court system!
- gambiting 12y ago
  Suing takes time, and even if you succeed the person/company might not be able to pay. Insurance companies pay out immediately if there are medical bills to pay.
  - lukasm 12y ago
    We're talking Germany here. Free healthcare.
    - gambiting 12y ago
      Even with free healthcare you might be compensated for permanent injuries. In that case the insurance company still pays.
    - PinguTS 12y ago
      That means, the public should pay for one companies profit?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - Argorak 12y ago
        No, public healthcare makes sure you get on your foot again an then tries to get their money back as any other insurance would. So, the public makes sure the damage of you being hurt, unable to work and maybe turning out to be a case for social security because of being maltreated is avoided.
  - crag 12y ago
    "Insurance companies pay out immediately if there are medical bills to pay." That's not true at all. And it REALLY depends on which state (in the USA) you are in. Florida for example is a no-fault state. Which means, basically, insurance companies are on the hook for the first 10k. Which is about how much it coast to mend a broken leg. Anything above that requires a lawsuit. And you don't sue the insurance company. You are suing a person (or company). Lawsuits take time. Lots of time. A taxi driver in Florida has different requirements. So does the company he drives for. The amount they pay out is much higher. Also, not every issue requires a lawsuit. Sometime you just get a bad driver. With Uber, who you gonna complain too? Uber? In most states, complaining to the taxi commission is a serious offense and has to be answered by the driver and company he drives for. I don't have a problem with Uber itself. If people want to drive others around, fine. BUT totally unfair to require taxi drivers to be licensed and not the Uber drives. It's unfair to make the taxi driver (and company) have much higher insurance requirements than Uber and it's divers. And it's unfair to the rider. If you are in an Uber car and you have a wreck; you better hope that driver has more then "what's minimum" for insurance. Chances are, he doesn't. And you're fucked. PS: This is true for car services, and even courier services too, by the way.
- rayiner 12y ago
  You can't sue Uber if a driver crashes, because drivers are independent contractors. You can sue the driver, but he has no money and can just dodge the judgment in bankruptcy.
  - themartorana 12y ago
    Are you sure? If I'm hit by a drunk driver I can sue the bar. All you need is one judge that thinks Uber has some culpability and you can sue away.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      There's two differences there: 1) those suits are the result of special laws ("dram shop laws") that extend liability to bars; 2) liability in those cases arises when the bar did something negligent (serve someone who appeared to be drunk, serve a minor, etc). Absent a special law, you can only sue a business for the negligence of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior. The essence of the theory is that businesses should be liable for the risks created by their employees acting within the scope of their employment. However, respondeat superior does not apply when the tortfeasor (the person who acted negligently) is an independent contractor. When it comes to employees, a business can reduce incidences of negligence through training, setting procedures, etc. They exert a great deal of control over how the employee does his work. That's not true in the case of independent contractors, like Uber drivers.
      - themartorana 12y ago
        Thanks for that... I learned something today!
        waps 12y ago
        There is the basic principle that anyone can be sued for the consequences of their actions. Uber arranged that drive. They didn't check for insurance status. That could be cause enough. Plus between you and the driver there exists no business relationship. So you can argue that there's nothing to sue about. Besides who would you sue ? "The driver" doesn't work too wel. You'd sue Uber to get the name of the driver in the first place. This go-between-suit is pretty common in legal cases. What should happen is this. Judge agrees Uber owes your medical bills/restitution/whatever applies. Judge also agrees that Uber can get this amount from their driver. Then Uber has to cough up the money, but if they ask for delay in payment until their suit of the driver is finished, 99% certain they'll get that. Then you get the choice of getting the money from Uber, or joining Uber's suit against the driver (not a hard choice with Uber).
- Argorak 12y ago
  That's a common misconception. If I loose a leg, the driver will probably never be able to pay the sum, go through personal bankruptcy and leave me with a nice sum I sued for, but no actual money.
blcknight 12y ago
At least in Berlin, with an app that I can also use to pay like Uber (mytaxi), I can have a pristine regulated taxi (usually a newish Mercedes) to my door in five minutes. And it costs 30% less than Uber. But in the US, you have idiotic cities where taxis are expensive and some even charge per person, are dirty, dilapidated cars with rude drivers. Uber is nice there..
- arethuza 12y ago
  I have a similar view of the taxis here in Edinburgh - I use the same taxi company both for work and personal trips and they are great, can use an app or IVR to book really easily. The taxis are always spotless and the drivers very pleasant.
Aardwolf 12y ago
In cities such as Bangkok or New Delhi, taxi's are very plenty, and not very expensive, so extremely useful important piece of infrastructure (except the traffic jams). However, in cities in Europe, the price of a taxi is simply way too high. Whether you can afford it or not, paying 20 Euros to be transported a few KM or 70 Euros if it's a few 10 KM's is just too insanely high. It is more something for abnormal occasions only.
- Grue3 12y ago
  Taxis in Bangkok are really something. There is so many of them and they are constantly driving around the city, most of them empty (red light). The economics of this must be really strange. Don't they have to pay for gas? How much fuel is burned by keeping all these cars in motion (not that there's anywhere to park them anyway).
- CaptainZapp 12y ago
  In Bangkok Taxis are dirt cheap. What I noticed, though, are more and more cabs with doctored meters. That can be rather small time. For example: manipulating the kilometers driven in order to get a higher fare at the destination, or it can be very, very blatant. I once took a cab from the airport to Silom. The initial fare was correct (35bt), but then the meter immediately went into cardiac arrest mode and just went ape shit. This shouldn't be the case. The 35bt entry fee (about $1) gets you about a mile (depending on wait times), before it slowly goes up in 2 bt intervals. That meter must have been doctored by a factor of 10 - 15 (which I thought stupid as hell, because instantly noticeable). A trip to my hotel at that meter rate would easily have been 3000 - 5000 baht. Instead of the normal 300 - 400 bt. However, this being Thailand, what you should never, ever do is directly accusing the driver. There's that face saving thing, that Thais take very, very seriously. Accusing him may get you into one of the less touristy areas in town, where you meet a number of the driver's friends wielding crow bars and baseball bats. And I'm not exaggerating here. I resolved the dilemma, by pretending to consult my watch, making a shocked face and mumbling something around the line of "oh, Friday; traffic very, very bad in Bangkok, please bring me to Skytrain station"). The interesting thing was he knew that I knew, but didn't make any problems and brought me there. While this example was extreme I experienced multiple rides that where slightly more expensive than they should have been in Bangkok. So: beware!

by Argorak 12y ago

lukasm 12y ago

Is that really a problem? If he's not insured you're just gonna sue him or Uber.

codingbeer 12y ago
And who should pay for that lawsuit?
- lukasm 12y ago
  You or lawyer takes the cut after winning. Case like that will make Uber to require insurance from all drivers. Problem solved without extra regulations and bureaucracy that will cause problem in the future, as we have now.
  - wowwhat 12y ago
    That's right, you won't find any regulations or bureaucracy in the court system!
gambiting 12y ago
Suing takes time, and even if you succeed the person/company might not be able to pay. Insurance companies pay out immediately if there are medical bills to pay.
- lukasm 12y ago
  We're talking Germany here. Free healthcare.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Even with free healthcare you might be compensated for permanent injuries. In that case the insurance company still pays.
  - PinguTS 12y ago
    That means, the public should pay for one companies profit?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - Argorak 12y ago
      No, public healthcare makes sure you get on your foot again an then tries to get their money back as any other insurance would. So, the public makes sure the damage of you being hurt, unable to work and maybe turning out to be a case for social security because of being maltreated is avoided.
- crag 12y ago
  "Insurance companies pay out immediately if there are medical bills to pay." That's not true at all. And it REALLY depends on which state (in the USA) you are in. Florida for example is a no-fault state. Which means, basically, insurance companies are on the hook for the first 10k. Which is about how much it coast to mend a broken leg. Anything above that requires a lawsuit. And you don't sue the insurance company. You are suing a person (or company). Lawsuits take time. Lots of time. A taxi driver in Florida has different requirements. So does the company he drives for. The amount they pay out is much higher. Also, not every issue requires a lawsuit. Sometime you just get a bad driver. With Uber, who you gonna complain too? Uber? In most states, complaining to the taxi commission is a serious offense and has to be answered by the driver and company he drives for. I don't have a problem with Uber itself. If people want to drive others around, fine. BUT totally unfair to require taxi drivers to be licensed and not the Uber drives. It's unfair to make the taxi driver (and company) have much higher insurance requirements than Uber and it's divers. And it's unfair to the rider. If you are in an Uber car and you have a wreck; you better hope that driver has more then "what's minimum" for insurance. Chances are, he doesn't. And you're fucked. PS: This is true for car services, and even courier services too, by the way.
rayiner 12y ago
You can't sue Uber if a driver crashes, because drivers are independent contractors. You can sue the driver, but he has no money and can just dodge the judgment in bankruptcy.
- themartorana 12y ago
  Are you sure? If I'm hit by a drunk driver I can sue the bar. All you need is one judge that thinks Uber has some culpability and you can sue away.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    There's two differences there: 1) those suits are the result of special laws ("dram shop laws") that extend liability to bars; 2) liability in those cases arises when the bar did something negligent (serve someone who appeared to be drunk, serve a minor, etc). Absent a special law, you can only sue a business for the negligence of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior. The essence of the theory is that businesses should be liable for the risks created by their employees acting within the scope of their employment. However, respondeat superior does not apply when the tortfeasor (the person who acted negligently) is an independent contractor. When it comes to employees, a business can reduce incidences of negligence through training, setting procedures, etc. They exert a great deal of control over how the employee does his work. That's not true in the case of independent contractors, like Uber drivers.
    - themartorana 12y ago
      Thanks for that... I learned something today!
      - waps 12y ago
        There is the basic principle that anyone can be sued for the consequences of their actions. Uber arranged that drive. They didn't check for insurance status. That could be cause enough. Plus between you and the driver there exists no business relationship. So you can argue that there's nothing to sue about. Besides who would you sue ? "The driver" doesn't work too wel. You'd sue Uber to get the name of the driver in the first place. This go-between-suit is pretty common in legal cases. What should happen is this. Judge agrees Uber owes your medical bills/restitution/whatever applies. Judge also agrees that Uber can get this amount from their driver. Then Uber has to cough up the money, but if they ask for delay in payment until their suit of the driver is finished, 99% certain they'll get that. Then you get the choice of getting the money from Uber, or joining Uber's suit against the driver (not a hard choice with Uber).
Argorak 12y ago
That's a common misconception. If I loose a leg, the driver will probably never be able to pay the sum, go through personal bankruptcy and leave me with a nice sum I sued for, but no actual money.

blcknight 12y ago

At least in Berlin, with an app that I can also use to pay like Uber (mytaxi), I can have a pristine regulated taxi (usually a newish Mercedes) to my door in five minutes. And it costs 30% less than Uber. But in the US, you have idiotic cities where taxis are expensive and some even charge per person, are dirty, dilapidated cars with rude drivers. Uber is nice there..

arethuza 12y ago
I have a similar view of the taxis here in Edinburgh - I use the same taxi company both for work and personal trips and they are great, can use an app or IVR to book really easily. The taxis are always spotless and the drivers very pleasant.

Aardwolf 12y ago

In cities such as Bangkok or New Delhi, taxi's are very plenty, and not very expensive, so extremely useful important piece of infrastructure (except the traffic jams). However, in cities in Europe, the price of a taxi is simply way too high. Whether you can afford it or not, paying 20 Euros to be transported a few KM or 70 Euros if it's a few 10 KM's is just too insanely high. It is more something for abnormal occasions only.

Grue3 12y ago
Taxis in Bangkok are really something. There is so many of them and they are constantly driving around the city, most of them empty (red light). The economics of this must be really strange. Don't they have to pay for gas? How much fuel is burned by keeping all these cars in motion (not that there's anywhere to park them anyway).
CaptainZapp 12y ago
In Bangkok Taxis are dirt cheap. What I noticed, though, are more and more cabs with doctored meters. That can be rather small time. For example: manipulating the kilometers driven in order to get a higher fare at the destination, or it can be very, very blatant. I once took a cab from the airport to Silom. The initial fare was correct (35bt), but then the meter immediately went into cardiac arrest mode and just went ape shit. This shouldn't be the case. The 35bt entry fee (about $1) gets you about a mile (depending on wait times), before it slowly goes up in 2 bt intervals. That meter must have been doctored by a factor of 10 - 15 (which I thought stupid as hell, because instantly noticeable). A trip to my hotel at that meter rate would easily have been 3000 - 5000 baht. Instead of the normal 300 - 400 bt. However, this being Thailand, what you should never, ever do is directly accusing the driver. There's that face saving thing, that Thais take very, very seriously. Accusing him may get you into one of the less touristy areas in town, where you meet a number of the driver's friends wielding crow bars and baseball bats. And I'm not exaggerating here. I resolved the dilemma, by pretending to consult my watch, making a shocked face and mumbling something around the line of "oh, Friday; traffic very, very bad in Bangkok, please bring me to Skytrain station"). The interesting thing was he knew that I knew, but didn't make any problems and brought me there. While this example was extreme I experienced multiple rides that where slightly more expensive than they should have been in Bangkok. So: beware!