5 ms·

Okay... I won't bother quoting stories about ride share drivers stealing, raping and assaulting, or doing unsafe things, because we'd go back for forth forever.

Okay... I won't bother quoting stories about ride share drivers stealing, raping and assaulting, or doing unsafe things, because we'd go back for forth forever. I think it's fair to say that drivers can fall through the cracks. It's also fair to say that the cracks are bigger (or, to be generous, an unknown width) with a non-regulated service. But I'll go ahead and take your other bait, because certain things need to be said to ensure that this is an enlightened discussion. Every taxi I've been in has a number to call, commonly mandated and staffed by a public agency (whose records are therefore public), when you have a problem. When there's a convention in town, or a major sporting event, or a new taxi service that competes with an existing one, do you know how much my taxi rates go up? I'm approximating here, but (scribbles on napkin)... 0%. Pretty nice. Here are some more hypotheticals: If I have accessibility challenges, a quick call to a taxi dispatcher (and disabled folks generally already know these numbers, in my experience), I get the same rate, and the service is required to accommodate my special needs. If I am engaging in a one night stand, I don't become part of a "ride of glory" dashboard. My data points are used in predictable ways, and if I pay cash and don't rob the driver, my personal information is known by zero people. I will stipulate that cameras are in most taxis these days and, sure, let's say there's facial recognition there. The city agencies don't have a track record of using that PII in unexpected ways. If I complain about too many taxi drivers, every other taxi driver will still pick me up. If I'm in an accident due to some other yahoo driving badly, I know precisely the type of insurance that is carried by the taxi service. If there's short term construction, or a particular corridor is always busy at an unusual time of day, my driver will already know about it, because there's a good chance he's been driving in this city for years. And if he hasn't, the competition to become a driver is fierce enough that he is highly motivated to be the best taxi driver he can be. How'd I do?

Karunamon 12y ago
It's also fair to say that the cracks are bigger (or, to be generous, an unknown width) with a non-regulated service No, that's not a fair assessment at all - the evidence doesn't bear that out. Just because the government isn't doing the regulating doesn't mean there is no regulation. Uber at the very least does background/license checks, and the aforementioned ongoing quality rating. It's not a free-for-all. There's also an article[1] straight from the horse's mouth about a statistically-significant reduction in taxi crime in Chicago after Uber set up shop there. Obvious bias, but I don't see anything obviously bad with their data. Every taxi I've been in has a number to call, commonly mandated and staffed by a public agency (whose records are therefore public), when you have a problem. As previously mentioned, a complaint based model will necessarily be less accurate than an automatic or passive rating model - people will in general not take action to complain unless they both had an awful experience and have the time to do so. I get the feeling that the response to this will be "a bad rating does not ensure action" - but neither does a call to the public agency. If I complain about too many taxi drivers, every other taxi driver will still pick me up. Does Uber actually do this? They rate you immediately at drop off, presumably before you rate them. (I never got the rating prompt until after the driver had left) How does the driver know of the history of your ratings of other drivers? If there's short term construction, or a particular corridor is always busy at an unusual time of day, my driver will already know about it, because there's a good chance he's been driving in this city for years. Who the heck do you think most Uber drivers are? Taking a shot in the dark here, but probably residents of the city they drive in. ..And if he hasn't, the competition to become a driver is fierce enough that he is highly motivated to be the best taxi driver he can be. What do you think will happen to the ratings of a slow driver who makes someone late to their destination, or drives with a dirty car, or has a bad attitude? I'm going to take another shot in the dark here, but knowing what I know of the rating system, I'd wager that will get a driver drummed out of Uber a lot faster than the same behavior would get a driver dismissed from a regular taxi outfit. I really do not get this argument - the feedback and ongoing quality checks by the rideshare companies is necessarily more immediate and more tied to actual everyday conditions and performance than the spot checks that can be performed by even the most scrupulous and well intentioned government agency. Everything else you said was varying degrees of spot on. [1]: http://blog.uber.com/chicagotaxicrime http://blog.uber.com/chicagotaxicrime
- EpicEng 12y ago
  >No, that's not a fair assessment at all - the evidence doesn't bear that out. Just because the government isn't doing the regulating doesn't mean there is no regulation. Uber at the very least does background/license checks, and the aforementioned ongoing quality rating. It's not a free-for-all. I have no idea what lengths Uber goes to, but it's irrelevant. You're espousing self regulation. What happens when the next Uber competitor decides upon a different, perhaps less stringent, standard? This is why these regulations exist on the first place. The whole thing is coming full circle. 1. Unregulated service arises 2. People use said service, gains critical mass. 3. Service excludes/endangers part of the population. 4. Service is regulated by the government 5. Eventually, regulations become burdensome and are either lifted or circumvented. 6. Goto 2
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    That's a bit slippery slope for my taste (2 does not necessarily lead to 3), but in this particular case, pretty much. ..Except I'd argue that the people champing at the bit to sue/ban/regulate Uber are doing so either out of annoyance (politicos annoyed that their regs are being flouted) or greed (competitors upset that they're being undercut), with the "safety" issue being nothing more than a convenient pretext. They are not demonstrably less safe than the "regulated" livery services.
    - EpicEng 12y ago
      Sure, this is completely within the context of this discussion. I'm not saying that Uber is bad, what I'm saying is that a bad actor will eventually crop up, which leads to regulation.
    - darklajid 12y ago
      I somewhat agree with you - but then there's the insurance and license question. I admit that I'm not a fan of that company and couldn't care less about their service. But IF (I don't know. Not a lawyer, no expert) the majority of their drivers aren't covered by their insurance in case of 'commercial' accidents, then yes! they are far less safe than regulated services. On top of that Germany (because that's what the thread started out with) requires people to have a special driving license (That is NOT a taxi license. If you drive a bus or anything where you transport people from A to B for money, you're supposed to have that extended license). And that is a good thing. It checks (every 5 years, because that thing expires) that - you're fit (physically.. Think "My eyes aren't what they used to be, but hey .. I can still drive" - your police record (you can request a file/except of your police record and you have to turn that in for this application) - you know the area It also limits this license to people >= 21 years old that have their license for > 2 years. So, we're having two things here (ignoring all the "But it's faster, cheaper, more convenient" crap) that relate to safety: 1) IF the drivers aren't insured, you are screwed. That is less safe, demonstrably so. 2) Given that those drivers probably don't have that commercial license: I'd say they aren't vetted as good as the taxi drivers. This is a bit more mushy, but I'd still consider this 'less safe' and the list above points out why. Obviously 2) is specific to Germany, but 1) is a global concern, as far as I understand?

Karunamon 12y ago

It's also fair to say that the cracks are bigger (or, to be generous, an unknown width) with a non-regulated service No, that's not a fair assessment at all - the evidence doesn't bear that out. Just because the government isn't doing the regulating doesn't mean there is no regulation. Uber at the very least does background/license checks, and the aforementioned ongoing quality rating. It's not a free-for-all. There's also an article[1] straight from the horse's mouth about a statistically-significant reduction in taxi crime in Chicago after Uber set up shop there. Obvious bias, but I don't see anything obviously bad with their data. Every taxi I've been in has a number to call, commonly mandated and staffed by a public agency (whose records are therefore public), when you have a problem. As previously mentioned, a complaint based model will necessarily be less accurate than an automatic or passive rating model - people will in general not take action to complain unless they both had an awful experience and have the time to do so. I get the feeling that the response to this will be "a bad rating does not ensure action" - but neither does a call to the public agency. If I complain about too many taxi drivers, every other taxi driver will still pick me up. Does Uber actually do this? They rate you immediately at drop off, presumably before you rate them. (I never got the rating prompt until after the driver had left) How does the driver know of the history of your ratings of other drivers? If there's short term construction, or a particular corridor is always busy at an unusual time of day, my driver will already know about it, because there's a good chance he's been driving in this city for years. Who the heck do you think most Uber drivers are? Taking a shot in the dark here, but probably residents of the city they drive in. ..And if he hasn't, the competition to become a driver is fierce enough that he is highly motivated to be the best taxi driver he can be. What do you think will happen to the ratings of a slow driver who makes someone late to their destination, or drives with a dirty car, or has a bad attitude? I'm going to take another shot in the dark here, but knowing what I know of the rating system, I'd wager that will get a driver drummed out of Uber a lot faster than the same behavior would get a driver dismissed from a regular taxi outfit. I really do not get this argument - the feedback and ongoing quality checks by the rideshare companies is necessarily more immediate and more tied to actual everyday conditions and performance than the spot checks that can be performed by even the most scrupulous and well intentioned government agency. Everything else you said was varying degrees of spot on. [1]: http://blog.uber.com/chicagotaxicrime http://blog.uber.com/chicagotaxicrime

EpicEng 12y ago
>No, that's not a fair assessment at all - the evidence doesn't bear that out. Just because the government isn't doing the regulating doesn't mean there is no regulation. Uber at the very least does background/license checks, and the aforementioned ongoing quality rating. It's not a free-for-all. I have no idea what lengths Uber goes to, but it's irrelevant. You're espousing self regulation. What happens when the next Uber competitor decides upon a different, perhaps less stringent, standard? This is why these regulations exist on the first place. The whole thing is coming full circle. 1. Unregulated service arises 2. People use said service, gains critical mass. 3. Service excludes/endangers part of the population. 4. Service is regulated by the government 5. Eventually, regulations become burdensome and are either lifted or circumvented. 6. Goto 2
- Karunamon 12y ago
  That's a bit slippery slope for my taste (2 does not necessarily lead to 3), but in this particular case, pretty much. ..Except I'd argue that the people champing at the bit to sue/ban/regulate Uber are doing so either out of annoyance (politicos annoyed that their regs are being flouted) or greed (competitors upset that they're being undercut), with the "safety" issue being nothing more than a convenient pretext. They are not demonstrably less safe than the "regulated" livery services.
  - EpicEng 12y ago
    Sure, this is completely within the context of this discussion. I'm not saying that Uber is bad, what I'm saying is that a bad actor will eventually crop up, which leads to regulation.
  - darklajid 12y ago
    I somewhat agree with you - but then there's the insurance and license question. I admit that I'm not a fan of that company and couldn't care less about their service. But IF (I don't know. Not a lawyer, no expert) the majority of their drivers aren't covered by their insurance in case of 'commercial' accidents, then yes! they are far less safe than regulated services. On top of that Germany (because that's what the thread started out with) requires people to have a special driving license (That is NOT a taxi license. If you drive a bus or anything where you transport people from A to B for money, you're supposed to have that extended license). And that is a good thing. It checks (every 5 years, because that thing expires) that - you're fit (physically.. Think "My eyes aren't what they used to be, but hey .. I can still drive" - your police record (you can request a file/except of your police record and you have to turn that in for this application) - you know the area It also limits this license to people >= 21 years old that have their license for > 2 years. So, we're having two things here (ignoring all the "But it's faster, cheaper, more convenient" crap) that relate to safety: 1) IF the drivers aren't insured, you are screwed. That is less safe, demonstrably so. 2) Given that those drivers probably don't have that commercial license: I'd say they aren't vetted as good as the taxi drivers. This is a bit more mushy, but I'd still consider this 'less safe' and the list above points out why. Obviously 2) is specific to Germany, but 1) is a global concern, as far as I understand?