9 ms·

PPA Impounds UberX Vehicles in Undercover Sting Operation

115 points by themartorana 12y ago

tedunangst 12y ago
Will Uber be reimbursing the drivers for expenses since they apparently told the drivers it was legal?
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Is that a rhetorical question?
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    I had the same question, for what it's worth. Why make someone feel dumb for asking? I wonder if HN would benefit from a guideline like, "If someone asks a question whose answer seems obvious, try to answer it in a straightforward way. For example, 'You really don't know what 2+2 is?' can be shortened to '2+2 is 4.'" There are interesting followup questions on this topic, too. If Uber won't reimburse them, why not? On the other hand, would it even be legal for Uber to reimburse them, since Uber is doing so with the intent of "transferring" the penalty of the law from the driver to Uber? One reason to have laws is so that their penalties act as a deterrent. If Uber is preventing the deterrent from having an effect, then perhaps the legal system might take a dim view of this. Whether that'd be punishable, I have no idea; the point is simply that there are many interesting questions that can be derived from the starting point of "Will Uber be reimbursing the drivers?"
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      That's not meant to make him/her feel dumb, it is an honest question.
      - sillysaurus3 12y ago
        Oh. My apologies.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Not entirely. I certainly expected the answer to be "no", but I was surprised.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - rblatz 12y ago
    So yes?
- trevyn 12y ago
  http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-uberx-sting-deplorable-charade/ http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-uber... "We fully stand behind our partners and will cover all costs associated with this deplorable charade."
  - ripb 12y ago
    Strong statement and fair play to them for standing behind their operators.
    - morganvachon 12y ago
      It's a strong statement, yes. But will they follow through? They've screwed their drivers over many times in the past.
      - ripb 12y ago
        Out of interest, could you give examples? Because abandoning Uber operators at a time of transition, or industry revolution as it could be called, would in many ways undermine its expansion if potential operators have abandonment to fear.
        morganvachon 12y ago
        http://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-partners-now-by-forcing-uber-black-drivers-accept-uberx-fares/ http://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-part... http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-drivers-are-protesting http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-drivers-are-prote... http://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated-3rd-time-in-5-weeks-screw-this.966/ http://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated-3rd-time-in-5-week... "In a week of driving (24 rides), you'll only make $312 once Uber's taken its cut" - http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/8_secrets_you_learn_being_an_uber_driver_in_los_angeles.php http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/8_secrets_you_learn_be... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/07/uber-s-battle-against-its-drivers-continues.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/07/uber-s-batt... http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/06/uber-drivers-protest-their-employer/373388/ http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/06/uber-drivers-protest... http://www.businessinsider.com/undercover-uber-driver-short-changed-in-virtually-every-way-possible-2014-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/undercover-uber-driver-short-...
- morganvachon 12y ago
  That was the first thing that came to my mind too. The more I read about Uber, the more I dislike them. And it's really just that company I don't like; I think the idea of taxi alternatives like Uber and Lyft is a good one, but Uber has shown several times that they don't give a shit about their drivers, their riders, or the law. I see other companies like Lyft, who seem to be playing by the rules and treating their drivers and riders with respect, as the future of this industry.
ripb 12y ago
What is involved in becoming a cab driver in Philly? Is it medallion costs, vehicle costs (buying or renting), tests, etc.? Another example of backlash to Uber/Hailo etc. has been the London black taxis. Their operators study for years for very difficult tests in order to be licensed operators, and pay significant costs in doing so, and as such I can understand why they would be irritated by competition coming in without these conditions, but if these conditions don't exist then it's market protectionism at a cost to the consumer.
- DanBC 12y ago
  London black cabs can use a meter and don't need pre-booking. London private hire cabs must be pre-booked and they must arrange a price before travelling - they can't use a meter. Uber is free to conform to either of those modes but choses not to.
- kemiller 12y ago
  I can certainly understand why people who have invested a ton into the current system are upset, but that just argues for a more orderly transition. The Knowledge is pretty well obsolete in the age of GPS. It'd be a sad thing to lose, though.
- logn 12y ago
  I can see why London operators would be upset. They're the most consistently professional and knowledgeable service force I've ever encountered. And London traffic I think is greatly improved by the road being taken up almost exclusively with taxis and buses, as they're all driving in optimal and intelligent ways.
  - ripb 12y ago
    Indeed, internationally London taxi drivers far outrank their competitors. The only issue, I suppose, is that their base of knowledge - the studying they do, the tests they pass to be licensed, etc. - is already irrelevant in a time of modern GPS and Sat Nav, and will become increasingly so as we begin to move to an era of self-driving vehicles.
colinbartlett 12y ago
It seems like Uber does this just for the headlines. They know they need to have laws changed in order to break past government-sanctioned taxi monopolies. And they know they're going to get in trouble for breaking the current laws. The headlines always end up as The Government sticking it to The Working Man, and Uber eats that stuff up.
- themartorana 12y ago
  Well, here, the PPA is deplored almost absolutely, for constant abuse of power. Over the weekend, an insurance company went bankrupt leaving about 1/3 of Philadelphia's taxi fleet without insurance. The PPA decide to allow taxis to continue to roll despite their insurance company being bankrupt[0] and then the next day did this to an UberX driver over insurance woes. This is why it's a big deal here in Philly. The corruption of the PPA knows no bounds. [0] http://mobile.philly.com/business/?wss=/philly/business/transportation/&id=280346362 http://mobile.philly.com/business/?wss=/philly/business/tran...
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    I think I'm the one person who likes the PPA (though I had no idea they regulated taxis before today). I don't usually park in the street, but when I do there's almost always a spot free because people actually move their cars when time is up. People hate getting caught, then transfer that hate to the PPA even though they should know the odds of slipping by are slim.
  - snom390 12y ago
    I don't know anything about the PPA, but that's not really a good comparison. The taxis that were without insurance were presumably working around the clock to get it sorted out, and had some communication with the PPA to let them know about the problem. Uber on the other hand knew that what they were doing was illegal from the start, had been warned about it and had every opportunity to delay the launch of the service until the legal stuff was sorted out.
  - arthurcolle 12y ago
    What insurance company went bankrupt?
azinman2 12y ago
Good for the PPA. Regardless of the laws being stuck in time or not, uber has repeatedly defied laws especially in California where they specifically are told your ride share is illegal shut it down, and they don't. Sad for the drivers but they themselves should also be more aware of the laws that apply. Bad on uber for not even explaining the possibility which of course they know about.
- GigabyteCoin 12y ago
  If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. -Thomas Jefferson This has never been more true when it comes to ride sharing companies. Monopolies benefit next to nobody, while Uber benefits a lot of people.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. -Thomas Jefferson This has never been more true when it comes to ride sharing companies." Seriously? Never been more true? Prohibiting unlicensed rides-for-hire (it's not 'ride sharing') is more unjust than say...Jim Crow laws?
    - hyperbovine 12y ago
      Nothing important happened before the Internet.
      - cryowaffle 12y ago
        He pretty clearly said "... never been more true when it comes to ride sharing companies."
    - GigabyteCoin 12y ago
      Perhaps I embellished my argument slightly. Obviously defeating the taxi monopolies is less important than defeating slavery.
shin_lao 12y ago
On one hand the taxi monopoly is certainly something which has to be reconsidered, on the other hand I'm not sure UberX screening and insurance is sufficient.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- adampassword 12y ago
  Agree
- smsm42 12y ago
  Are you sure taxi screening and insurance is sufficient? When was the last time you checked how taxi drivers are screened?
  - wpietri 12y ago
    One of the things I like about taxi drivers is that they are accountable. If I see one behaving badly, I call up the city taxi commission and let 'em know. If the commission decides they shouldn't be driving a taxi, they will no longer be driving a taxi at all in this town. Good luck doing that with some rando driving for Uber, though. For similar reasons, I'm also pretty sure the insurance situation is solid. In direct contrast to Uber, where they actively disclaim any responsibility for their cars and drivers. There are a lot of problems with the taxi industry. It's in deep need of reform. But in my view, Uber's cure is worse than the disease.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      If you see Uber driver behaving badly, you can call Uber. >>> Good luck doing that with some rando driving for Uber, though. Why? Every driver is identified and known, and Uber has a lot of incentive to weed out bad drivers, especially when they are just starting the service and couple of bad reviews can kill adoption for a whole market. What incentive Uber has to support bad service? I can tell one incentive for city politicians to do it - taxi lobbyists pay into their campaign funds, and you do not (at least not as much, unless you are Zuckerberg, in which case you probably have your own limo anyway), so who has more influence on them? >>> For similar reasons, I'm also pretty sure the insurance situation is solid. Because Uber just dreams about uninsured million-dollar lawsuit. Nothing inspires investors to invest into a young business as much as an uninsured risk of a million-dollar lawsuits, right? And Uber doesn't care about investors or risks - unlike city politicians whose very future is linked to the fact whether city would be sued or not, since lawsuit cost comes out of their pockets... Oh wait, I got it in reverse - city politician could not care less if the city is sued since taxpayers would pay it anyway, while Uber guys risk their own money and their investors money. Yet somehow you trust more the guy who uses your money to insure your risks and has zero incentive to preserve it and large incentive to follow lobby interests over guy who uses their own money and has large incentive to preserve it. I wonder how it works out for you. >>> But in my view, Uber's cure is worse than the disease. Worse in what? Of course, if you refuse to trust anything that does not say "State Commission" and is not rules by an unaccountable bureaucrat, then every cure would be worse than the disease for you. However, do not be very surprised if you find no cures at all, because you seem to be insisting on having the disease as a precondition to finding the cure.
dpweb 12y ago
Uber providing the insurance would give them clear stats you could compare accidents, robberies, etc.. Uber vs taxis. Suspect Uber is going to compare favorably if we get to see the data. Then what is the need for current state regulation? Govts are going to have to deal - there is huge demand for ride-sharing. Bash Uber if you want - they are right this time. Just declaring it illegal is the wrong approach - Govt and ride services need to be in negotiations to safely give people what they want for taxi services.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  The government didn't just wake up this morning and declare Uber illegal. Their ridesharing service was illegal and they set up shop anyways. There are massive downsides to the current monopolistic state of taxis in areas like Philly, and I believe the laws need to be changed to accommodate the new state of transportation. But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up. What they're doing puts drivers in the position mentioned in the article: Uber has told them they're operating legally when they are not. Whether or not the law is valid doesn't change the fact that Uber knowingly put the drivers in this position.
  - dpweb 12y ago
    A driver shouldn't be checking with Uber for their legality to operate, they need to check their local laws. As an independent contractor, you run your own business. If I set up an unregulated food cart they're going to shut me down, without regard to who my suppliers or partners are. Could make the case Uber should be blacking out the app in illegal areas, they can modify the app down to very specific areas - try Ohare airport for instance.. Not shocked whats happening in Philly. They are in an uphill battle with governments for sure, not shocked their aggressiveness. But judge them on if they pay the driver fines - that would be an important gesture on their part.
    - akerl_ 12y ago
      Oh I agree, if I were the one driving the car I'd like to think I'd have read every bit of local regulation on ridesharing. But if your suppliers were the ones who talked you in to driving your food truck around and their enrollment process ensured you that you were part of the legal future to delicious burrito delivery, their behavior would be at least negligent, if not outright malicious.
imroot 12y ago
From a licensing point of view, Philadelphia is interesting. The PPA manages the licensing of Taxi and Limo services in Philadelphia, but, outside of the county, it's all the PA Department of Transportation. Pennsylvania constables can work in any area of Pennsylvania once certified, but not in Philadelphia. Am I surprised by this? Not in the least. It's possible that Uber got an ok by PennDOT and thought that it would be good throughout the state...or, this might be the PPA throwing their weight behind their revenue protection. Regardless by which one it is, I would hope that Uber will protect the drivers who took their advice (then again, independent contractors and the like) and drove. *edit: grammar/spelling.
- malandrew 12y ago
  I'm really starting to think that we generally need some sort of organization at city, county, state and county level whose sole purpose of existing is to identify governmental organizations/agencies to which Kevin Kelly's "Shirky Principle" apply “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.” — Clay Shirky http://kk.org/thetechnium/2010/04/the-shirky-prin/ http://kk.org/thetechnium/2010/04/the-shirky-prin/ This isn't about agencies regulating transportation and ridesharing, but about many governmental agencies set up during the 19th and 20th century. There are a lot of useful organizations/agencies, but just as many if not more which have become zombies feeding off society to keep receiving paychecks while burdening us with unnecessary bureaucracy. Such an agency would be the governmental equivalent of the consultants that come in and identify the dead weight in a company, which need to be let go for the company to stay relevant. PS I suspect someone will point out the irony in creating organizations/agencies, whose sole purpose is identifying unnecessary agencies and proposing how to wind them down and eliminate them altogether, but I can't see how such an agency could ever reach the point where it would prefer the problem to which it is the solution. Furthermore, if that were the only agency left preserving itself, I could live with that.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    I don't think all the blame belongs with the agencies. Certainly some, or most. But the legislative branch also tends to force agencies to regulate things they'd rather ignore. See also: the military declining orders for new tanks, but being forced to accept them because they're made in an important senator's state.
AlexMuir 12y ago
Just so I'm clear is the current narrative that Uber, a multi-billion dollar private enterprise seeking to maximize its returns to a handful of shareholders, is single-handedly battling on our behalf against every democratically elected local authority, all of whom (despite regulating taxis through the advent of the engine, the radio, the telephone, the mobile phone and the internet) are running a corrupt, outdated licensing regime at the behest of the taxi industry and/or to preserve their own jobs. Is that the story here? Or is the story that Uber wants to lock up the taxi market and build a two tier business: 0.1% of their operation earning multi-million dollar payouts, and the remaining 99.9% earning $COMMODITIZED_RATE [0] per hour driving passengers around with zero opportunity to manage drivers, open their own taxi firm, or form a collective. The honest truth is I don't actually know. The times I've used Uber I've loved it, but I'm not sure, overall, how I feel about well-funded startups using VC money to basically buy their way around local regulation. [0] We're seeing artificially low fares and high wages at the moment in this landgrab. Just look at eBay with fees that come to a good 10% of sales prices to see what a few more rounds of investment and a flotation will do.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  I can safely say that the situation is complicated enough that neither you described is true. Taxi regulation is corrupt and broken. I can't find a link but Seattle basically hasn't issued any new taxi medallions in 20 years. Suffice to say the area has grown significantly in that time. Uber's business strategy is also derived from those medallions. I think they could offer a better service that is more efficient and higher margins if the drivers were Uber employees. Right now each drivers needs to be profitable by themselves. There's no room for loss leaders or any other kind of driver distribution strategy. That's just two points. There are dozens more that could be made I'm sure.
  - AlexMuir 12y ago
    I agree absolutely. I've no experience of medallion systems but they seem clearly ridiculous. I do see the argument for quota systems that enable limit licence numbers to keep wages at a level where drivers are incentivised to maintain their cars and work a 40-hour week. I suppose my complaint is that every dispute seems to be unquestioningly painted as Good (Uber) vs Evil (Council, State, Government, Police).
zavi 12y ago
According to Uber website their service is available in Philadelphia. https://www.uber.com/en-US/cities/philadelphia https://www.uber.com/en-US/cities/philadelphia
revelation 12y ago
Killing someone with your car is cheaper than a $1000 fine and you get to keep your car, too. But god beware you transport people to their destination and take money for it.
habosa 12y ago
I just moved from Philadelphia (lived there for 4 years and nearby for my entire life). I always wanted UberX in the city from a convenience perspective, but I do feel bad for the Philly cab drivers here. In my 4 years there I talked to probably 100+ cab drivers, most of the time talking about their job. I found ~95% of them to be hard-working and nice, definitely not 'corrupt' people or part of some larger scheme that needed to be disrupted. They also have it tough in a lot of ways. First of all, the medallions are very expensive and many go into debt getting them. Second of all, I've been told (can't confirm) by the cab drivers that they are forced to accept credit cards but then get hit with ~10% fees on those transactions by the processor. My only complaint with Philly cabs is that the dispatchers were generally rude and unhelpful if you were in a strange location. So for the consumer it is great to have UberX, but I do feel bad for those cab drivers who invested in a legal system and are just trying to make a living. I guess this is just how markets work, but it seems like Uber is setting a dangerous precedent by using VC money to subvert local legislation at every turn. Sure they may be vindicated in the end, but it doesn't strike me as fair play.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > Second of all, I've been told (can't confirm) by the cab drivers that they are forced to accept credit cards but then get hit with ~10% fees on those transactions by the processor. My only complaint with Philly cabs is that the dispatchers were generally rude and unhelpful if you were in a strange location. There are newsreports about drivers having to accept credit cards. Here's an unpleasant one about two drivers losing their jobs: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/05/30/philadelphia-parking-authority-taxi-cab-police/ http://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/05/30/philadelphia-parkin... > In case you’re unaware, Philly cab drivers despise credit card payment, because they have to pay a service charge–like any business that accepts credit cards–and because they don’t get their money immediately
  - habosa 12y ago
    Thanks for the links. My sentence was poorly written, I mean't I couldn't confirm the 10% fees. I did know that cc acceptance is mandatory.
retrogradeorbit 12y ago
It will be interesting seeing Uber like services go up against the Australian Taxi cartel. I would expect similar antics... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7WdSFS3SFI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7WdSFS3SFI
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
Some people want to paint Uber as the heroes. Others want to put the the regulators and the taxi monopolies in that seat. I'm really getting the impression that both of them are assholes. Uber may (sometimes) provide better service, but they certainly haven't shown any inclination towards responsibility. E.g., as we see here, when a municipality promises to impound Uber vehicles, Uber happily lies to their drivers that everything is sorted out, because manufacturing involuntary martyrs does a much better job of making Uber look victimized than proceeding through normal channels would.

115 points by themartorana 12y ago

tedunangst 12y ago

Will Uber be reimbursing the drivers for expenses since they apparently told the drivers it was legal?

jacquesm 12y ago
Is that a rhetorical question?
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  I had the same question, for what it's worth. Why make someone feel dumb for asking? I wonder if HN would benefit from a guideline like, "If someone asks a question whose answer seems obvious, try to answer it in a straightforward way. For example, 'You really don't know what 2+2 is?' can be shortened to '2+2 is 4.'" There are interesting followup questions on this topic, too. If Uber won't reimburse them, why not? On the other hand, would it even be legal for Uber to reimburse them, since Uber is doing so with the intent of "transferring" the penalty of the law from the driver to Uber? One reason to have laws is so that their penalties act as a deterrent. If Uber is preventing the deterrent from having an effect, then perhaps the legal system might take a dim view of this. Whether that'd be punishable, I have no idea; the point is simply that there are many interesting questions that can be derived from the starting point of "Will Uber be reimbursing the drivers?"
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    That's not meant to make him/her feel dumb, it is an honest question.
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Oh. My apologies.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  Not entirely. I certainly expected the answer to be "no", but I was surprised.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- rblatz 12y ago
  So yes?
trevyn 12y ago
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-uberx-sting-deplorable-charade/ http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/10/26/uber-calls-ppa-uber... "We fully stand behind our partners and will cover all costs associated with this deplorable charade."
- ripb 12y ago
  Strong statement and fair play to them for standing behind their operators.
  - morganvachon 12y ago
    It's a strong statement, yes. But will they follow through? They've screwed their drivers over many times in the past.
    - ripb 12y ago
      Out of interest, could you give examples? Because abandoning Uber operators at a time of transition, or industry revolution as it could be called, would in many ways undermine its expansion if potential operators have abandonment to fear.
      - morganvachon 12y ago
        http://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-partners-now-by-forcing-uber-black-drivers-accept-uberx-fares/ http://pando.com/2014/09/04/uber-continues-to-screw-its-part... http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-drivers-are-protesting http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/uber-drivers-are-prote... http://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated-3rd-time-in-5-weeks-screw-this.966/ http://uberpeople.net/threads/deactivated-3rd-time-in-5-week... "In a week of driving (24 rides), you'll only make $312 once Uber's taken its cut" - http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/8_secrets_you_learn_being_an_uber_driver_in_los_angeles.php http://la.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/8_secrets_you_learn_be... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/07/uber-s-battle-against-its-drivers-continues.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/07/uber-s-batt... http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/06/uber-drivers-protest-their-employer/373388/ http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/06/uber-drivers-protest... http://www.businessinsider.com/undercover-uber-driver-short-changed-in-virtually-every-way-possible-2014-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/undercover-uber-driver-short-...
morganvachon 12y ago
That was the first thing that came to my mind too. The more I read about Uber, the more I dislike them. And it's really just that company I don't like; I think the idea of taxi alternatives like Uber and Lyft is a good one, but Uber has shown several times that they don't give a shit about their drivers, their riders, or the law. I see other companies like Lyft, who seem to be playing by the rules and treating their drivers and riders with respect, as the future of this industry.

ripb 12y ago

What is involved in becoming a cab driver in Philly? Is it medallion costs, vehicle costs (buying or renting), tests, etc.? Another example of backlash to Uber/Hailo etc. has been the London black taxis. Their operators study for years for very difficult tests in order to be licensed operators, and pay significant costs in doing so, and as such I can understand why they would be irritated by competition coming in without these conditions, but if these conditions don't exist then it's market protectionism at a cost to the consumer.

DanBC 12y ago
London black cabs can use a meter and don't need pre-booking. London private hire cabs must be pre-booked and they must arrange a price before travelling - they can't use a meter. Uber is free to conform to either of those modes but choses not to.
kemiller 12y ago
I can certainly understand why people who have invested a ton into the current system are upset, but that just argues for a more orderly transition. The Knowledge is pretty well obsolete in the age of GPS. It'd be a sad thing to lose, though.
logn 12y ago
I can see why London operators would be upset. They're the most consistently professional and knowledgeable service force I've ever encountered. And London traffic I think is greatly improved by the road being taken up almost exclusively with taxis and buses, as they're all driving in optimal and intelligent ways.
- ripb 12y ago
  Indeed, internationally London taxi drivers far outrank their competitors. The only issue, I suppose, is that their base of knowledge - the studying they do, the tests they pass to be licensed, etc. - is already irrelevant in a time of modern GPS and Sat Nav, and will become increasingly so as we begin to move to an era of self-driving vehicles.

colinbartlett 12y ago

It seems like Uber does this just for the headlines. They know they need to have laws changed in order to break past government-sanctioned taxi monopolies. And they know they're going to get in trouble for breaking the current laws. The headlines always end up as The Government sticking it to The Working Man, and Uber eats that stuff up.

themartorana 12y ago
Well, here, the PPA is deplored almost absolutely, for constant abuse of power. Over the weekend, an insurance company went bankrupt leaving about 1/3 of Philadelphia's taxi fleet without insurance. The PPA decide to allow taxis to continue to roll despite their insurance company being bankrupt[0] and then the next day did this to an UberX driver over insurance woes. This is why it's a big deal here in Philly. The corruption of the PPA knows no bounds. [0] http://mobile.philly.com/business/?wss=/philly/business/transportation/&id=280346362 http://mobile.philly.com/business/?wss=/philly/business/tran...
- tedunangst 12y ago
  I think I'm the one person who likes the PPA (though I had no idea they regulated taxis before today). I don't usually park in the street, but when I do there's almost always a spot free because people actually move their cars when time is up. People hate getting caught, then transfer that hate to the PPA even though they should know the odds of slipping by are slim.
- snom390 12y ago
  I don't know anything about the PPA, but that's not really a good comparison. The taxis that were without insurance were presumably working around the clock to get it sorted out, and had some communication with the PPA to let them know about the problem. Uber on the other hand knew that what they were doing was illegal from the start, had been warned about it and had every opportunity to delay the launch of the service until the legal stuff was sorted out.
- arthurcolle 12y ago
  What insurance company went bankrupt?

azinman2 12y ago

Good for the PPA. Regardless of the laws being stuck in time or not, uber has repeatedly defied laws especially in California where they specifically are told your ride share is illegal shut it down, and they don't. Sad for the drivers but they themselves should also be more aware of the laws that apply. Bad on uber for not even explaining the possibility which of course they know about.

GigabyteCoin 12y ago
If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. -Thomas Jefferson This has never been more true when it comes to ride sharing companies. Monopolies benefit next to nobody, while Uber benefits a lot of people.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. -Thomas Jefferson This has never been more true when it comes to ride sharing companies." Seriously? Never been more true? Prohibiting unlicensed rides-for-hire (it's not 'ride sharing') is more unjust than say...Jim Crow laws?
  - hyperbovine 12y ago
    Nothing important happened before the Internet.
    - cryowaffle 12y ago
      He pretty clearly said "... never been more true when it comes to ride sharing companies."
  - GigabyteCoin 12y ago
    Perhaps I embellished my argument slightly. Obviously defeating the taxi monopolies is less important than defeating slavery.

shin_lao 12y ago

On one hand the taxi monopoly is certainly something which has to be reconsidered, on the other hand I'm not sure UberX screening and insurance is sufficient.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
adampassword 12y ago
Agree
smsm42 12y ago
Are you sure taxi screening and insurance is sufficient? When was the last time you checked how taxi drivers are screened?
- wpietri 12y ago
  One of the things I like about taxi drivers is that they are accountable. If I see one behaving badly, I call up the city taxi commission and let 'em know. If the commission decides they shouldn't be driving a taxi, they will no longer be driving a taxi at all in this town. Good luck doing that with some rando driving for Uber, though. For similar reasons, I'm also pretty sure the insurance situation is solid. In direct contrast to Uber, where they actively disclaim any responsibility for their cars and drivers. There are a lot of problems with the taxi industry. It's in deep need of reform. But in my view, Uber's cure is worse than the disease.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    If you see Uber driver behaving badly, you can call Uber. >>> Good luck doing that with some rando driving for Uber, though. Why? Every driver is identified and known, and Uber has a lot of incentive to weed out bad drivers, especially when they are just starting the service and couple of bad reviews can kill adoption for a whole market. What incentive Uber has to support bad service? I can tell one incentive for city politicians to do it - taxi lobbyists pay into their campaign funds, and you do not (at least not as much, unless you are Zuckerberg, in which case you probably have your own limo anyway), so who has more influence on them? >>> For similar reasons, I'm also pretty sure the insurance situation is solid. Because Uber just dreams about uninsured million-dollar lawsuit. Nothing inspires investors to invest into a young business as much as an uninsured risk of a million-dollar lawsuits, right? And Uber doesn't care about investors or risks - unlike city politicians whose very future is linked to the fact whether city would be sued or not, since lawsuit cost comes out of their pockets... Oh wait, I got it in reverse - city politician could not care less if the city is sued since taxpayers would pay it anyway, while Uber guys risk their own money and their investors money. Yet somehow you trust more the guy who uses your money to insure your risks and has zero incentive to preserve it and large incentive to follow lobby interests over guy who uses their own money and has large incentive to preserve it. I wonder how it works out for you. >>> But in my view, Uber's cure is worse than the disease. Worse in what? Of course, if you refuse to trust anything that does not say "State Commission" and is not rules by an unaccountable bureaucrat, then every cure would be worse than the disease for you. However, do not be very surprised if you find no cures at all, because you seem to be insisting on having the disease as a precondition to finding the cure.

dpweb 12y ago

Uber providing the insurance would give them clear stats you could compare accidents, robberies, etc.. Uber vs taxis. Suspect Uber is going to compare favorably if we get to see the data. Then what is the need for current state regulation? Govts are going to have to deal - there is huge demand for ride-sharing. Bash Uber if you want - they are right this time. Just declaring it illegal is the wrong approach - Govt and ride services need to be in negotiations to safely give people what they want for taxi services.

akerl_ 12y ago
The government didn't just wake up this morning and declare Uber illegal. Their ridesharing service was illegal and they set up shop anyways. There are massive downsides to the current monopolistic state of taxis in areas like Philly, and I believe the laws need to be changed to accommodate the new state of transportation. But Uber ought to be working to change the law, not breaking it in the hopes that the government eventually just gives up. What they're doing puts drivers in the position mentioned in the article: Uber has told them they're operating legally when they are not. Whether or not the law is valid doesn't change the fact that Uber knowingly put the drivers in this position.
- dpweb 12y ago
  A driver shouldn't be checking with Uber for their legality to operate, they need to check their local laws. As an independent contractor, you run your own business. If I set up an unregulated food cart they're going to shut me down, without regard to who my suppliers or partners are. Could make the case Uber should be blacking out the app in illegal areas, they can modify the app down to very specific areas - try Ohare airport for instance.. Not shocked whats happening in Philly. They are in an uphill battle with governments for sure, not shocked their aggressiveness. But judge them on if they pay the driver fines - that would be an important gesture on their part.
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    Oh I agree, if I were the one driving the car I'd like to think I'd have read every bit of local regulation on ridesharing. But if your suppliers were the ones who talked you in to driving your food truck around and their enrollment process ensured you that you were part of the legal future to delicious burrito delivery, their behavior would be at least negligent, if not outright malicious.

imroot 12y ago

From a licensing point of view, Philadelphia is interesting. The PPA manages the licensing of Taxi and Limo services in Philadelphia, but, outside of the county, it's all the PA Department of Transportation. Pennsylvania constables can work in any area of Pennsylvania once certified, but not in Philadelphia. Am I surprised by this? Not in the least. It's possible that Uber got an ok by PennDOT and thought that it would be good throughout the state...or, this might be the PPA throwing their weight behind their revenue protection. Regardless by which one it is, I would hope that Uber will protect the drivers who took their advice (then again, independent contractors and the like) and drove. *edit: grammar/spelling.

malandrew 12y ago
I'm really starting to think that we generally need some sort of organization at city, county, state and county level whose sole purpose of existing is to identify governmental organizations/agencies to which Kevin Kelly's "Shirky Principle" apply “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.” — Clay Shirky http://kk.org/thetechnium/2010/04/the-shirky-prin/ http://kk.org/thetechnium/2010/04/the-shirky-prin/ This isn't about agencies regulating transportation and ridesharing, but about many governmental agencies set up during the 19th and 20th century. There are a lot of useful organizations/agencies, but just as many if not more which have become zombies feeding off society to keep receiving paychecks while burdening us with unnecessary bureaucracy. Such an agency would be the governmental equivalent of the consultants that come in and identify the dead weight in a company, which need to be let go for the company to stay relevant. PS I suspect someone will point out the irony in creating organizations/agencies, whose sole purpose is identifying unnecessary agencies and proposing how to wind them down and eliminate them altogether, but I can't see how such an agency could ever reach the point where it would prefer the problem to which it is the solution. Furthermore, if that were the only agency left preserving itself, I could live with that.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  I don't think all the blame belongs with the agencies. Certainly some, or most. But the legislative branch also tends to force agencies to regulate things they'd rather ignore. See also: the military declining orders for new tanks, but being forced to accept them because they're made in an important senator's state.

AlexMuir 12y ago

Just so I'm clear is the current narrative that Uber, a multi-billion dollar private enterprise seeking to maximize its returns to a handful of shareholders, is single-handedly battling on our behalf against every democratically elected local authority, all of whom (despite regulating taxis through the advent of the engine, the radio, the telephone, the mobile phone and the internet) are running a corrupt, outdated licensing regime at the behest of the taxi industry and/or to preserve their own jobs. Is that the story here? Or is the story that Uber wants to lock up the taxi market and build a two tier business: 0.1% of their operation earning multi-million dollar payouts, and the remaining 99.9% earning $COMMODITIZED_RATE [0] per hour driving passengers around with zero opportunity to manage drivers, open their own taxi firm, or form a collective. The honest truth is I don't actually know. The times I've used Uber I've loved it, but I'm not sure, overall, how I feel about well-funded startups using VC money to basically buy their way around local regulation. [0] We're seeing artificially low fares and high wages at the moment in this landgrab. Just look at eBay with fees that come to a good 10% of sales prices to see what a few more rounds of investment and a flotation will do.

forrestthewoods 12y ago
I can safely say that the situation is complicated enough that neither you described is true. Taxi regulation is corrupt and broken. I can't find a link but Seattle basically hasn't issued any new taxi medallions in 20 years. Suffice to say the area has grown significantly in that time. Uber's business strategy is also derived from those medallions. I think they could offer a better service that is more efficient and higher margins if the drivers were Uber employees. Right now each drivers needs to be profitable by themselves. There's no room for loss leaders or any other kind of driver distribution strategy. That's just two points. There are dozens more that could be made I'm sure.
- AlexMuir 12y ago
  I agree absolutely. I've no experience of medallion systems but they seem clearly ridiculous. I do see the argument for quota systems that enable limit licence numbers to keep wages at a level where drivers are incentivised to maintain their cars and work a 40-hour week. I suppose my complaint is that every dispute seems to be unquestioningly painted as Good (Uber) vs Evil (Council, State, Government, Police).

zavi 12y ago

According to Uber website their service is available in Philadelphia. https://www.uber.com/en-US/cities/philadelphia https://www.uber.com/en-US/cities/philadelphia

revelation 12y ago

Killing someone with your car is cheaper than a $1000 fine and you get to keep your car, too. But god beware you transport people to their destination and take money for it.

habosa 12y ago

I just moved from Philadelphia (lived there for 4 years and nearby for my entire life). I always wanted UberX in the city from a convenience perspective, but I do feel bad for the Philly cab drivers here. In my 4 years there I talked to probably 100+ cab drivers, most of the time talking about their job. I found ~95% of them to be hard-working and nice, definitely not 'corrupt' people or part of some larger scheme that needed to be disrupted. They also have it tough in a lot of ways. First of all, the medallions are very expensive and many go into debt getting them. Second of all, I've been told (can't confirm) by the cab drivers that they are forced to accept credit cards but then get hit with ~10% fees on those transactions by the processor. My only complaint with Philly cabs is that the dispatchers were generally rude and unhelpful if you were in a strange location. So for the consumer it is great to have UberX, but I do feel bad for those cab drivers who invested in a legal system and are just trying to make a living. I guess this is just how markets work, but it seems like Uber is setting a dangerous precedent by using VC money to subvert local legislation at every turn. Sure they may be vindicated in the end, but it doesn't strike me as fair play.

DanBC 12y ago
> Second of all, I've been told (can't confirm) by the cab drivers that they are forced to accept credit cards but then get hit with ~10% fees on those transactions by the processor. My only complaint with Philly cabs is that the dispatchers were generally rude and unhelpful if you were in a strange location. There are newsreports about drivers having to accept credit cards. Here's an unpleasant one about two drivers losing their jobs: http://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/05/30/philadelphia-parking-authority-taxi-cab-police/ http://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/05/30/philadelphia-parkin... > In case you’re unaware, Philly cab drivers despise credit card payment, because they have to pay a service charge–like any business that accepts credit cards–and because they don’t get their money immediately
- habosa 12y ago
  Thanks for the links. My sentence was poorly written, I mean't I couldn't confirm the 10% fees. I did know that cc acceptance is mandatory.

retrogradeorbit 12y ago

It will be interesting seeing Uber like services go up against the Australian Taxi cartel. I would expect similar antics... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7WdSFS3SFI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7WdSFS3SFI

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

Some people want to paint Uber as the heroes. Others want to put the the regulators and the taxi monopolies in that seat. I'm really getting the impression that both of them are assholes. Uber may (sometimes) provide better service, but they certainly haven't shown any inclination towards responsibility. E.g., as we see here, when a municipality promises to impound Uber vehicles, Uber happily lies to their drivers that everything is sorted out, because manufacturing involuntary martyrs does a much better job of making Uber look victimized than proceeding through normal channels would.