4 ms·

Worth noting that it's only against Uber's policy because this is one stronghold of the taxi cartel Uber hasn't been able to crack (and partially how Uber initi

by asift 11y ago

Worth noting that it's only against Uber's policy because this is one stronghold of the taxi cartel Uber hasn't been able to crack (and partially how Uber initially differentiated themselves to argue existing regulations shouldn't apply to their service). But a fundamental question remains, why shouldn't I be able to hail an Uber driver off the street or at an airport? There is no valid reason other than it undermines the rents that incumbent firms and bureacrats are generating from anti-consumer regulations.

CPLX 11y ago
Because hailing drivers who will then stop in a street full of cars trying to drive somewhere is inherently disruptive and unsafe, at least most of the time. It's challenging with taxis too, but those at least are bright yellow with extra flashing lights on the roof, and theoretically some extra training or at least experience. If you live in NYC you'll learn quickly that there are a lot of rules and regulations that are just necessary because of the sheer number of people here. Other closely analogous situations are the ruthlessness of parking enforcement, or the draconian laws about street vending, and so on. People here do understand that the sort of laissez faire approach that would theoretically be more "free" for everyone is not necessarily feasible in a city this dense and interconnected.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  So all uber drivers would have to do is paint their cars yellow and stick flashing lights on the roof and it would be ok? Really, I find it hard to believe this is about safety and not about economics.
  - CPLX 11y ago
    It's about both, clearly. I was responding to this comment: > There is no valid reason other than it undermines the rents... And I pointed out that yes, actually there are other valid reasons. Not having every square inch of city streets covered by circling taxis and for hire cars is another reason. The fact that taxis have regulated and inspected meters that prevent people from getting ripped off on the fare charged is yet another reason (and an excellent one I might add).
    - Vraxx 11y ago
      In response ot the inspected meters. You can see a fare estimate on the app before you even call in an uber. I think if they were able to do pickups, the driver's phone could easily display some sort of meter for riders, and even do predictions before transaction is even confirmed.
- pacofvf 11y ago
  Yes, we have that problem in Mexico city, a long time ago a city Mayor gave the Taxi Union thousands of temporal permits (basically a piece of paper!) just to earn votes for his party, few years forward we have thousands of "pirate" taxis, more than the original permits because you know xerox machines, those unregulated taxis often commit crimes like assaults, thief or rape, and are able to get away because they don't have license plates or have fake ones. The last two mayors have started to crack down on pirate taxis, but you know what actually started to make them disappear? Uber.
- asift 11y ago
  Certainly there are valid considerations for infrastructure design and regulations regarding where hailing can be conducted, but if it's okay for a customer to hail a cab from Company A at particular location, I don't see a valid reason for not allowing Uber to do the same. I find your color argument unconvincing, but even if it were valid, I'm sure Uber and their drivers would be open to putting identification on their cars if it granted them access to desirable customers. Additionally, it's not as if increased competition among firms who can respond to a hailing customer will inherently increase congestion due to street hailing. This would only be true if existing companies were (a) underserving the market so significantly that the ability to hail additional cabs from the curb allowed previously unmet demand to be satisfied, or (b) demand for street hailing itself were to increase. I think (a) is possible, though unlikely, because hailing from an app is generally more convenient than standing on a curb and flagging down cabs. I think the same would apply for (b). If anything, companies like Uber provide a way to more safely and efficiently pick up passengers without relying on street hailing.
rayiner 11y ago
First, taxis are not a "cartel." Cartels are characterized by an agreement among participants not to compete with each other. In contrast, taxis are a government-granted monopoly, like your power company or water company. Those monopolies were granted for much the same reason as they were granted to your power or water company: taxis serve as a quasi-public extension of a city's transit infrastructure and cities use the monopoly grant as a carrot to extract concessions from private cab companies (i.e. no surge pricing, commercial insurance, servicing all parts of a city, etc). Second, the economic arguments in favor of taxi regulation are stronger when you're talking about street hails.[1] The market is inefficient because customers do not really have any way of choosing cabs that offer good service. In turn, cabs have little incentive to offer good service. Furthermore, there are safety concerns. It is not uncommon in certain countries for cab drivers to cooperate with muggers and robbers. On the whole, I think the customer service and safety concerns are a lot less compelling in 2015 New York than in 1915 New York, and that you should be able to hail an Uber off the street. But there is a logic to the existing regulations, and Uber's arguments against regulation are weakest when applied to street hails, where its reputation system does not come into play. [1] This paper surveys the economic issues in play: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/economic-analysis-taxicab-regulation/233832.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/ec....
- asift 11y ago
  Cartel members don't need to agree to not compete against each other, they simply need to agree to work together to restrict competition. In this case, incumbent taxi firms could be in cutthroat competition with each other, while still lobbying to prevent new entrants into the market. I disagree that there is no way for customers to choose cabs which offer good service when street hailing. Sure, there is no way to provide 100% certainty that service will be good, but this is the case even under intense regulation. Considerations like reputation and the desire for future business do have a tremendous regulating effect. That doesn't mean they are perfect and I'm not saying there should be no regulation whatsoever, but I fail to see how restricting competition makes an already inefficient market more efficient.
  - 11y ago
amyjess 11y ago
There are also practical concerns. 1) Uber depends heavily on their app for navigation and billing. Street fares short-circuit that and make it difficult for their app to get involved. Also, with no guarantee of the app being involved, there's nothing to stop a driver from demanding payment in cash and pocketing the money; any driver who does that is outright competing with Uber. 2) Only a very few places have hailable cabs to begin with. It requires that both the typical starting point and the typical drop-off point be in a dense urban core, and even then it'll still only work if hailing cabs is part of the local culture. It'll work in New York, but nobody's going to hail an Uber in Dallas because nobody hails cabs here. Dallas is mostly suburb: Downtown-to-Downtown cab rides are rare to nonexistent here, and even when they happen, hailing cabs just isn't part of the local culture. 3) Hailable taxicabs are clearly marked as taxis. Ubers are just people's personal cars. Nobody is going to stand on the street and hail random cars that drive by, and if they do, that's called hitchhiking.
hydrogen18 11y ago
>no valid reason other than it undermines the rents that incumbent firms and bureacrats are generating from anti-consumer regulations It would appear as though you've answered your own question. Politics is not required to be sane or rational.

by asift 11y ago

CPLX 11y ago

Because hailing drivers who will then stop in a street full of cars trying to drive somewhere is inherently disruptive and unsafe, at least most of the time. It's challenging with taxis too, but those at least are bright yellow with extra flashing lights on the roof, and theoretically some extra training or at least experience. If you live in NYC you'll learn quickly that there are a lot of rules and regulations that are just necessary because of the sheer number of people here. Other closely analogous situations are the ruthlessness of parking enforcement, or the draconian laws about street vending, and so on. People here do understand that the sort of laissez faire approach that would theoretically be more "free" for everyone is not necessarily feasible in a city this dense and interconnected.

jacquesm 11y ago
So all uber drivers would have to do is paint their cars yellow and stick flashing lights on the roof and it would be ok? Really, I find it hard to believe this is about safety and not about economics.
- CPLX 11y ago
  It's about both, clearly. I was responding to this comment: > There is no valid reason other than it undermines the rents... And I pointed out that yes, actually there are other valid reasons. Not having every square inch of city streets covered by circling taxis and for hire cars is another reason. The fact that taxis have regulated and inspected meters that prevent people from getting ripped off on the fare charged is yet another reason (and an excellent one I might add).
  - Vraxx 11y ago
    In response ot the inspected meters. You can see a fare estimate on the app before you even call in an uber. I think if they were able to do pickups, the driver's phone could easily display some sort of meter for riders, and even do predictions before transaction is even confirmed.
pacofvf 11y ago
Yes, we have that problem in Mexico city, a long time ago a city Mayor gave the Taxi Union thousands of temporal permits (basically a piece of paper!) just to earn votes for his party, few years forward we have thousands of "pirate" taxis, more than the original permits because you know xerox machines, those unregulated taxis often commit crimes like assaults, thief or rape, and are able to get away because they don't have license plates or have fake ones. The last two mayors have started to crack down on pirate taxis, but you know what actually started to make them disappear? Uber.
asift 11y ago
Certainly there are valid considerations for infrastructure design and regulations regarding where hailing can be conducted, but if it's okay for a customer to hail a cab from Company A at particular location, I don't see a valid reason for not allowing Uber to do the same. I find your color argument unconvincing, but even if it were valid, I'm sure Uber and their drivers would be open to putting identification on their cars if it granted them access to desirable customers. Additionally, it's not as if increased competition among firms who can respond to a hailing customer will inherently increase congestion due to street hailing. This would only be true if existing companies were (a) underserving the market so significantly that the ability to hail additional cabs from the curb allowed previously unmet demand to be satisfied, or (b) demand for street hailing itself were to increase. I think (a) is possible, though unlikely, because hailing from an app is generally more convenient than standing on a curb and flagging down cabs. I think the same would apply for (b). If anything, companies like Uber provide a way to more safely and efficiently pick up passengers without relying on street hailing.

rayiner 11y ago

First, taxis are not a "cartel." Cartels are characterized by an agreement among participants not to compete with each other. In contrast, taxis are a government-granted monopoly, like your power company or water company. Those monopolies were granted for much the same reason as they were granted to your power or water company: taxis serve as a quasi-public extension of a city's transit infrastructure and cities use the monopoly grant as a carrot to extract concessions from private cab companies (i.e. no surge pricing, commercial insurance, servicing all parts of a city, etc). Second, the economic arguments in favor of taxi regulation are stronger when you're talking about street hails.[1] The market is inefficient because customers do not really have any way of choosing cabs that offer good service. In turn, cabs have little incentive to offer good service. Furthermore, there are safety concerns. It is not uncommon in certain countries for cab drivers to cooperate with muggers and robbers. On the whole, I think the customer service and safety concerns are a lot less compelling in 2015 New York than in 1915 New York, and that you should be able to hail an Uber off the street. But there is a logic to the existing regulations, and Uber's arguments against regulation are weakest when applied to street hails, where its reputation system does not come into play. [1] This paper surveys the economic issues in play: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/economic-analysis-taxicab-regulation/233832.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/ec....

asift 11y ago
Cartel members don't need to agree to not compete against each other, they simply need to agree to work together to restrict competition. In this case, incumbent taxi firms could be in cutthroat competition with each other, while still lobbying to prevent new entrants into the market. I disagree that there is no way for customers to choose cabs which offer good service when street hailing. Sure, there is no way to provide 100% certainty that service will be good, but this is the case even under intense regulation. Considerations like reputation and the desire for future business do have a tremendous regulating effect. That doesn't mean they are perfect and I'm not saying there should be no regulation whatsoever, but I fail to see how restricting competition makes an already inefficient market more efficient.
- 11y ago

amyjess 11y ago

There are also practical concerns. 1) Uber depends heavily on their app for navigation and billing. Street fares short-circuit that and make it difficult for their app to get involved. Also, with no guarantee of the app being involved, there's nothing to stop a driver from demanding payment in cash and pocketing the money; any driver who does that is outright competing with Uber. 2) Only a very few places have hailable cabs to begin with. It requires that both the typical starting point and the typical drop-off point be in a dense urban core, and even then it'll still only work if hailing cabs is part of the local culture. It'll work in New York, but nobody's going to hail an Uber in Dallas because nobody hails cabs here. Dallas is mostly suburb: Downtown-to-Downtown cab rides are rare to nonexistent here, and even when they happen, hailing cabs just isn't part of the local culture. 3) Hailable taxicabs are clearly marked as taxis. Ubers are just people's personal cars. Nobody is going to stand on the street and hail random cars that drive by, and if they do, that's called hitchhiking.

hydrogen18 11y ago

>no valid reason other than it undermines the rents that incumbent firms and bureacrats are generating from anti-consumer regulations It would appear as though you've answered your own question. Politics is not required to be sane or rational.