7 ms·

Uber to Portland: We’re Here. Deal with It

30 points by santaclaus 12y ago

pbreit 12y ago
Could someone please explain to me why ride sharing is illegal and why regulation is necessary? I'm prepared to understand but so far have not heard such a thing articulated.
- faitswulff 12y ago
  > Oregon Taxi complained in July when Uber started doing business in Eugene. City lawyers concluded last month that Uber, although not a traditional taxi service, is required to obtain a license under the city's "public passenger vehicle" regulations. > A city press release issued Thursday said staff members told the company on Sept. 16 that it must get a license. Uber has yet to apply. http://www.katu.com/news/local/Eugene-says-Uber-ride-sharing-service-illegal-278046961.html http://www.katu.com/news/local/Eugene-says-Uber-ride-sharing...
- stonogo 12y ago
  Describing Uber as "ride sharing" is fantastically disingenuous. Have you ever lived in a place that did not have taxi regulations? Life gets fairly hellish that way. Drivers will pick you up and then pick other people up on the way to your destination... often until the van is full. There's no recourse for getting overcharged, assaulted, kicked out in the wrong place because a more profitable fare turned up, being totally SOL because the guy got a flat tire and does not have a support structure in place... this list goes on, and if you think it won't happen in America, good luck in your future endeavors.
  - NhanH 12y ago
    The question might sounds sarcastic,but it's not meant to be: so why haven't any of those instances happen to Uber's user? Does it mean that the regulation already applies to Uber (to a certain extend). Or is there any other reason?
    - jimboyoungblood 12y ago
      who says they haven't? http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victim-of-alleged-Uber-hammer-attack-may-lose-eye-5792092.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victim-of-alleged-Uber... edit: yes it happens in taxis too, but in that case it's pretty clear that the taxi company has liability. not so clear if it happens in an uber. see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver-hammer-attack-liability/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver...
      - wvenable 12y ago
        I had a family member attacked by a cabbie. He was actually mere hours away from getting away with it too because a) The passenger had no record of the transaction and b) The cab service recycles their camera data every few days. The way I see it, there is no guarantee of safety in either situation. You never know if your driver is a criminal or crazy. But services like Uber seem considerably more safe: There is extreme record keeping, user ratings, and no direct money changing hands.
      - santaclaus 12y ago
        Right, but a quick search also turns up numerous stories of traditional taxi drivers attacking/abusing passengers. I think it would be interesting to see statistically significant evidence that one model is demonstrably safer than the other.
  - cloakandswagger 12y ago
    The familiar statist's mantra: That red tape is preventing all hell from breaking loose! I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30.
    - ChuckFrank 12y ago
      In some cases that is true. Health and safety regulations have been instrumental in extending life expectancy. Building codes have been essential in creating safe habitable cities. Without those, we'd be dying in fire traps with dysentery and TB at 30.
    - chasing 12y ago
      > I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30. Probably not, but we might be living in rickety homes, eating food that's mainly sawdust, and working eighty hours per week for almost no money. Some of us would still be slaves. A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. The pleasant life you live today is due to government regulations. You know how you can shop at the grocery store without fearing that something you buy might literally kill you? You know the drugs you take for headaches? For whatever ailments you have? It's nice knowing there's some science behind those, right? Nice knowing they won't kill you, right? Speed limits? Are they a good idea? You might be more likely to think so if you had kids and wanted to feel safe allowing them to play outside. Flying to an awesome tech conference anytime soon? You'd probably prefer the plane didn't drop out of the sky, right? Etc.
      - ahomescu1 12y ago
        > A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. I'd like to point out that Harvard University precedes the United States by 140 years (1636 -> 1776), and the government before 1776 wasn't exactly "for the people".
  - lvh 12y ago
    Those things do happen in America, and have happened to me in America, in a "regulated" taxicab. The process for complaining takes forever, and is basically designed to get you to quit.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    I think your entire argument breaks down because the Uber/Lyft experience is clearly substantially better than the offering you would apparently prefer (the current taxi scheme?).
- ChuckFrank 12y ago
  These PEER-TO-PEER TAXI SERVICES (as opposed to genuine ridesharing services) are illegal because privately insured vehicles cannot be used for commercial purposes. The insurance becomes invalidated and so neither the driver nor the passenger are covered. Commercial use is a distinct classification, and Lyft and Uber technically fit under that classification. Lyft and Uber try to get around this by describing passenger payments for these commercially offered rides as 'donations.' However drivers of these services are not being paid for their volunteer work, they are working for these services. They are working for the money, and in this way it's not a donation. Finally ridesharing is a specific gov't defined catagory. Only when the costs are ridesharing costs ($0.565/mile or less) can they be viewed as non-commercial. Ridesharing is defined by the US Government (MAP-21 bill) as offering the use of seats in privately owned vehicles to other passengers on a cost-reimbursement basis only. H.R. 4348 (112th): MAP-21 So any fee the exceeds costs-reimbursement is income, and these drivers are working, and they are doing so commercially. So they are commercial drivers, getting paid to drive people around. Ergo they are taxis, and they are required by law to be regulated like taxis. And why legislate taxis? Because of the commercial abuse of the common carrier, in this case the roads. All commercial use of common carriers - roads, canals, highways, etc - they are all regulated to prevent abuse. What does this abuse look like? Too many users. What does Uber and Lyft allow? More users of the common carrier. This is not a new battle, truckers, couriers, ship companies, all fight this - what's new is the social distribution that new technology has empowered. For more discussion see -- Hill Brothers Chemical Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2004) DJDAR 13414 http://www.bledsoelaw.com/articles/treppa_michigan_trucking.pdf http://www.bledsoelaw.com/articles/treppa_michigan_trucking.... In part, from Quora discussion. http://www.quora.com/Ride-Sharing/How-are-Lyft-and-Sidecar-legal http://www.quora.com/Ride-Sharing/How-are-Lyft-and-Sidecar-l...
  - fru2013 12y ago
    >The insurance becomes invalidated and so neither the driver nor the passenger are covered. It seems like this is the true crux of the problem. Would the costs of commercial auto insurance be prohibitively expensive? Perhaps Uber could get into the business of cheap commercial auto insurance as well...
- rahimnathwani 12y ago
  Both sides of the argument have been articulated in previous threads, multiple times. A few posts about why regulation exists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340371 tl;dr - taxi regulation was created in order to (i) guarantee standards, back when the free market didn't do a good job of it, and (ii) ensure drivers could earn 'enough' by preventing a race to the bottom on prices. Taxi regulation _continues_ to exist due to lobbying by those who benefit from the current system, inertia and, perhaps, no one yet proving that the world would be better without this regulation.
- chasing 12y ago
  Regulation is how we, the people (via our government), get to have a say in how companies' that provide us critical services like food, healthcare, housing, finances, and (yes) transportation are run. It's a check on exploitation. Regulations are often not perfect, but they are important.
jonsterling 12y ago
God save us.
wyager 12y ago
Although I dislike some of Uber's business practices, I really admire their "fuck you" attitude when it comes to ignoring taxi regulations. Taxi regulations are some of the most bullshit, customer-hurting, corrupt laws people are exposed to on a daily basis. They're a clear example of how overregulation can cause a precipitous drop in quality of service without tangible benefit. Uber, Lyft, and co. managed to realize huge gains in productivity and quality with no significant negative side effects.
- ChuckFrank 12y ago
  The opposite is however true - completely unregulated carrier countries - places like India -- the result is barely function death traps driven by terrible drivers, resulting in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of passengers every year. Taxi regulations, bus regulations, charter van regulations are all there to save lives and prevent a race towards the bottom economy of transportation. And when a mother and child's only chance of getting into town in on the back of a death machine - these regulations start to look very good indeed.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    Uber seems to be doing a pretty good job of providing a quality, safe service not just without regulations but despite them. The regulations as they stand seem to primarily protect the entrenched businesses, not consumers. And our current legislative does not appear to provide any sort of reasonable mechanism to modify said regulations without first flipping the bird and demonstrating clear, intense consumer demand.
    - ChuckFrank 12y ago
      All good points in Uber's favor. I think you are right that with the right technology, so regulatory requirements disappear. I especially liked Uber's dissection of the Las Vegas Tunnel fiasco. Technology, when used correctly, was superior to regulation, and penalties. https://medium.com/@blakeross/uber-gov-29db5fdff372 https://medium.com/@blakeross/uber-gov-29db5fdff372
    - 12y ago
yogo 12y ago
Uber has balls. No matter where you stand you've gotta love that.
- yogo 12y ago
  And for you downvoting fucks, wake up and smell what real world competition is like.
  - chroem- 12y ago
    If "real world competition" smells like harassment of journalists and generally questionable business practices, then it sure smells awful.
    - ChuckFrank 12y ago
      Oops, I downvoted. Sorry. I agree. Having balls is not real world competition. Being Alpha is not real world competition. Flipping the bird, and give everyone a great big FU is not real work competition. Real world competition, is almost every thing but those things. Again, sorry for the downvote. (I just didn't want to encourage feeding the troll.)
oconnor663 12y ago
"In Portland, the commissioner in charge of the city’s Bureau of Transportation was furious enough at Uber that he suggested Portland should amend its regulations to allow Lyft — one of Uber’s biggest competitors — instead of Uber, to operate in the city." This is basically admitting that the whole "for the safety of the consumer" thing is an act. This is not the reaction of a man who actually thinks taxi regulations are needed.
- ChuckFrank 12y ago
  That's not his point. His point was a) Uber and Lyft are illegal and b) if we were to let this happen, he would personally want the team that was good negotiating partners, as opposed to the thugs and a*holes on the other team. (edited for proper pronoun use.)
  - carsongross 12y ago
    What does that mean, "thugs and a##holes"? Is Uber depriving people of their property or forcing them to do something against their will? Are they driving around blaring unpopular music and loudly pointing out poor fashion choices? I'm no huge fan of Uber, but when I read this story it isn't Uber that strikes me as acting like thuggish a##holes.
    - edgyswingset 12y ago
      Rather than working with city officials and lawmakers, they're just ignoring them and doing whatever the hell they want. That is thuggish behavior.
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        No it's not. Thug is a term of violence.
ChuckFrank 12y ago
I think the best-practices that can be learned here is that if you are going into emerging territory with a technology that is challenging the regulator limits, it's better to be the Lyft than it is to be the Uber. In fact, I think this is one of Lyfts strategic advantage - that they aren't Uber, and they let Uber take all the hits. The costs of those hits must be realized somewhere in Uber (as in hiring David P.). Whereas Lyft can essentially sit back, garner goodwill, and enter a the market as a full competitor without expending the same resources. Now realize, that they can only do that because Uber also exist, and Uber does some of the dirtier work. If Lyft on it's own was trying to open new territories, they'd probably be a bit more like Uber. But it's a good lesson in creating a competitive advantage from unwanted competition. Kudos to Lyft for seizing that.
- gooserock 12y ago
  Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." That's absolutely not the case. Uber does not have to act the way it acts. Sure, the first company in this space is bound to run up against regulatory hurdles, but they don't need to openly and brazenly break the law to make their point, to the point that city officials are publicly calling them "thugs." Sure, Uber has been talking to Portland city officials for a year, as the article says, but what's the rush? They're in 250 other cities already, cities a whole lot bigger than Portland. What possible motivation do they have to act the way they do, going behind the backs of the very people they're trying to negotiate with, operating illegally, and daring anyone to stop them? No, that's just immaturity, arrogance, and greed.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." Nope, that's not what the post says. It says that Lyft would probably be a bit more like Uber. That doesn't mean they'd have to flaunt the law, just that they would have to do more negotiation themselves. Also that they currently get the benefits of rabid regulation-fighting without being the bad guy.
- 12y ago
bradleyjg 12y ago
Portland should seek an injunction. Let uber try that 'laws don't apply to us, we move fast and break things' attitude with a judge. They'll quickly learn how broad judicial contempt powers are.
- stock_toaster 12y ago
  I am quite surprised that nothing has been brought to bear against the company, or the management, already.
ignoramous 12y ago
The transport industry is not well regulated in India. As a result, every other month prices go up. So much so that the cost has doubled for some routes. And Uber is poised to make a killing here. One example is how they charge 100 Rupees (about $2) as 'toll fee' for rides to the Airport. The interesting part is there is NO TOLL whatsoever if the cab is in and out within 10mins. Even if you exceed 10 mins, the actual charge is 65 rupees (around $1). Flat 100 Rupee charge is actually too steep when you consider that the entire ride cost you a mere 250 Rupees excluding the toll fee. Repeated contact with customer support at Uber is like talking to a wall. Out of the 4 contacts I had with them, I got a response only once. They didn't respond even when I literally BEGGED them to. In a sense you feel helpless with these corporates with no-face and corportes that take their customers for granted. Even though I have 1200 Rupees ($20) worth of free rides with Uber, I have since switched to local competitors. I simply don't trust them. Esp in a country like India where they aren't and won't be held accountable for liabilities. Free market / unregulated market won't do consumers any good. Uber solves a lot of pain points and is an excellent product-- but the Government needs to step in with newer but accommodating regulations-- perhaps an open API for ride sharing, and a standard ride-fare API, and such. I don't see that ever happening in India to be honest.
- ChuckFrank 12y ago
  I agree completely. I've argued vehemently that the largest single most visible change that we are going to see in the next 10 - 20 years is our transportation structure. Private cars, ride sharing, valet parking, privatized parking, elimination of public parking, driver-less cars, city cores reoriented around public transportation hubs and cycling infrastructures - the transportation cities of the future are going to look as different to them, as horse and carriage cities, and manual stop lights look to us.
- rahimnathwani 12y ago
  I visited India recently. In Mumbai, I found 'Meru Cabs' (www.merucabs.com) offered a great service, similar to Uber. Their app isn't as amazing as Uber's but the cars were clean, and the drivers were courteous.
kylec 12y ago
Fines are one thing, but I bet that Uber would quickly find themselves with a manpower shortage if drivers started getting arrested. It's probably only a matter of time before Uber provokes a city into doing just that.
- craigvn 12y ago
  That's what the cities should be doing. They can talk tough but unless they take action the laws will continue to be flouted.
ArtDev 12y ago
I wonder if higher Uber/taxi/Lyft usage is attributed with less drunken drivers on the road. Probably.

30 points by santaclaus 12y ago

Could someone please explain to me why ride sharing is illegal and why regulation is necessary? I'm prepared to understand but so far have not heard such a thing articulated.

faitswulff 12y ago
> Oregon Taxi complained in July when Uber started doing business in Eugene. City lawyers concluded last month that Uber, although not a traditional taxi service, is required to obtain a license under the city's "public passenger vehicle" regulations. > A city press release issued Thursday said staff members told the company on Sept. 16 that it must get a license. Uber has yet to apply. http://www.katu.com/news/local/Eugene-says-Uber-ride-sharing-service-illegal-278046961.html http://www.katu.com/news/local/Eugene-says-Uber-ride-sharing...
stonogo 12y ago
Describing Uber as "ride sharing" is fantastically disingenuous. Have you ever lived in a place that did not have taxi regulations? Life gets fairly hellish that way. Drivers will pick you up and then pick other people up on the way to your destination... often until the van is full. There's no recourse for getting overcharged, assaulted, kicked out in the wrong place because a more profitable fare turned up, being totally SOL because the guy got a flat tire and does not have a support structure in place... this list goes on, and if you think it won't happen in America, good luck in your future endeavors.
- NhanH 12y ago
  The question might sounds sarcastic,but it's not meant to be: so why haven't any of those instances happen to Uber's user? Does it mean that the regulation already applies to Uber (to a certain extend). Or is there any other reason?
  - jimboyoungblood 12y ago
    who says they haven't? http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victim-of-alleged-Uber-hammer-attack-may-lose-eye-5792092.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Victim-of-alleged-Uber... edit: yes it happens in taxis too, but in that case it's pretty clear that the taxi company has liability. not so clear if it happens in an uber. see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver-hammer-attack-liability/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/09/30/uber-driver...
    - wvenable 12y ago
      I had a family member attacked by a cabbie. He was actually mere hours away from getting away with it too because a) The passenger had no record of the transaction and b) The cab service recycles their camera data every few days. The way I see it, there is no guarantee of safety in either situation. You never know if your driver is a criminal or crazy. But services like Uber seem considerably more safe: There is extreme record keeping, user ratings, and no direct money changing hands.
    - santaclaus 12y ago
      Right, but a quick search also turns up numerous stories of traditional taxi drivers attacking/abusing passengers. I think it would be interesting to see statistically significant evidence that one model is demonstrably safer than the other.
- cloakandswagger 12y ago
  The familiar statist's mantra: That red tape is preventing all hell from breaking loose! I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30.
  - ChuckFrank 12y ago
    In some cases that is true. Health and safety regulations have been instrumental in extending life expectancy. Building codes have been essential in creating safe habitable cities. Without those, we'd be dying in fire traps with dysentery and TB at 30.
  - chasing 12y ago
    > I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30. Probably not, but we might be living in rickety homes, eating food that's mainly sawdust, and working eighty hours per week for almost no money. Some of us would still be slaves. A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. The pleasant life you live today is due to government regulations. You know how you can shop at the grocery store without fearing that something you buy might literally kill you? You know the drugs you take for headaches? For whatever ailments you have? It's nice knowing there's some science behind those, right? Nice knowing they won't kill you, right? Speed limits? Are they a good idea? You might be more likely to think so if you had kids and wanted to feel safe allowing them to play outside. Flying to an awesome tech conference anytime soon? You'd probably prefer the plane didn't drop out of the sky, right? Etc.
    - ahomescu1 12y ago
      > A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. I'd like to point out that Harvard University precedes the United States by 140 years (1636 -> 1776), and the government before 1776 wasn't exactly "for the people".
- lvh 12y ago
  Those things do happen in America, and have happened to me in America, in a "regulated" taxicab. The process for complaining takes forever, and is basically designed to get you to quit.
- pbreit 12y ago
  I think your entire argument breaks down because the Uber/Lyft experience is clearly substantially better than the offering you would apparently prefer (the current taxi scheme?).
ChuckFrank 12y ago
These PEER-TO-PEER TAXI SERVICES (as opposed to genuine ridesharing services) are illegal because privately insured vehicles cannot be used for commercial purposes. The insurance becomes invalidated and so neither the driver nor the passenger are covered. Commercial use is a distinct classification, and Lyft and Uber technically fit under that classification. Lyft and Uber try to get around this by describing passenger payments for these commercially offered rides as 'donations.' However drivers of these services are not being paid for their volunteer work, they are working for these services. They are working for the money, and in this way it's not a donation. Finally ridesharing is a specific gov't defined catagory. Only when the costs are ridesharing costs ($0.565/mile or less) can they be viewed as non-commercial. Ridesharing is defined by the US Government (MAP-21 bill) as offering the use of seats in privately owned vehicles to other passengers on a cost-reimbursement basis only. H.R. 4348 (112th): MAP-21 So any fee the exceeds costs-reimbursement is income, and these drivers are working, and they are doing so commercially. So they are commercial drivers, getting paid to drive people around. Ergo they are taxis, and they are required by law to be regulated like taxis. And why legislate taxis? Because of the commercial abuse of the common carrier, in this case the roads. All commercial use of common carriers - roads, canals, highways, etc - they are all regulated to prevent abuse. What does this abuse look like? Too many users. What does Uber and Lyft allow? More users of the common carrier. This is not a new battle, truckers, couriers, ship companies, all fight this - what's new is the social distribution that new technology has empowered. For more discussion see -- Hill Brothers Chemical Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2004) DJDAR 13414 http://www.bledsoelaw.com/articles/treppa_michigan_trucking.pdf http://www.bledsoelaw.com/articles/treppa_michigan_trucking.... In part, from Quora discussion. http://www.quora.com/Ride-Sharing/How-are-Lyft-and-Sidecar-legal http://www.quora.com/Ride-Sharing/How-are-Lyft-and-Sidecar-l...
- fru2013 12y ago
  >The insurance becomes invalidated and so neither the driver nor the passenger are covered. It seems like this is the true crux of the problem. Would the costs of commercial auto insurance be prohibitively expensive? Perhaps Uber could get into the business of cheap commercial auto insurance as well...
rahimnathwani 12y ago
Both sides of the argument have been articulated in previous threads, multiple times. A few posts about why regulation exists: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8230413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8229867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7340371 tl;dr - taxi regulation was created in order to (i) guarantee standards, back when the free market didn't do a good job of it, and (ii) ensure drivers could earn 'enough' by preventing a race to the bottom on prices. Taxi regulation _continues_ to exist due to lobbying by those who benefit from the current system, inertia and, perhaps, no one yet proving that the world would be better without this regulation.
chasing 12y ago
Regulation is how we, the people (via our government), get to have a say in how companies' that provide us critical services like food, healthcare, housing, finances, and (yes) transportation are run. It's a check on exploitation. Regulations are often not perfect, but they are important.

jonsterling 12y ago

God save us.

wyager 12y ago

Although I dislike some of Uber's business practices, I really admire their "fuck you" attitude when it comes to ignoring taxi regulations. Taxi regulations are some of the most bullshit, customer-hurting, corrupt laws people are exposed to on a daily basis. They're a clear example of how overregulation can cause a precipitous drop in quality of service without tangible benefit. Uber, Lyft, and co. managed to realize huge gains in productivity and quality with no significant negative side effects.

ChuckFrank 12y ago
The opposite is however true - completely unregulated carrier countries - places like India -- the result is barely function death traps driven by terrible drivers, resulting in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands of passengers every year. Taxi regulations, bus regulations, charter van regulations are all there to save lives and prevent a race towards the bottom economy of transportation. And when a mother and child's only chance of getting into town in on the back of a death machine - these regulations start to look very good indeed.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  Uber seems to be doing a pretty good job of providing a quality, safe service not just without regulations but despite them. The regulations as they stand seem to primarily protect the entrenched businesses, not consumers. And our current legislative does not appear to provide any sort of reasonable mechanism to modify said regulations without first flipping the bird and demonstrating clear, intense consumer demand.
  - ChuckFrank 12y ago
    All good points in Uber's favor. I think you are right that with the right technology, so regulatory requirements disappear. I especially liked Uber's dissection of the Las Vegas Tunnel fiasco. Technology, when used correctly, was superior to regulation, and penalties. https://medium.com/@blakeross/uber-gov-29db5fdff372 https://medium.com/@blakeross/uber-gov-29db5fdff372
  - 12y ago

yogo 12y ago

Uber has balls. No matter where you stand you've gotta love that.

yogo 12y ago
And for you downvoting fucks, wake up and smell what real world competition is like.
- chroem- 12y ago
  If "real world competition" smells like harassment of journalists and generally questionable business practices, then it sure smells awful.
  - ChuckFrank 12y ago
    Oops, I downvoted. Sorry. I agree. Having balls is not real world competition. Being Alpha is not real world competition. Flipping the bird, and give everyone a great big FU is not real work competition. Real world competition, is almost every thing but those things. Again, sorry for the downvote. (I just didn't want to encourage feeding the troll.)

oconnor663 12y ago

"In Portland, the commissioner in charge of the city’s Bureau of Transportation was furious enough at Uber that he suggested Portland should amend its regulations to allow Lyft — one of Uber’s biggest competitors — instead of Uber, to operate in the city." This is basically admitting that the whole "for the safety of the consumer" thing is an act. This is not the reaction of a man who actually thinks taxi regulations are needed.

ChuckFrank 12y ago
That's not his point. His point was a) Uber and Lyft are illegal and b) if we were to let this happen, he would personally want the team that was good negotiating partners, as opposed to the thugs and a*holes on the other team. (edited for proper pronoun use.)
- carsongross 12y ago
  What does that mean, "thugs and a##holes"? Is Uber depriving people of their property or forcing them to do something against their will? Are they driving around blaring unpopular music and loudly pointing out poor fashion choices? I'm no huge fan of Uber, but when I read this story it isn't Uber that strikes me as acting like thuggish a##holes.
  - edgyswingset 12y ago
    Rather than working with city officials and lawmakers, they're just ignoring them and doing whatever the hell they want. That is thuggish behavior.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      No it's not. Thug is a term of violence.

ChuckFrank 12y ago

I think the best-practices that can be learned here is that if you are going into emerging territory with a technology that is challenging the regulator limits, it's better to be the Lyft than it is to be the Uber. In fact, I think this is one of Lyfts strategic advantage - that they aren't Uber, and they let Uber take all the hits. The costs of those hits must be realized somewhere in Uber (as in hiring David P.). Whereas Lyft can essentially sit back, garner goodwill, and enter a the market as a full competitor without expending the same resources. Now realize, that they can only do that because Uber also exist, and Uber does some of the dirtier work. If Lyft on it's own was trying to open new territories, they'd probably be a bit more like Uber. But it's a good lesson in creating a competitive advantage from unwanted competition. Kudos to Lyft for seizing that.

gooserock 12y ago
Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." That's absolutely not the case. Uber does not have to act the way it acts. Sure, the first company in this space is bound to run up against regulatory hurdles, but they don't need to openly and brazenly break the law to make their point, to the point that city officials are publicly calling them "thugs." Sure, Uber has been talking to Portland city officials for a year, as the article says, but what's the rush? They're in 250 other cities already, cities a whole lot bigger than Portland. What possible motivation do they have to act the way they do, going behind the backs of the very people they're trying to negotiate with, operating illegally, and daring anyone to stop them? No, that's just immaturity, arrogance, and greed.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >Sorry, I don't buy this. You're proposing that if Uber weren't around, that Lyft would need to act like Uber and "take all the hits." Nope, that's not what the post says. It says that Lyft would probably be a bit more like Uber. That doesn't mean they'd have to flaunt the law, just that they would have to do more negotiation themselves. Also that they currently get the benefits of rabid regulation-fighting without being the bad guy.
12y ago

bradleyjg 12y ago

Portland should seek an injunction. Let uber try that 'laws don't apply to us, we move fast and break things' attitude with a judge. They'll quickly learn how broad judicial contempt powers are.

stock_toaster 12y ago
I am quite surprised that nothing has been brought to bear against the company, or the management, already.

ignoramous 12y ago

The transport industry is not well regulated in India. As a result, every other month prices go up. So much so that the cost has doubled for some routes. And Uber is poised to make a killing here. One example is how they charge 100 Rupees (about $2) as 'toll fee' for rides to the Airport. The interesting part is there is NO TOLL whatsoever if the cab is in and out within 10mins. Even if you exceed 10 mins, the actual charge is 65 rupees (around $1). Flat 100 Rupee charge is actually too steep when you consider that the entire ride cost you a mere 250 Rupees excluding the toll fee. Repeated contact with customer support at Uber is like talking to a wall. Out of the 4 contacts I had with them, I got a response only once. They didn't respond even when I literally BEGGED them to. In a sense you feel helpless with these corporates with no-face and corportes that take their customers for granted. Even though I have 1200 Rupees ($20) worth of free rides with Uber, I have since switched to local competitors. I simply don't trust them. Esp in a country like India where they aren't and won't be held accountable for liabilities. Free market / unregulated market won't do consumers any good. Uber solves a lot of pain points and is an excellent product-- but the Government needs to step in with newer but accommodating regulations-- perhaps an open API for ride sharing, and a standard ride-fare API, and such. I don't see that ever happening in India to be honest.

ChuckFrank 12y ago
I agree completely. I've argued vehemently that the largest single most visible change that we are going to see in the next 10 - 20 years is our transportation structure. Private cars, ride sharing, valet parking, privatized parking, elimination of public parking, driver-less cars, city cores reoriented around public transportation hubs and cycling infrastructures - the transportation cities of the future are going to look as different to them, as horse and carriage cities, and manual stop lights look to us.
rahimnathwani 12y ago
I visited India recently. In Mumbai, I found 'Meru Cabs' (www.merucabs.com) offered a great service, similar to Uber. Their app isn't as amazing as Uber's but the cars were clean, and the drivers were courteous.

kylec 12y ago

Fines are one thing, but I bet that Uber would quickly find themselves with a manpower shortage if drivers started getting arrested. It's probably only a matter of time before Uber provokes a city into doing just that.

craigvn 12y ago
That's what the cities should be doing. They can talk tough but unless they take action the laws will continue to be flouted.

ArtDev 12y ago

I wonder if higher Uber/taxi/Lyft usage is attributed with less drunken drivers on the road. Probably.