3 ms·

> Other cab drivers (driving what are typically referred to as minicabs or "private hire vehicles") are supposed to agree a fare with the passenger up front and

> Other cab drivers (driving what are typically referred to as minicabs or "private hire vehicles") are supposed to agree a fare with the passenger up front and are specifically prohibited, by law, from using a taximeter. Their lives must be miserable without The Queen's "taximeter"!

true_religion 11y ago
I think the UK situation is fair. If the uber app lets you go to random destinations, or charges you extra per the mile, then it is a meter. Uber should be just like a black car service: point A to point B, with no extras. If Uber doesn't find this as profitable, they're free to open a segment of their company that actually is a taxi service and follows regulation in exchange for picking up the public and being able to run a meter on public traffic.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  The problem is that taxi regulation doesn't make any sense to begin with. As you said, people get transported from Place A to B for a fee. Fundamentally, it's as simple as buying a pound of cheese from a supermarket. It's just a transaction between people. So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would getting licensed increase safety in any way? It's not like anyone wants to experience a car crash. The real point of the exercise is to maintain a state-supported taxi-cartel. Higher prices for the masses, and higher profits for the cartel. Desperation and hardship for the debt-slave drivers.
  - shalmanese 11y ago
    The logic for street hails is that it's fundamentally impossible to negotiate prices or quality of service ahead of time. Enforcing a uniform price & service standard lends predictability to the procedure.
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      Impossible? - How much for taking me from here to <Place X>? - That would be $40. - Alright, let's go. Quality of service would involve various things, but there could be a big taxi company called Toober, for example, with a good reputation, so you could reasonably expect to receive at least decent service from their drivers, and there would be no problem. If you were feeling more adventurous, you could opt for a small(er) provider without an established reputation, but it would cost a bit less than Toober. Most likely, there would be no problem.
      - sillygoose 11y ago
        As a sidenote, whoever downvoted this and the other related post is allergic to thinking.
        dang 11y ago
        Please don't post comments like this, which break the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        sillygoose 11y ago
        Well, the real problem here is inane downvotes, not that I pointed it out.
  - true_religion 11y ago
    > So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would getting licensed increase safety in any way? It's not like anyone wants to experience a car crash. All businesses must be licenced. Taxi licensing is special because of their special circumstance. They conduct their business primarily on public streets, and without licensing to ensure fair pricing and service to clientele they may: (a) 'forget' about picking up people of a certain skin color (b) refuse fare to a certain district they don't like (c) arbitrarily set fares depending on what they see as people's willingness to pay--like say setting the fare for single women outside nightclubs to 3x the normal rate. All of these things I've seen in unregulated environments and to a lesser extent (a & b ) in regulated environments too.
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      You're seeing problems that aren't really there. > All businesses must be licenced. Why? Why the hell would a grocery store need a license and what for? I'm not asking for "because the government says so", because the government says a lot of things that don't actually make sense. Is there a good, objective reason for all businesses to have to be licensed and how would the license help? > Taxi licensing is special because of their special circumstance. What does that mean? What are the special circumstances? It's just people with cars and people who need to go places. > (a) 'forget' about picking up people of a certain skin color Suppose there was no regulation for taxis. Now suppose a big taxi company had emerged. Let's call it "Toober". Now Toober, just like most companies, wants to make as much money as possible. Do you think people accusing its drivers of racism would be conducive to that goal, and if not, do you think Toober would do something about racist drivers? What about the drivers? They want money too, right? So if there was a racist driver working for Toober, and he knew Toober doesn't tolerate racism because it's bad for their image and thus, bottom line, don't you think the driver would refrain from behaving in a racist way so that he could keep his job? > (b) refuse fare to a certain district they don't like Don't like? Because it somehow displeases them like Justin Bieber's music displeases a lot of guys? What sense would it make for a taxi to leave money on the table because he finds a district distasteful? > (c) arbitrarily set fares depending on what they see as people's willingness to pay--like say setting the fare for single women outside nightclubs to 3x the normal rate. Again, imagine Toober getting complaints about discrimination. On the other hand, getting home safely from a night out is a more valuable service than just getting from Place A to B in less dangerous situation, so maybe it's alright to charge a bit more. Sure, three times the normal rate would be too much, but another taxi company would be free to offer a better rate, and people would take it. Do you see why regulation is not necessary at all? Whenever the government says it's doing something for your safety or for fairness, you can be 100% sure the results and real reasons are different. The real reason why we have taxi regulations is to maintain a state-supported taxi-cartel.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

true_religion 11y ago

I think the UK situation is fair. If the uber app lets you go to random destinations, or charges you extra per the mile, then it is a meter. Uber should be just like a black car service: point A to point B, with no extras. If Uber doesn't find this as profitable, they're free to open a segment of their company that actually is a taxi service and follows regulation in exchange for picking up the public and being able to run a meter on public traffic.

sillygoose 11y ago
The problem is that taxi regulation doesn't make any sense to begin with. As you said, people get transported from Place A to B for a fee. Fundamentally, it's as simple as buying a pound of cheese from a supermarket. It's just a transaction between people. So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would getting licensed increase safety in any way? It's not like anyone wants to experience a car crash. The real point of the exercise is to maintain a state-supported taxi-cartel. Higher prices for the masses, and higher profits for the cartel. Desperation and hardship for the debt-slave drivers.
- shalmanese 11y ago
  The logic for street hails is that it's fundamentally impossible to negotiate prices or quality of service ahead of time. Enforcing a uniform price & service standard lends predictability to the procedure.
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    Impossible? - How much for taking me from here to <Place X>? - That would be $40. - Alright, let's go. Quality of service would involve various things, but there could be a big taxi company called Toober, for example, with a good reputation, so you could reasonably expect to receive at least decent service from their drivers, and there would be no problem. If you were feeling more adventurous, you could opt for a small(er) provider without an established reputation, but it would cost a bit less than Toober. Most likely, there would be no problem.
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      As a sidenote, whoever downvoted this and the other related post is allergic to thinking.
      - dang 11y ago
        Please don't post comments like this, which break the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        sillygoose 11y ago
        Well, the real problem here is inane downvotes, not that I pointed it out.
- true_religion 11y ago
  > So why should taxi drivers have to get "licensed"? What exactly is that license? What does it represent besides going through a burdensome ordeal? How would getting licensed increase safety in any way? It's not like anyone wants to experience a car crash. All businesses must be licenced. Taxi licensing is special because of their special circumstance. They conduct their business primarily on public streets, and without licensing to ensure fair pricing and service to clientele they may: (a) 'forget' about picking up people of a certain skin color (b) refuse fare to a certain district they don't like (c) arbitrarily set fares depending on what they see as people's willingness to pay--like say setting the fare for single women outside nightclubs to 3x the normal rate. All of these things I've seen in unregulated environments and to a lesser extent (a & b ) in regulated environments too.
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    You're seeing problems that aren't really there. > All businesses must be licenced. Why? Why the hell would a grocery store need a license and what for? I'm not asking for "because the government says so", because the government says a lot of things that don't actually make sense. Is there a good, objective reason for all businesses to have to be licensed and how would the license help? > Taxi licensing is special because of their special circumstance. What does that mean? What are the special circumstances? It's just people with cars and people who need to go places. > (a) 'forget' about picking up people of a certain skin color Suppose there was no regulation for taxis. Now suppose a big taxi company had emerged. Let's call it "Toober". Now Toober, just like most companies, wants to make as much money as possible. Do you think people accusing its drivers of racism would be conducive to that goal, and if not, do you think Toober would do something about racist drivers? What about the drivers? They want money too, right? So if there was a racist driver working for Toober, and he knew Toober doesn't tolerate racism because it's bad for their image and thus, bottom line, don't you think the driver would refrain from behaving in a racist way so that he could keep his job? > (b) refuse fare to a certain district they don't like Don't like? Because it somehow displeases them like Justin Bieber's music displeases a lot of guys? What sense would it make for a taxi to leave money on the table because he finds a district distasteful? > (c) arbitrarily set fares depending on what they see as people's willingness to pay--like say setting the fare for single women outside nightclubs to 3x the normal rate. Again, imagine Toober getting complaints about discrimination. On the other hand, getting home safely from a night out is a more valuable service than just getting from Place A to B in less dangerous situation, so maybe it's alright to charge a bit more. Sure, three times the normal rate would be too much, but another taxi company would be free to offer a better rate, and people would take it. Do you see why regulation is not necessary at all? Whenever the government says it's doing something for your safety or for fairness, you can be 100% sure the results and real reasons are different. The real reason why we have taxi regulations is to maintain a state-supported taxi-cartel.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]