4 ms·

I understand that it's useful for a taxi driver to have this knowledge, but do we really need the government to impose it as a strict requirement? One could ima

by jmckib 12y ago

I understand that it's useful for a taxi driver to have this knowledge, but do we really need the government to impose it as a strict requirement? One could imagine multiple taxi services that compete on different axes. One service, competing on price, could have less knowledgeable drivers equipped with GPS devices. Another service, competing on its drivers' knowledge, would be more useful for taking you to obscure locations or navigating the streets quickly. It's like any other industry, really. Can you imagine if short order cooks were required to have the same encyclopedic knowledge as the chefs in a high end restaurant? You'd just end up with some very expensive diners.

jsmeaton 12y ago
We have several companies operating in Melbourne and they are all awful. We don't have any (decent) requirements as far as road knowledge goes. I've also been to London, and the experience with cabs there was wonderful. The requirement to pass a substantial test is a fantastic one, and should be adopted in more places.
- icebraining 12y ago
  I'd rather pay cheaper fares, but thanks for deciding for me.
  - thmcmahon 12y ago
    The problem with cabs is the information asymmetry. You dot know before you're getting in how good their knowledge is, this means that knowledgeable drivers can't charge more and you get a 'market of lemons'. This is a classic form of market failure, and is a strong case for regulation.
    - gsuubvjhsb 12y ago
      So any small business or startup without name recognition should be restricted from the marketplace by a higher authority until a government entity approves its service? Is that what you're saying? Wouldn't this basically kill Ycombinator?
      - vertex-four 12y ago
        Transport is the lifeblood of a city, and is extremely important to that city's economy. I think it's reasonable to say that it's a little different than the next photo-sharing app.
      - gambiting 12y ago
        Yes, that's how it works. If you want to run a restaurant you need to obtain a certificate saying that it's safe and hygienic, if you want to run a theatre you need to make sure that emergency exits are clearly marked and that there is sufficient ventilation, and also, if you want to transport people for money you need to have a certificate that says that 1) you are able to physically 2) your vehicle is in good enough condition. For all of those things you need the "higher authority" and it's a good thing.
    - aianus 12y ago
      There's nothing stopping a competitor from starting a cab company that charges more and gives all their employees a difficult test. Of course, few would use it because few are willing to pay more money for having a knowledgeable taxi driver.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      You dot know before you're getting in how good their knowledge is Why not? Grant a certification with the test, allow cab owners/companies to put a mark on the car/site/etc, sue people using the mark without authorization. Cabs around here already have big ads on their doors, I don't see why couldn't they have a logo advertising their knowledge.
  - anu_gupta 12y ago
    Who's stopping you? London has thousands of mini-cabs. Just google London minicab, and phone one of the numbers. Have you actually ever been to London?
    - icebraining 12y ago
      Googling is not an option when I'm on the street and I need a cab (I don't have mobile Internet access, nor can I justify the cost), which is most of the times when I actually take one.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
vertex-four 12y ago
For people who want to get around cheaply, London has an excellent mass public transport system, between the tube, buses, and intra-city train services.
- dasil003 12y ago
  You mean if you want to get around quickly. If you want to get around cheaply you need to buy a bicycle (or take a Barclay's bike and keep it under 30 mins).
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    By cheaply I meant cheaper than a taxi. There's always a limit to how cheap vehicles powered by electricity or fuel, and which involve human employees, and which use a common causeway (whether that's rail or road), can be. £2 to rent a bicycle for 24 hours seems pretty reasonable, btw. I live in a city where I'd kill for that.
    - dasil003 12y ago
      It's actually £50 to rent a Boris bike for 24 hours. £2 is 24-hour access, but only if you keep the journeys under 30 mins. The £90/year is a pretty good deal actually (even after they doubled it from £45 which it was for the first year), I still pay for it even though I own a bicycle just for the convenience of supplementing my walking speed at will.
      - vertex-four 12y ago
        Ah, that's a bit of a bummer. Still, I might try it out on Sunday to see exactly how far 30 minutes gets me, as I'm there for the weekend and have a free day.
      - penguat 12y ago
        There's also the parking issue: especially in the rush hour, they can be hard to find parking spots for.
PinguTS 12y ago
There is a thing called: customer protection. This applies for all sorts of products and services. One of those services is taxi as part of transportation. Part of this is, that drivers are educated, trust worthy and the vehicles are in good shape as well as having a minimum insurance in protection of the customer. Also if you have 2 or more companies competing over who has the best service, that is good. But all of them have to provide a minimum quality service. Especially, for foreigners who don't know anything. For that reason regulation is required. That regulation also can go wrong, is a different story. Then, of course, it has to be fixed. But Uber (and some others) try to undermine any kind of regulation and so cutting costs to enable cheaper service. That is like Food safety regulations. Like there is a new startup, which has provides a service like Amazon Fresh. It is cheaper by using just peoples cars, which may have no cooling possibility in their vehicles. Then blaming the food safety regulations are wrong because they require cooling facilities for fresh food not putting peoples life at risk.
- gsuubvjhsb 12y ago
  So you're basically saying that mutually consenting adults shouldn't be able to choose their own taxi arrangements, correct? Comparing this to food safety is quite ludicrous. You can sell apples without an "apple vendor" license.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    >>You can sell apples without an "apple vendor" license. You don't need a licence,but you need to make sure your apples adhere to hundreds of different regulations regarding food safety. The same thing here - people transporting passengers for money should adhere to regulations that make such business safe for everyone.
- jmckib 12y ago
  There are already two powerful forces protecting consumers, reputation and tort law. A taxi service with poor service will not be in business for long, because its reputation will crumble, and if the service is truly negligent (for example, by driving vehicles that are in dangerously poor shape), the customer who is harmed can sue, not to mention traffic laws that already punish any driver who endangers other drivers on the road. You say that foreigners don't know anything, but I think most travelers would disagree. When I travel to a foreign country, I am still fully capable of researching the best hotels and restaurants, despite not speaking the native tongue. Taxi service isn't any different. I'm not saying all consumer protection laws are unnecessary, but you have to remember that regulation has a cost. Of course, there's the cost in tax money, but also the fact that regulations are slow to change when necessary. Perhaps the largest risk is regulatory capture, which we've clearly seen in the taxi industry in a number of places. For example, from the linked article: > In France, the proposed remedy was simple: a mandated delay of 15 minutes between ordering a ride from Uber and the passenger pick-up. I find it inconceivable that this sort of regulation is meant to protect consumers. Clearly its only purpose is to protect the profits of traditional taxis.

by jmckib 12y ago

jsmeaton 12y ago

We have several companies operating in Melbourne and they are all awful. We don't have any (decent) requirements as far as road knowledge goes. I've also been to London, and the experience with cabs there was wonderful. The requirement to pass a substantial test is a fantastic one, and should be adopted in more places.

icebraining 12y ago
I'd rather pay cheaper fares, but thanks for deciding for me.
- thmcmahon 12y ago
  The problem with cabs is the information asymmetry. You dot know before you're getting in how good their knowledge is, this means that knowledgeable drivers can't charge more and you get a 'market of lemons'. This is a classic form of market failure, and is a strong case for regulation.
  - gsuubvjhsb 12y ago
    So any small business or startup without name recognition should be restricted from the marketplace by a higher authority until a government entity approves its service? Is that what you're saying? Wouldn't this basically kill Ycombinator?
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      Transport is the lifeblood of a city, and is extremely important to that city's economy. I think it's reasonable to say that it's a little different than the next photo-sharing app.
    - gambiting 12y ago
      Yes, that's how it works. If you want to run a restaurant you need to obtain a certificate saying that it's safe and hygienic, if you want to run a theatre you need to make sure that emergency exits are clearly marked and that there is sufficient ventilation, and also, if you want to transport people for money you need to have a certificate that says that 1) you are able to physically 2) your vehicle is in good enough condition. For all of those things you need the "higher authority" and it's a good thing.
  - aianus 12y ago
    There's nothing stopping a competitor from starting a cab company that charges more and gives all their employees a difficult test. Of course, few would use it because few are willing to pay more money for having a knowledgeable taxi driver.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    You dot know before you're getting in how good their knowledge is Why not? Grant a certification with the test, allow cab owners/companies to put a mark on the car/site/etc, sue people using the mark without authorization. Cabs around here already have big ads on their doors, I don't see why couldn't they have a logo advertising their knowledge.
- anu_gupta 12y ago
  Who's stopping you? London has thousands of mini-cabs. Just google London minicab, and phone one of the numbers. Have you actually ever been to London?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Googling is not an option when I'm on the street and I need a cab (I don't have mobile Internet access, nor can I justify the cost), which is most of the times when I actually take one.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

vertex-four 12y ago

For people who want to get around cheaply, London has an excellent mass public transport system, between the tube, buses, and intra-city train services.

dasil003 12y ago
You mean if you want to get around quickly. If you want to get around cheaply you need to buy a bicycle (or take a Barclay's bike and keep it under 30 mins).
- vertex-four 12y ago
  By cheaply I meant cheaper than a taxi. There's always a limit to how cheap vehicles powered by electricity or fuel, and which involve human employees, and which use a common causeway (whether that's rail or road), can be. £2 to rent a bicycle for 24 hours seems pretty reasonable, btw. I live in a city where I'd kill for that.
  - dasil003 12y ago
    It's actually £50 to rent a Boris bike for 24 hours. £2 is 24-hour access, but only if you keep the journeys under 30 mins. The £90/year is a pretty good deal actually (even after they doubled it from £45 which it was for the first year), I still pay for it even though I own a bicycle just for the convenience of supplementing my walking speed at will.
    - vertex-four 12y ago
      Ah, that's a bit of a bummer. Still, I might try it out on Sunday to see exactly how far 30 minutes gets me, as I'm there for the weekend and have a free day.
    - penguat 12y ago
      There's also the parking issue: especially in the rush hour, they can be hard to find parking spots for.

PinguTS 12y ago

There is a thing called: customer protection. This applies for all sorts of products and services. One of those services is taxi as part of transportation. Part of this is, that drivers are educated, trust worthy and the vehicles are in good shape as well as having a minimum insurance in protection of the customer. Also if you have 2 or more companies competing over who has the best service, that is good. But all of them have to provide a minimum quality service. Especially, for foreigners who don't know anything. For that reason regulation is required. That regulation also can go wrong, is a different story. Then, of course, it has to be fixed. But Uber (and some others) try to undermine any kind of regulation and so cutting costs to enable cheaper service. That is like Food safety regulations. Like there is a new startup, which has provides a service like Amazon Fresh. It is cheaper by using just peoples cars, which may have no cooling possibility in their vehicles. Then blaming the food safety regulations are wrong because they require cooling facilities for fresh food not putting peoples life at risk.

gsuubvjhsb 12y ago
So you're basically saying that mutually consenting adults shouldn't be able to choose their own taxi arrangements, correct? Comparing this to food safety is quite ludicrous. You can sell apples without an "apple vendor" license.
- gambiting 12y ago
  >>You can sell apples without an "apple vendor" license. You don't need a licence,but you need to make sure your apples adhere to hundreds of different regulations regarding food safety. The same thing here - people transporting passengers for money should adhere to regulations that make such business safe for everyone.
jmckib 12y ago
There are already two powerful forces protecting consumers, reputation and tort law. A taxi service with poor service will not be in business for long, because its reputation will crumble, and if the service is truly negligent (for example, by driving vehicles that are in dangerously poor shape), the customer who is harmed can sue, not to mention traffic laws that already punish any driver who endangers other drivers on the road. You say that foreigners don't know anything, but I think most travelers would disagree. When I travel to a foreign country, I am still fully capable of researching the best hotels and restaurants, despite not speaking the native tongue. Taxi service isn't any different. I'm not saying all consumer protection laws are unnecessary, but you have to remember that regulation has a cost. Of course, there's the cost in tax money, but also the fact that regulations are slow to change when necessary. Perhaps the largest risk is regulatory capture, which we've clearly seen in the taxi industry in a number of places. For example, from the linked article: > In France, the proposed remedy was simple: a mandated delay of 15 minutes between ordering a ride from Uber and the passenger pick-up. I find it inconceivable that this sort of regulation is meant to protect consumers. Clearly its only purpose is to protect the profits of traditional taxis.