4 ms·

As far as I can see, Uber is the problem in countries, where taxi industry is heavily regularized. Recently Uber started its operation in Poland, in Warsaw. Fo

by piokoch 12y ago

As far as I can see, Uber is the problem in countries, where taxi industry is heavily regularized. Recently Uber started its operation in Poland, in Warsaw. For 2 days that was a news, but later nobody paid much attention on it. In Poland in order to become taxi driver one needs to fulfill a number of conditions (only people who never comitted a crime are allowed a licence, must be physically and mentally healthy) a then pass the "city knowladge" exam. Exam is obligatory only in cites larger then 100K. And that's all. Due to competition taxi prices are kept on resonable level, so taxi companies are competing by having nicer cars, being highly available (wating for a taxi longer then 10 min is unusual), offering loyalty cards, cummulative invoicing at the end of the month, etc. Uber can compete with lower prices - they have promised to be 20% cheaper. It is not clear however cheaper from which price - premium taxi companies (about 60 cents per kilometer) or cheap services (40 cents per kilometer). There are other questions as well - would Uber be able to provide invoices, if not, it is not a deal for many people. Even if I pay less (10% less?), I don't think I will risk riding with someone who might be totally unfit for the job and does not know city. Plus if something goes wrong I am not sure how Uber is going to handle that. So, basically, Uber is one more taxi company out of 25 with fancy way of calling taxi, so there is no reason for other companies to protest.

bottled_poe 12y ago
Exactly. Uber has risen as we perceive the cost of a taxi service to be excessive. Why is this? Is it exploitation by a bloated monopoly or is it to cover actual costs (such as insurance, regulatory constraints) which don't present themselves to the average traveler? I'm sure it is somewhere in the middle.
- james1071 12y ago
  The main differences will be labour rates-i.e. how much the driver is paid (or earns) per shift and the utilization rate (i.e how much of the time the driver is working).
alkonaut 12y ago
Same in Stockholm, Uber isnt some revolutionary new method of transportation, it's another taxi co among hundreds. The app+payment is the only thing that sets them apart, but apps of course exist for a handful of the other largest taxi companies.
- chrisseaton 12y ago
  Doesn't Uber use considerably nicer cars than any other taxi service? When I get an Uber in London it's a very new and clean spacious black car, not your standard taxi. And the drivers are far more polite (they don't try to ask me about football for example).
  - alkonaut 12y ago
    Since there are hundreds of companies there are all sorts of cars. Uber does have the best cars in its price range (standard taxi prices) though. You can always get a black 7-series from a company other than Uber, but you are probably being ripped off since standard taxicos run more standard (such as e-class or v70) cars.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Yup. We already had our taxi disruption in Poland when iCar and the like appeared. They used a legal trick to get around requirements for taxi license. A dozen media storms, few slashed tires and a law change later, they were made to operate under taxi law, and everyone seems to live along well. The primary important features introduced by iCar, et al. was a) fare based on distance, therefore known before the ride, and b) use of GPS to navigate around the city. I actually switched to iCar mostly for b) - I trust GPS more than taxi driver's instinct. I don't see anything new Uber can bring here. We already have a taxi network with an ordering app anyway.
sveme 12y ago
This. Many commentators especially in Germany are complaining about the lack of a will to innovate, yet uber is nothing new under the sun. They pretend to be part of a sharing economy, yet charge more than the fuel costs of a trip, which is the quintessential difference to ride sharing. They are simply a global taxi company with a fancy app that is trying to benefit from not being regulated by claiming to be something new - ride sharing. They are a taxi company so should have to follow the same regulations as all the other taxi companies.
- james1071 12y ago
  Yes, of course they are a taxi company and they are playing a game of words in pretending not to be. The reason that they do so is that the licensing rules for taxis protect the incumbents from new entrants.
  - alkonaut 12y ago
    Licensing/quotas/medallions etc. are horrible ideas. Uber is doing right for breaking into these markets, pretending to be taxis but saying they aren't. So for all the other markets, where there is no medallion system or other barrier for entry to the market (other than "expected" things like insurance etc.), that is where Uber is just a taxi. And here they don't even SAY they aren't taxis. My guess: taxi license/medallions are a relic that is bound to disappear pretty quickly. Since in some places people have to BUY these things, it's obviously not going to be done overnight.
    - xamolxix 12y ago
      > My guess: taxi license/medallions are a relic that is bound to disappear pretty quickly. Since in some places people have to BUY these things, it's obviously not going to be done overnight. I agree, however until they lawfully become a thing of the past is not fair to people who have bought them (or followed the possibly lengthy procedure of getting licensed)
      - james1071 12y ago
anon1385 12y ago
When people talk about 'heavy regulation', they don't usually specify what regulations they are actually talking about. In Germany for example, Uber is in trouble because they are not ensuring that their drivers are insured (a normal private car insurance won't cover commercial operation) and not ensuring that the vehicles have the required level of mechanical safety checks (commercial vehicles require more regular tests because they do far more miles). When you peel away the vague and emotive language of 'heavy regulation' to look at the actual issues then suddenly things look quite different. Hands up who on HN thinks filling our roads with uninsured drivers is a good thing? Hands up who thinks mandatory checks on vehicles brakes and other basic safety systems is a bad thing? I think I see pg's hand at the back there. But in general the vast vast majority of people think mandatory insurance is a good idea. That's why nearly all developed countries require it by law. Uber don't want to actually come out and say 'our drivers are not insured', but make no mistake, thats the kind of thing Uber and SV VCs are talking about when they complain about 'red tape' and 'regulation' and 'lack of entrepreneurial spirit'. Ignoring insurance laws makes it easier for them to undercut law abiding and sociably responsible competitors, and they want to continue to get away with it.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > Hands up who on HN thinks filling our roads with uninsured drivers is a good thing? Hands up who thinks mandatory checks on vehicles brakes and other basic safety systems is a bad thing? I think I see pg's hand at the back there. But in general the vast vast majority of people think mandatory insurance is a good idea. That's why nearly all developed countries require it by law. The thing is that instead of making these things "expected" because of market forces, imposing it by law makes it a default for everyone and it becomes a box to tick when you want to operate a taxi, just like many other things. And you end up with people who simply do not give a shit at all about consumer experience and providing a good service at all. That's the key difference with countries were taxis have less regulations: people actually compete on service, for the benefit of everyone, not just the few who are taxi drivers and running a monopoly provided by the State. With this attitude you end up with Taxi drivers who do this job because they see it as a rent, not as a way to make a difference on the market. Yeah, that's the spirit!
slowmotiony 12y ago
I don't know what taxi services are you using, but I live in a major Polish city and the taxis are horrible, for a couple of reasons: - You always get a different price - You never get a receipt (if you request one, you often get yelled at) - Drivers drive like madmen - Sometimes it takes 30+ minutes for a taxi, other times no taxi picks up the damn phone - Sometimes they tell you 20 minutes, and then don't come at all. Fuckers will talk all the ride about how hard it is for them to make a living, how the laws are hard to follow for them etc. And then give you a price of 50zl for a 10 minute ride. Ridiculous. I can't wait for services Uber and alike to take them all out of business.
- lgieron 12y ago
  Are you a non-native? The culture of overcharging foreigners is probably still pretty strong in many places (it was born during the communist time, where every westerner was perceived as a walking wallet).
  - slowmotiony 12y ago
    I'm native. They don't appear to discriminate, they rip everyone off the same way. ;-)
someone234 12y ago
In Germany and Spain, there's a state-maintained taxi cartel. They don't want any competition - that's the point of a cartel to begin with - and so, their friends in the government are working to prevent it. All the bullshit regulation is just part of maintaining the cartel. Apparently they don't have this problem in Poland, and rather unsurprisingly, taxis are cheap and competing by having nicer cars etc.
Shorel 12y ago
Here in Colombia Uber is AMAZINGLY better than any taxi company. The difference is simply too big. A normal taxi will not go where I want, or refuse to take me for any other reason. And payment has to be cash only. And there's always some risk the driver will try to take advantage of you.

by piokoch 12y ago

bottled_poe 12y ago

Exactly. Uber has risen as we perceive the cost of a taxi service to be excessive. Why is this? Is it exploitation by a bloated monopoly or is it to cover actual costs (such as insurance, regulatory constraints) which don't present themselves to the average traveler? I'm sure it is somewhere in the middle.

james1071 12y ago
The main differences will be labour rates-i.e. how much the driver is paid (or earns) per shift and the utilization rate (i.e how much of the time the driver is working).

alkonaut 12y ago

Same in Stockholm, Uber isnt some revolutionary new method of transportation, it's another taxi co among hundreds. The app+payment is the only thing that sets them apart, but apps of course exist for a handful of the other largest taxi companies.

chrisseaton 12y ago
Doesn't Uber use considerably nicer cars than any other taxi service? When I get an Uber in London it's a very new and clean spacious black car, not your standard taxi. And the drivers are far more polite (they don't try to ask me about football for example).
- alkonaut 12y ago
  Since there are hundreds of companies there are all sorts of cars. Uber does have the best cars in its price range (standard taxi prices) though. You can always get a black 7-series from a company other than Uber, but you are probably being ripped off since standard taxicos run more standard (such as e-class or v70) cars.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

Yup. We already had our taxi disruption in Poland when iCar and the like appeared. They used a legal trick to get around requirements for taxi license. A dozen media storms, few slashed tires and a law change later, they were made to operate under taxi law, and everyone seems to live along well. The primary important features introduced by iCar, et al. was a) fare based on distance, therefore known before the ride, and b) use of GPS to navigate around the city. I actually switched to iCar mostly for b) - I trust GPS more than taxi driver's instinct. I don't see anything new Uber can bring here. We already have a taxi network with an ordering app anyway.

sveme 12y ago

This. Many commentators especially in Germany are complaining about the lack of a will to innovate, yet uber is nothing new under the sun. They pretend to be part of a sharing economy, yet charge more than the fuel costs of a trip, which is the quintessential difference to ride sharing. They are simply a global taxi company with a fancy app that is trying to benefit from not being regulated by claiming to be something new - ride sharing. They are a taxi company so should have to follow the same regulations as all the other taxi companies.

james1071 12y ago
Yes, of course they are a taxi company and they are playing a game of words in pretending not to be. The reason that they do so is that the licensing rules for taxis protect the incumbents from new entrants.
- alkonaut 12y ago
  Licensing/quotas/medallions etc. are horrible ideas. Uber is doing right for breaking into these markets, pretending to be taxis but saying they aren't. So for all the other markets, where there is no medallion system or other barrier for entry to the market (other than "expected" things like insurance etc.), that is where Uber is just a taxi. And here they don't even SAY they aren't taxis. My guess: taxi license/medallions are a relic that is bound to disappear pretty quickly. Since in some places people have to BUY these things, it's obviously not going to be done overnight.
  - xamolxix 12y ago
    > My guess: taxi license/medallions are a relic that is bound to disappear pretty quickly. Since in some places people have to BUY these things, it's obviously not going to be done overnight. I agree, however until they lawfully become a thing of the past is not fair to people who have bought them (or followed the possibly lengthy procedure of getting licensed)
    - james1071 12y ago

anon1385 12y ago

When people talk about 'heavy regulation', they don't usually specify what regulations they are actually talking about. In Germany for example, Uber is in trouble because they are not ensuring that their drivers are insured (a normal private car insurance won't cover commercial operation) and not ensuring that the vehicles have the required level of mechanical safety checks (commercial vehicles require more regular tests because they do far more miles). When you peel away the vague and emotive language of 'heavy regulation' to look at the actual issues then suddenly things look quite different. Hands up who on HN thinks filling our roads with uninsured drivers is a good thing? Hands up who thinks mandatory checks on vehicles brakes and other basic safety systems is a bad thing? I think I see pg's hand at the back there. But in general the vast vast majority of people think mandatory insurance is a good idea. That's why nearly all developed countries require it by law. Uber don't want to actually come out and say 'our drivers are not insured', but make no mistake, thats the kind of thing Uber and SV VCs are talking about when they complain about 'red tape' and 'regulation' and 'lack of entrepreneurial spirit'. Ignoring insurance laws makes it easier for them to undercut law abiding and sociably responsible competitors, and they want to continue to get away with it.

ekianjo 12y ago
> Hands up who on HN thinks filling our roads with uninsured drivers is a good thing? Hands up who thinks mandatory checks on vehicles brakes and other basic safety systems is a bad thing? I think I see pg's hand at the back there. But in general the vast vast majority of people think mandatory insurance is a good idea. That's why nearly all developed countries require it by law. The thing is that instead of making these things "expected" because of market forces, imposing it by law makes it a default for everyone and it becomes a box to tick when you want to operate a taxi, just like many other things. And you end up with people who simply do not give a shit at all about consumer experience and providing a good service at all. That's the key difference with countries were taxis have less regulations: people actually compete on service, for the benefit of everyone, not just the few who are taxi drivers and running a monopoly provided by the State. With this attitude you end up with Taxi drivers who do this job because they see it as a rent, not as a way to make a difference on the market. Yeah, that's the spirit!

slowmotiony 12y ago

I don't know what taxi services are you using, but I live in a major Polish city and the taxis are horrible, for a couple of reasons: - You always get a different price - You never get a receipt (if you request one, you often get yelled at) - Drivers drive like madmen - Sometimes it takes 30+ minutes for a taxi, other times no taxi picks up the damn phone - Sometimes they tell you 20 minutes, and then don't come at all. Fuckers will talk all the ride about how hard it is for them to make a living, how the laws are hard to follow for them etc. And then give you a price of 50zl for a 10 minute ride. Ridiculous. I can't wait for services Uber and alike to take them all out of business.

lgieron 12y ago
Are you a non-native? The culture of overcharging foreigners is probably still pretty strong in many places (it was born during the communist time, where every westerner was perceived as a walking wallet).
- slowmotiony 12y ago
  I'm native. They don't appear to discriminate, they rip everyone off the same way. ;-)

someone234 12y ago

In Germany and Spain, there's a state-maintained taxi cartel. They don't want any competition - that's the point of a cartel to begin with - and so, their friends in the government are working to prevent it. All the bullshit regulation is just part of maintaining the cartel. Apparently they don't have this problem in Poland, and rather unsurprisingly, taxis are cheap and competing by having nicer cars etc.

Shorel 12y ago

Here in Colombia Uber is AMAZINGLY better than any taxi company. The difference is simply too big. A normal taxi will not go where I want, or refuse to take me for any other reason. And payment has to be cash only. And there's always some risk the driver will try to take advantage of you.