Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court(universalhub.com)
universalhub.com
Taxi industry lawsuit against Uber transferred from state to US court
http://www.universalhub.com/2013/taxi-lawsuit-uber-crime-syndicate-hates-poor-peopl
83 comments
I've had the exact same interactions with Taxi drivers. Half of them are completely unprompted by myself, and the driver will bring up Uber and ask me if I like it. Our discussion is always about the benefits of Uber, and invariably after we exchange thoughts about how great it is, and how everybody loves it, one of us brings up, "Everyone, that is, except the dispatchers and Taxi companies".
The drivers know, the customers know that this is changing the industry, many of the old models are being cast aside, and the only way some of the old guard can attempt to combat this is via lawsuits. Predictable, if sad.
(note: I took an Uber cab to work today :p)
The drivers know, the customers know that this is changing the industry, many of the old models are being cast aside, and the only way some of the old guard can attempt to combat this is via lawsuits. Predictable, if sad.
(note: I took an Uber cab to work today :p)
Yes, I've also gotten universally positive feedback from all of the Uber drivers I've talked to (Uber Taxi, UberX, and Uber Black in SF). Whenever I take non-Uber cabs, I ask about Uber, and the response is also usually positive. Some of them say they have already applied to Uber and are waiting to hear back.
The one negative thing about Uber that I've heard is from a non-Uber cab driver who said that Uber is bad because it cannot be anonymous. He then told me about all of the people he has driven who are committing crimes and marital infidelity, which are not the best examples to use. To be fair, I can think of much better examples where anonymity is valuable.
I am a HUGE Uber fan and regular user, but he did make a good point about the loss of an anonymous travel option for those who need it.
The one negative thing about Uber that I've heard is from a non-Uber cab driver who said that Uber is bad because it cannot be anonymous. He then told me about all of the people he has driven who are committing crimes and marital infidelity, which are not the best examples to use. To be fair, I can think of much better examples where anonymity is valuable.
I am a HUGE Uber fan and regular user, but he did make a good point about the loss of an anonymous travel option for those who need it.
Unless Uber manages to actually kill off the taxi industry, which seems extremely unlikely, then the anonymous travel option has not been lost.
Your driver sounds quite clever and profit optimizing. I had thought a couple of weeks ago about whether Uber should somehow allow drivers to specify destinations for more efficient routing. As a customer, what do I care of the guy 1/4 mile away has to drop someone off before picking me up, especially if the next alternative is a mile away? This was not an original thought on my part as I once worked on scheduling software for a large truck fleet, and we had implemented a similar feature.
One thing of many in Uber's favor is that its customers are of relatively high socio-economic status, and the company treats them well. When they hear that the company is being sued by the taxi industry, they take note. It's personal. Taxi service has been bad for years, and everyone's been a victim of the absurd regulations which have lead to this sorry state. Elected officials have been accustomed to taking advantage of regulated industries through corrupt actions (anything related to building or zoning permits as an example) without significant blow-back via news coverage or loss of reputation. This time, it's different. Look at how Washington DC's attempt to draft anti-Uber legislation lead to a national response via phone calls and emails. The proposed legislation was dropped. I suspect Uber will eventually prevail in most of its markets, but the politicians will take awhile to realize that the public is taking interest in seemingly esoteric taxi regulations -- the sorts of laws which have been used for years to transfer money from the pockets of the electorate into the hands of those close to power. I feel like I'm supporting democracy and freedom when I hit the "request taxi" button in the morning -- it's an action more powerful than my vote.
Umm i think regulations came because the of the sorry state of taxis. I don't know how many times i've been ripped off in a taxi. I assume people complained and the taxi industry got heavily regulated. Just look outside the US for comparison.
Nope, the medallion systems exist to block new competition. Sure there are some regulations that seem to favor consumers-- such as price controls-- but these are a short-term benefit, and at the cost of reduced innovation. Far better to allow competition, and customer service will improve through market action rather than government rule-making.
Unregulated innovation often innovates fraud and crime when you're talking about unmarked, unregulated cars driven by unknown people, picking people up off the street.
If you go anywhere in the world with less strict taxi regulation, you'll run into this. In Prague, my wife and I hopped into a cab only to find that the meter seemed to exist in a time bubble that ran 10x faster than the rest of the known universe.
I appreciate being able to hail a random car on the street and know exactly what I'm going to get. Safety and fraud issues are exactly why the industry was regulated in the first place.
If you go anywhere in the world with less strict taxi regulation, you'll run into this. In Prague, my wife and I hopped into a cab only to find that the meter seemed to exist in a time bubble that ran 10x faster than the rest of the known universe.
I appreciate being able to hail a random car on the street and know exactly what I'm going to get. Safety and fraud issues are exactly why the industry was regulated in the first place.
I can agree with what you're saying though I want to share an anecdote from Moscow where there is pretty much no regulation and pricing varies by car company. Instead of having a meter you negotiate the price in the beginning.
To help users out with ordering cabs Yandex released an app that actually let's you order cabs and shows you pre-negotiated prices, you can pick whichever one you like (economy, premium, luxury). They include user ratings and some sort of due-diligence for taxis to get accepted to their network.
But apart from that, a Lyft-like system has existed in many cities for years. In Moscow just holding up your hand on the side of the street prompts anyone to just drive over to the side of the street and offer you a ride. Most of these are full-time or part-time drivers, but also people getting home from work who don't mind a small detour for a bit of extra cash. At a fraction of the price this is the most popular way for people to get around, although some cars look like they date back into the USSR era.
This is a perfectly acceptable scenario and I think with modern technology the market will start to regulate itself.
To help users out with ordering cabs Yandex released an app that actually let's you order cabs and shows you pre-negotiated prices, you can pick whichever one you like (economy, premium, luxury). They include user ratings and some sort of due-diligence for taxis to get accepted to their network.
But apart from that, a Lyft-like system has existed in many cities for years. In Moscow just holding up your hand on the side of the street prompts anyone to just drive over to the side of the street and offer you a ride. Most of these are full-time or part-time drivers, but also people getting home from work who don't mind a small detour for a bit of extra cash. At a fraction of the price this is the most popular way for people to get around, although some cars look like they date back into the USSR era.
This is a perfectly acceptable scenario and I think with modern technology the market will start to regulate itself.
I can share an anecdote from the reverse perspective. When traveling in Morocco, I didn't speak any local languages (eg, French or Arabic). I also was entirely unfamiliar with the city, the distances between points, or even how much something should cost. If there was a Yandex app, I wouldn't have known about it (... although the last time I was in Morocco predated smart phones by about 10 years).
This meant that negotiating a price was pretty much out -- I paid what they asked, and had no real way to gauge whether that was reasonable other than asking a local. I also had no recourse if they overcharged -- what was I going to do?
Information asymmetry is a potent weapon for taking advantage of people, whether it involves taxi rates, or just how clean the restaurant's kitchen is, or how fresh the ingredients are. This is why we have regulations that attempt to provide some of the symmetry required for fair exchange.
This meant that negotiating a price was pretty much out -- I paid what they asked, and had no real way to gauge whether that was reasonable other than asking a local. I also had no recourse if they overcharged -- what was I going to do?
Information asymmetry is a potent weapon for taking advantage of people, whether it involves taxi rates, or just how clean the restaurant's kitchen is, or how fresh the ingredients are. This is why we have regulations that attempt to provide some of the symmetry required for fair exchange.
"This is why we have regulations that attempt to provide some of the symmetry required for fair exchange."
In the case of Ebay, Uber, Airbnb, etc., technology can replace regulation as a means of providing power to the previously disadvantaged party. And, technological solutions almost always are more efficient than the regulation they replace.
In the case of Ebay, Uber, Airbnb, etc., technology can replace regulation as a means of providing power to the previously disadvantaged party. And, technological solutions almost always are more efficient than the regulation they replace.
And hailing a random car on the street should be regulated. Uber is not something you hail randomly on the street though. You hail it through their app, so you know that the car picking you up is actually an Uber car.
"customer service will improve through market action"
Ever been somewhere where taxis appear to be completely unregulated? It can be a scary nightmare.
Why not enforce regulations on vehicle safety, accurate and fair charging and driver safety and remove the artificial restrictions on the number of people competing in the market? A lot of places outside of the US go with that approach and it can work pretty well.
Ever been somewhere where taxis appear to be completely unregulated? It can be a scary nightmare.
Why not enforce regulations on vehicle safety, accurate and fair charging and driver safety and remove the artificial restrictions on the number of people competing in the market? A lot of places outside of the US go with that approach and it can work pretty well.
I don't have a huge problem with your suggestion although I wonder if several competing Uber-esque services would solve these sorts of problems much more efficiently. The idea of "fair" prices is a difficult one because the definition of the idea varies so widely. I happen to like Uber's variable pricing strategy, but many people don't regard it as fair.
I work in Chicago and have a condo in the Near West area (basically Ashland and Madison). Cabbies who are already in the area love seeing me hail them for a downtown trip because they earn a few dollars driving where they would have gone anyway without a paying customer. If the industry was un-regulated, I might consider competing with Uber by offering people with less money than time a way to get an inexpensive cab ride from one of these "backhaul" areas. Imagine an Uber-esque service where a senior citizen who wanted to go to the grocery store sometime in the next hour but only wanted to pay $3 for her trip could place a bid for a pick-up. Cabbies who dropped off a premium customer nearby could at least pay for their fuel to reposition themselves for the next premium customer. Everyone wins. It's this sort of innovation which is stifled by laws deemed to be in the best interest of consumers.
I work in Chicago and have a condo in the Near West area (basically Ashland and Madison). Cabbies who are already in the area love seeing me hail them for a downtown trip because they earn a few dollars driving where they would have gone anyway without a paying customer. If the industry was un-regulated, I might consider competing with Uber by offering people with less money than time a way to get an inexpensive cab ride from one of these "backhaul" areas. Imagine an Uber-esque service where a senior citizen who wanted to go to the grocery store sometime in the next hour but only wanted to pay $3 for her trip could place a bid for a pick-up. Cabbies who dropped off a premium customer nearby could at least pay for their fuel to reposition themselves for the next premium customer. Everyone wins. It's this sort of innovation which is stifled by laws deemed to be in the best interest of consumers.
Well, my idea around "fair" pricing are simply that if you have a meter that it is accurate and calculates according to displayed rates. I don't think the actual values charged should be regulated.
> Nope, the medallion systems exist to block new competition.
That might be why they persist, but the main historical reasons that led to the introduction of tax licenses were: 1) to ensure a certain level of scrupulousness and geographical competence among drivers; 2) to reduce safety incidents caused by poorly maintained vehicles (initially carriages, later automobiles); and 3) to reduce taxis' contribution to traffic congestion by limiting their absolute numbers.
The British Parliament introduced the first such system in the 17th century, responding to concerns expressed by Londoners that thousands of "hackney hell carts", driven by unscrupulous fellows and poorly maintained, were overrunning the city.
Of course, there are now alternate approaches, so maybe the idea should be modified. Vehicle safety is today taken care of separately by mandatory vehicle inspections for all roadworthy vehicles. Congestion could be dealt with through market forces by charging tolls to drive in the busiest areas during peak times, as London has already started doing.
That might be why they persist, but the main historical reasons that led to the introduction of tax licenses were: 1) to ensure a certain level of scrupulousness and geographical competence among drivers; 2) to reduce safety incidents caused by poorly maintained vehicles (initially carriages, later automobiles); and 3) to reduce taxis' contribution to traffic congestion by limiting their absolute numbers.
The British Parliament introduced the first such system in the 17th century, responding to concerns expressed by Londoners that thousands of "hackney hell carts", driven by unscrupulous fellows and poorly maintained, were overrunning the city.
Of course, there are now alternate approaches, so maybe the idea should be modified. Vehicle safety is today taken care of separately by mandatory vehicle inspections for all roadworthy vehicles. Congestion could be dealt with through market forces by charging tolls to drive in the busiest areas during peak times, as London has already started doing.
Any law or regulation exists because of a variety of interests trying to make it happen for their own reasons.
Certainly, the initial reasoning for medallion systems was quality of service and safety. As time goes by and taxi lobbyists become more powerful, they find ways to subvert this into limiting competition. Maybe some city councillor traded his vote on this issue to get a park built in his district, or for support in a primary.
It's not like some Big Government Socialist sat down, twirled his moustache, and said "I think today I will limit competition in the taxicab industry".
Certainly, the initial reasoning for medallion systems was quality of service and safety. As time goes by and taxi lobbyists become more powerful, they find ways to subvert this into limiting competition. Maybe some city councillor traded his vote on this issue to get a park built in his district, or for support in a primary.
It's not like some Big Government Socialist sat down, twirled his moustache, and said "I think today I will limit competition in the taxicab industry".
You probably are correct. Initial regulations likely were earnestly enacted for the public good. I believe NYC implemented the medallion system (the first in the US?) because it was concerned that taxis would become so numerous that they would clog-up the streets. Over time, politicians figured out how to exploit their increasing power for personal gain. There's nothing unique to taxi service in this pattern.
In New York, cabbies are not allowed to refuse you ride a particular neighborhood either.
I never announce where I want to go before I get in (I have some friends in BKLN).
One time I did get a driver who bitched about having to take me somewhere. So I made an overt stretch to look at his details posted inside the car, and then pretended to be taking a note of it. He VERY quickly complied. I didn't have to say a word.
I never announce where I want to go before I get in (I have some friends in BKLN).
One time I did get a driver who bitched about having to take me somewhere. So I made an overt stretch to look at his details posted inside the car, and then pretended to be taking a note of it. He VERY quickly complied. I didn't have to say a word.
This kind of sentiment comes up a lot, and I am sorry, I find it kind of revolting.
There is this notion that cabbies are discriminating against the downtrodden, but in reality, they are the downtrodden. They are low-income, immigrant people who, unlike you, actually live in those outer boroughs. People who need money so badly that they will drive a cab for a living.
You, on the other hand, are a wealthy dude. A dude with so much disposable income that you can throw $20-$40 at a cab instead of taking the subway for free. (Free as in, you already have an unlimited metro card, yes? And $20-$40 is just one way, yes? And you do this every weekend, yes?).
So you, the wealthy dude, have the law on your side. Apparently, your need for low-cost on-demand, luxury transportation trumps the basic human right to free will. Apparently, mostly white, wealthy people need to be protected from being discriminated against by mostly brown, poor people. Apparently, when a laborer refuses to take on dangerous work or insufficiently compensated work ^, we must bring in the government guns and show him who's boss.
(^) It's always money or personal safety. Discrimination has nothing to do with it and I find it rather humorous that cab takers project their own racist attitudes onto cab drivers, seeing as I don't recall a while cabbie once during my 15 years in NYC.
There is this notion that cabbies are discriminating against the downtrodden, but in reality, they are the downtrodden. They are low-income, immigrant people who, unlike you, actually live in those outer boroughs. People who need money so badly that they will drive a cab for a living.
You, on the other hand, are a wealthy dude. A dude with so much disposable income that you can throw $20-$40 at a cab instead of taking the subway for free. (Free as in, you already have an unlimited metro card, yes? And $20-$40 is just one way, yes? And you do this every weekend, yes?).
So you, the wealthy dude, have the law on your side. Apparently, your need for low-cost on-demand, luxury transportation trumps the basic human right to free will. Apparently, mostly white, wealthy people need to be protected from being discriminated against by mostly brown, poor people. Apparently, when a laborer refuses to take on dangerous work or insufficiently compensated work ^, we must bring in the government guns and show him who's boss.
(^) It's always money or personal safety. Discrimination has nothing to do with it and I find it rather humorous that cab takers project their own racist attitudes onto cab drivers, seeing as I don't recall a while cabbie once during my 15 years in NYC.
Cabbies used to routinely discriminate against whomever they felt like, mostly black and brown people who needed to get uptown. That is why the laws prohibiting refusal to take you were you want to go were instated in the first place.
Were they discriminating against the individual or the likelihood that they would not be able to find a paying passenger in the immediate vicinity of the endpoint? Let's say they believed they would have to drive back to Manhattan for their next customer -- their effective earnings would drop by more than half (expensive backhaul) compared to a scenario where they could pick-up a paying passenger just a few blocks away.
Your point that there is a historic basis for the law is well taken. However, history is not an excuse, especially when it comes to forced labor (cough, slavery, cough).
Also, when you say "used to routinely", you are projecting. The press made it into a banner issue, but really, think about it. "Uptown" used to be very, very poor, and poor people don't take cabs.
Also, when you say "used to routinely", you are projecting. The press made it into a banner issue, but really, think about it. "Uptown" used to be very, very poor, and poor people don't take cabs.
I'm not sure what you are talking about at this point. You are mad because taxi drivers are supposed to follow the law, because of slavery? Seems a bit incoherent.
[deleted]
This is an example of a law that, I think, truly benefits the public. There is no reason that Uber should not be barred from discriminating based on pickup location or destination. At the same time, I think the taxi laws are generally in need of reform anyway, so maybe this whole situation will lead to better regulations overall.
The NYC TLC does actually follow through on complaints about drivers not following the rules (CC broken, won't take you out of Manhattan, etc.) and they have an online reporting form http://www.nyc.gov/apps/311/allServices.htm?requestType=topS...
I was told by a taxi driver in Chicago that bureaucrats love complaints from taxi patrons because they can extract bribes from the drivers to resolve them.
It wouldn't be a problem if taxi's weren't limited by the government. Personally I think a taxi should be able to go wherever/whenever they want, even if that includes turning down fares or charging a surcharge to go somewhere they don't want to go.
If it's profitable to go from manhattan to brooklyn that need will be served, if it's not profitable then they need to raise the price - why should manhattan riders subsidize brooklyn?
If it's profitable to go from manhattan to brooklyn that need will be served, if it's not profitable then they need to raise the price - why should manhattan riders subsidize brooklyn?
Upvote for the question.
For the sake of argument, a community might want to subsidize another class of people in order to ensure equal opportunity.
For the sake of argument, a community might want to subsidize another class of people in order to ensure equal opportunity.
The complaint about Uber refusing rides to certain neighborhoods confuses me. When has that ever happened? Uber specifically doesn't ask you where you're going when you hail the cab, and if you enter it anyway (because there's a button that gives you that option), I believe it doesn't show that to the driver until they've already picked you up and started the trip.
Basically, Uber made a conscious decision to not inform the driver where you're going until you're already inside the car, specifically to prevent drivers from ignoring requests to go to certain neighborhoods.
Basically, Uber made a conscious decision to not inform the driver where you're going until you're already inside the car, specifically to prevent drivers from ignoring requests to go to certain neighborhoods.
Except when they lock the doors and won't let you in. Want to report them? Go ahead.. the TLC requires you to take a day off work and appear in person in court. If you don't, complaint is thrown out. Taxi drivers know that it is too much work for most people.
Do they lock you out after you've said where you're going?
Key: unlike tourists who I often see will peep in through the window meekly and respond to the request of "where are you going", when the car stops, just get in. You talk to the driver once inside. Not while you're on the curb.
Key: unlike tourists who I often see will peep in through the window meekly and respond to the request of "where are you going", when the car stops, just get in. You talk to the driver once inside. Not while you're on the curb.
Lots of times the cab will be locked and if you don't tell them where you're going through the window they will just take off.
Boston cabs have been refusing rides to other neighborhoods forever-- drivers just keep their doors locked and ask you where you're going. If they don't like the answer, they drive off. Blatantly illegal, but it happens all the time.
Funny that they didn't seem to have a big problem with this behavior until Uber got involved.
Funny that they didn't seem to have a big problem with this behavior until Uber got involved.
In New York, you can file a complaint online in about 10 seconds. Then you have to phone into a hearing scheduled at your convenience. The driver rarely shows up, and they hand out $200 fines like candy.
Not just fines - points too. The TLC will yank your license if you do this too many times. In many ways New York cabbies have their entire livelihoods at the mercy of riders - there's not much in the way of filtering fraudulent claims.
When I've tried to do this in the past, it required appearing in person. Have you actually phoned in?
I filed an online claim and didn't have to do either (the driver pled guilty). I imagine that the requirement cuts both ways (i.e., the driver has to actually appear to contest the claim, in which case they require testimony - if they can't/won't appear they have to pled guilty).
If you follow some of the links, apparently the drivers often don't maintain the same level of insurance as they are compelled to under the taxi medallion laws.
It was smart for Uber to take it federal as they'd have an uphill climb in a local court.
It was smart for Uber to take it federal as they'd have an uphill climb in a local court.
> If they don't like the answer, they drive off.
A simple fix for this issue is lying.
A simple fix for this issue is lying.
And the taxi can leave you wherever, whenever they figure this out.
This is just a side note, but on april 2 every cab in my city was suspended from service for safety violations.
http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/All-Manchester-taxis-suspen...
The taxi industry is not a good thing to leave unregulated. If you think uber wouldn't operate just like the rest of them because they're a trendy startup, you're delusional.
I acknowledge the call for regulation is over travel destination, but in general I sense some free market idealism here that needs to be squashed.
http://www.wmur.com/news/nh-news/All-Manchester-taxis-suspen...
The taxi industry is not a good thing to leave unregulated. If you think uber wouldn't operate just like the rest of them because they're a trendy startup, you're delusional.
I acknowledge the call for regulation is over travel destination, but in general I sense some free market idealism here that needs to be squashed.
I think there is a big difference between the safety regulation and monopoly ensuring regulations. You see it quite a bit in the food truck discussions.
Most people don't have a problem with some set of minimum safety regulations for an activity. Most people don't freak out about basic access and destination regulations.
On the other hand, governments creating artificial scarcity and going after business models that target this scarcity is pretty repugnant. Too many cabs is not the problem of government and will be rightly sorted out in the market place.
Most people don't have a problem with some set of minimum safety regulations for an activity. Most people don't freak out about basic access and destination regulations.
On the other hand, governments creating artificial scarcity and going after business models that target this scarcity is pretty repugnant. Too many cabs is not the problem of government and will be rightly sorted out in the market place.
I feel like this is cyclical.
Government steps in with common-sense safety/destination regulations, requires cab drivers to be certified. All good. Then, these cab companies who have by necessity acquired some competence in lobbying start getting some rules in to benefit them, creating a cumbersome, crappy situation ripe for disruption.
Enter Uber. After they've had some success, the government will step in with some basic, common-sense safety/destination regulations...
Government steps in with common-sense safety/destination regulations, requires cab drivers to be certified. All good. Then, these cab companies who have by necessity acquired some competence in lobbying start getting some rules in to benefit them, creating a cumbersome, crappy situation ripe for disruption.
Enter Uber. After they've had some success, the government will step in with some basic, common-sense safety/destination regulations...
OK, that got me. It took a few minutes, and rereading the above link to work out it is not Manchester UK (pop 1/2m) but Manchester NH (pop 100K)
However 19 cabs total for a population of 100,000 is really low. A quick google / yell shows me 109 listed taxi firms in Manchester UK. Thats about what I would expect.
Why are there only 19 actual cars in Manchester NH?
- http://www.taxinumber.com/taxis/manchester/?page=5
However 19 cabs total for a population of 100,000 is really low. A quick google / yell shows me 109 listed taxi firms in Manchester UK. Thats about what I would expect.
Why are there only 19 actual cars in Manchester NH?
- http://www.taxinumber.com/taxis/manchester/?page=5
I would naively expect the number of taxis used in a city to scale with something like the square of the population. The smaller the city is, the fewer places there are to go, the farther away basic things tend to be, and the more likely people are to have and drive cars.
Not population. The number of cabs is strongly related to the number of people WITHOUT CARS in an area. No matter how heavily populated, if an area is built in the standard car-centric suburb design, there won't be many cabs since car ownership will approach 100%.
Your example is a clear case of regulation failure. The cab companies knew of the inspection but took no action to comply with the regulations.
In smaller cities like Manchester where there are only 19 cabs there is very little market pressure. Competition in large cities will put more pressure on companies. The risk of a significant lawsuit is also significant pressure to maintain vehicles.
In smaller cities like Manchester where there are only 19 cabs there is very little market pressure. Competition in large cities will put more pressure on companies. The risk of a significant lawsuit is also significant pressure to maintain vehicles.
How is it a case of regulation failure? If there were no regulation, all the defective cabs would still be on the road right now.
> "Competition in large cities will put more pressure on companies."
Only if competition sticks around. In most major cities the long-term trend seems to be larger cab companies swallowing up smaller cab companies until there are only 1-2 players left, at which point competitive pressure is little to nonexistent.
Only if competition sticks around. In most major cities the long-term trend seems to be larger cab companies swallowing up smaller cab companies until there are only 1-2 players left, at which point competitive pressure is little to nonexistent.
I love the comments in the article: people from East Boston saying that it's the only way they can get a cab.
I took an Uber in Boston today. I never call cabs any other way. It's faster, more convenient, they're more accountable, and when I'm in Cambridge it allows me to get a Boston cab as opposed to the horrible, horrible Cambridge cabbies.
The drivers seem to like it too- every Boston cabbie I've taken an Uber with has told me they get lots of money from Uber rides and that it's way better than Dispatch. Some even stopped paying for dispatch and rely entirely on Uber and driving around.
I took an Uber in Boston today. I never call cabs any other way. It's faster, more convenient, they're more accountable, and when I'm in Cambridge it allows me to get a Boston cab as opposed to the horrible, horrible Cambridge cabbies.
The drivers seem to like it too- every Boston cabbie I've taken an Uber with has told me they get lots of money from Uber rides and that it's way better than Dispatch. Some even stopped paying for dispatch and rely entirely on Uber and driving around.
I think this is the core of why everyone disagrees about Uber. In certain cities (Boston, SF) it is a lifesaver. Here in NYC it's a waste of money- yellow cabs really aren't that bad or scarce. There are times of day when it's difficult to get a yellow cab, but that's the exact same time that it's difficult to get an Uber cab- either that or you're paying 2.5x the already expensive price because they switched on surge pricing.
[deleted](1)
So much cheaper than a medallion...no wonder they are mad. Everybody gets mad when they have to pay a bribe and then find out they are the only ones that paid.
These guys are making some serious disruption in a terrible market. Good for them.
I wonder what this lawsuit would look like 10 years from now, when Uber Drivers are replaced by Uber leased "Google Cars" that pick you up?
I wonder what this lawsuit would look like 10 years from now, when Uber Drivers are replaced by Uber leased "Google Cars" that pick you up?
[deleted]
People talking about the dangers of completely unregulated cabs are missing the point. Unregulated cabs that you hail randomly on the street are dangerous because you have no way to verify that the cab is actually from the company it claims to be, and no way to punish the driver if he lies to you (or worse). You are completely at the mercy of the driver.
Uber is completely different from randomly hailing a cab on the street, because you can verify that the cab is from Uber and you can punish bad drivers with bad ratings. If you have a bad experience in an Uber cab, it reflects badly on Uber's brand, so Uber has a strong incentive to punish bad drivers. That's why services like Uber don't need the same regulation that regular cabs do.
Uber is completely different from randomly hailing a cab on the street, because you can verify that the cab is from Uber and you can punish bad drivers with bad ratings. If you have a bad experience in an Uber cab, it reflects badly on Uber's brand, so Uber has a strong incentive to punish bad drivers. That's why services like Uber don't need the same regulation that regular cabs do.
Hmmm... Industry disruption met with resistance is solid evidence that you are on the right track. The biggest innovation was the move from Checker Cabs to Prius ! Ha. I was a brand manager at Chevrolet and teamed up with Joe Boxer to run van taxis in NYC with a portion of fare going to charity. Chevy didnt want to go beyond test even though the customers LOVED it. Sort of TOMs of taxis. That could be a next innovation in the space...social give back or "free" Uber rides where the passenger could add on an amount that goes into a pool for low income folks to get to the store, etc. Anyway - NONE of that coming from the traditional taxis....
Coming from Paris, I know that dealing with cab companies is a huge pain. And that's why there are a lot of initiatives that try to deal with what we call "la petite remise" which are private cars. The legislation is far less strict with them. The only problem is that up to now, there's a numerus clausus for them. But it is said that they're going to increase this number in the few next years, so it's still a big opportunity.
Still, taxi drivers hold a strong negociation power against governement: they're strongly unionized and they don't hesitate blocking trafic in case a new law might harm their business...
Still, taxi drivers hold a strong negociation power against governement: they're strongly unionized and they don't hesitate blocking trafic in case a new law might harm their business...
Can someone explain uber to a UK reader who does not understand what the fuss is?
I can see its some sort of aggregation service for taxi cabs, but I generally like using one particular firm, that I know vets its drivers well. Some (men & women) I know stick to women only driver firms and so forth.
A nice UI is good but I dont get it?
I can see its some sort of aggregation service for taxi cabs, but I generally like using one particular firm, that I know vets its drivers well. Some (men & women) I know stick to women only driver firms and so forth.
A nice UI is good but I dont get it?
The attactiveness of Uber varies with regards to locality in the United States. Many cities have taxi systems which are deeply non-functional:
a) So few taxis on the roads (because the laws forbid anyone from adding more) that it is virtually impossible to hail one, like San Francisco.
b) Drivers who habitually discriminate against customers by race, desired travel location, etc.
c) Routine fraud conducted by drivers over e.g. whether a payments mechanism which is legally required such as, say, the credit card machine is actually functioning or not. (Taxi drivers in the US prefer to be paid in cash because it makes fraud easier.)
By comparison, Uber is "You push a button. A car picks you up and drives you to your destination. You do not get cheated." This is a severe competitive threat to taxis in many US cities, even at a hefty premium to what taxis are charging.
a) So few taxis on the roads (because the laws forbid anyone from adding more) that it is virtually impossible to hail one, like San Francisco.
b) Drivers who habitually discriminate against customers by race, desired travel location, etc.
c) Routine fraud conducted by drivers over e.g. whether a payments mechanism which is legally required such as, say, the credit card machine is actually functioning or not. (Taxi drivers in the US prefer to be paid in cash because it makes fraud easier.)
By comparison, Uber is "You push a button. A car picks you up and drives you to your destination. You do not get cheated." This is a severe competitive threat to taxis in many US cities, even at a hefty premium to what taxis are charging.
Hmmm, I am a big fan of Addison-Lee cabs, a firm that runs its own fleet, and well, just turns up. You can have an account or pay cash, they turn up, will drive my dad 30 miles into town or me 2 miles across.
They basically have been a severe competitive threat to local mini cab firms in London, and, well, no-one sued, they just upped the game or got out. I have not got into a cab recently that I did not book on the phone and where cabbies have a sat nav, a smartphone and never use the radio, just get jobs from their dashboard.
Is it just me being a bit astonished that it seems only one firm in the continental USA has thought "I know lets be better"
P.S.
An (ex-) Londoners perspective on your other points are amusing - every cabbie wants to be paid in cash, they are famous for racisim and and you will never get a taxi south of the river at this time on a Friday mate)
But the system works. As an infrequent New Yorker it seemed to work there.
They basically have been a severe competitive threat to local mini cab firms in London, and, well, no-one sued, they just upped the game or got out. I have not got into a cab recently that I did not book on the phone and where cabbies have a sat nav, a smartphone and never use the radio, just get jobs from their dashboard.
Is it just me being a bit astonished that it seems only one firm in the continental USA has thought "I know lets be better"
P.S.
An (ex-) Londoners perspective on your other points are amusing - every cabbie wants to be paid in cash, they are famous for racisim and and you will never get a taxi south of the river at this time on a Friday mate)
But the system works. As an infrequent New Yorker it seemed to work there.
The big difference is that you are logged in and you request a car with your account. You've essentially rented the car from the moment you hit ok.
Why does this matter? Because it means the car will actually show up.
I live in San Francisco. The cabs here are terrible. You can't actually call a cab and have it show up. Most cabbies will pick up another fare if they see one on the way to you. Doing things like getting to the airport or generally arriving anywhere on time is nearly impossible if you have a 30 minute swing based on how many times you have to re-call the cab company to actually get somebody to show up.
Want to be responsible and not drink and drive after that party? Don't count on getting home from a cab.
Why does this matter? Because it means the car will actually show up.
I live in San Francisco. The cabs here are terrible. You can't actually call a cab and have it show up. Most cabbies will pick up another fare if they see one on the way to you. Doing things like getting to the airport or generally arriving anywhere on time is nearly impossible if you have a 30 minute swing based on how many times you have to re-call the cab company to actually get somebody to show up.
Want to be responsible and not drink and drive after that party? Don't count on getting home from a cab.
> The companies also charge the company discriminates against cancer patients because it does not accept city coupons for discount rides for them.
Wow... nice play on cancer issue there. Very dirty too. One could argue that city discriminates against non-cancer patients by discounting only on specific illness. Since city is not controlling Uber, they are not forced to honour any city-issued coupons.
Wow... nice play on cancer issue there. Very dirty too. One could argue that city discriminates against non-cancer patients by discounting only on specific illness. Since city is not controlling Uber, they are not forced to honour any city-issued coupons.
I find it so depressing that traditional taxi company's wish to stifle inovation (which, as far as I can tell, is much loved), simply because they have failed to innovate themselves. IMO this is similar to the music industry and hollywood, where companies are 'stuck in their ways' and will desperately try to keep the status quo at the expense of the consumer. Where's the love?.
And cable companies and garbage collection and all the other industries that have been captured by organized crime, fraud, and cry like little babies whenever their comfy fiefdom is encroached upon. They're like siblings who whine, "Mommmmm!! Billy's on my side of the back seat!" Sheer territorial corruption.
The only downside of Uber? Hailing a normal cab and walking out as if it's already paid for. I've done that twice since I started using Uber a few months ago. Embarrassing but funny stories :)
Uber must be doing something right to get this kind of trouble.
The taxi regulators were always going to put up a fight and use whatever lobbying they could to nip them in the bud. The reality is that Uber have done a great job of ploughing on regardless. In Ireland and the UK, Hailo have managed to keep the taxi regulators on side and the taxi drivers love them. A bit like Spotify vs Napsters approach to the labels. Seems like the carrot works better than the stick!
I make sure to ask every single new driver about their experience with Uber and I have heard positive things across the board, save for a few minor complaints (usually about how the cut drivers get aren't that much higher than what they'd get at a traditional cab company). Most say they love it, many say they make extra cash using it on their off-times, and some say they have entire fleets running on Uber. Overall, from my experience, the drivers love and rely on it too.
I think the secret to their success is that they've simplified and streamlined the process elegantly for both drivers and passengers. A few taps and I'm on my way without worry of if I'll even get a cab (although, to be fair, it is at times difficult to find Uber cabs in Brooklyn), and whether I brought cash/credit. But what's really interesting is how they've seemed to simplify the process just enough for drivers. They tell me that everything is provided for them, down to the dashboard mount for the included iPhone. The software itself is simple enough to work and isn't wrought with rules and requirements, and that let's drivers find their own way to make the most out of the software in ways I'm sure the creators didn't expect. For example, one driver actually ended my trip early while I was still in the car, meaning I got charged less, because he didn't want to miss any potential pickups waiting for him at my destination, which I thought was a clever trick.
My point is that Uber is providing a service that both drivers and passengers seem to universally love. No one, as to my knowledge, is getting screwed for the benefit of another. That's why all these lawsuits seem like desperate attempts to take down a company whose service they know is better on all fronts.