"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
>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.
You said it as if Windows Phone or Windows RT has been a good strategy since it entered the market when it was ripe thanks to Apple and Google who had been cultivating it for years. Imagine applying that "strategic advantage" to electrical car: one would sit back and wait for Tesla to do all the hard work and then enter as a full competitor. This does not sound right to me, and hugely discounts the immense value of the "dirtier works", such as actual goodwill from appreciative consumers and businesses and invaluable partners (rather than tech bloggers), not to mention first mover advantage.
And it's hard to praise someone for "seizing" it when they just "sit back".
The truth is these companies are selling a commodity now and all anyone is going to care about is which one can give me a ride the fastest and cheapest. I have zero loyalty to Uber or Lyft. If there was another player in the market that gave me cheaper rides quicker I'd never use Uber or Lyft again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The argument that Uber is providing reasonable service despite regulations does not justify removing them.
In a city like New York, where traditional taxi services are deeply entrenched, Uber must provide service that is at least as good as the status quo. The guarantees that the state enforces to protect consumers in registered taxi services serve as baseline, and Uber knows this. If that baseline did not exist, that is, if Uber were competing only against unregulated commercial services, there would be a race to the bottom, and suddenly New York would start looking a lot like Bangalore.
In this way, regulation improves things even to those who use services that are not regulated.
What's wrong with a race to the bottom? Big corporations often run with a profit margin of only 1 to 4 percent. That's great for consumers. Drive those prices as low as they can go. Excellent!
People keep using the phrase "protect consumers". How, exactly? In very precise words please. Making drivers hold appropriate insurance, excellent. That protects me as a consumer. Having extremely constrained medallions that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? No, that does not protect me as a consumer at all. Forcing Uber to do this bullshit independent driver hack also does not protect me or provide value. It would be far superior if drivers were regular employees of Uber but that puts them under heavy regulation which protects established business players far, far, far more than it protects or serves the consumer.
The fact that death traps should be kept off of roads is entirely independent of regulations specific to taxis.
I'm perfectly happy with a race to the bottom in generic 'get me there cheap' service. The alternative is being forced to pay for a more luxurious transportation whether I want it or not.
Just about the only thing I see as a valid use of taxi regulations is a requirement to pick people up independent of destination. But it's a really inefficient way of handling the situation.
> Just about the only thing I see as a valid use of taxi regulations is a requirement to pick people up independent of destination. But it's a really inefficient way of handling the situation.
How about transporting blind people with their guide dogs?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
> 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 thing is a red herring. Even if Uber were to demonstrate that the commercial insurance they purchase is in effect at all times when the vehicle is being used for commercial purposes, Uber drivers still wouldn't enjoy the same rights and privileges as taxi drivers do.
> Lyft and Uber try to get around this by describing passenger
> payments for these commercially offered rides as
> 'donations.'
I don't think Uber describes passenger payments as donations. Where did you read/hear this?
> And why legislate taxis? Because of the commercial abuse
> of the common carrier, in this case the roads.
> What does this abuse look like? Too many users.
I have not heard this argument in favour of taxi regulation before. Can you tell us more? (Intuitively, fewer taxis means more incentive to own a car, which means more cars on the road, and more car journeys overall as, if I have a car, then getting on my bicycle for a short journey is that much less likely.)
As to rights and privileges - should they? They are essentially illegal and unregulated. What rights and privileges should they get? Should they able to charge fares?
As to donations - Lyft regularly called them donations before they changed them to payment:
"“Starting tomorrow, we’re transitioning from donations to regular payments in Seattle, providing increased transparency for passengers and greater peace of mind for drivers,” Lyft wrote in an email to customers."
Common carrier abuse isn't dictated by the same terms as a free market economy precisely because the resource / infrastructure is subsidized. This is why regulatory limits are used.
And as to having too many private cars - well that's certainly a problem we are having, and a problem that places like London are trying to address with their Congestion charge.
> And as to having too many private cars - well that's certainly a problem we are having, and a problem that places like London are trying to address with their Congestion charge.
It's funny you bring that up as an example, because:
1. The congestion charge does not apply to London taxis. These are the same cars that spend the largest proportion of each day within the congestion charging zone, and so contribute the most to congestion.
2. These same taxis are allowed to use many 'bus lanes', thus slowing down buses (genuine public transport) and using parts of the scarce road infrastructure which is unavailable to higher-density vehicles (picture a family of 4 in a private car, vs. a taxi whose average occupancy is ~2 people including the driver).
3. London has 'minicabs' which are also commercial carriers. They fall under different regulation as taxis, and must be pre-booked (can't be hailed on the street). What's the sensible argument for allowing them to operate (using the roads), having specific regulation and insurance requirements in place, yet not allowing them to (i) pick up passengers waiting on the street, or (ii) using bus lanes, like London taxis?
4. London taxis are _expensive_. I lived in London for 31 of the first 35 years of my life, and I can count on my fingers (not including thumbs) the number of times I hailed a taxi in London.
> 3. London has 'minicabs' which are also commercial carriers. They fall under different regulation as taxis, and must be pre-booked (can't be hailed on the street). What's the sensible argument for allowing them to operate (using the roads), having specific regulation and insurance requirements in place, yet not allowing them to (i) pick up passengers waiting on the street, or (ii) using bus lanes, like London taxis?
London black cabs get certain privileges. In return they have some obligations. They have fixed fare rates; they are wheel-chair accessible; they have tighter regulation about accepting passengers.
Yes, some are related to transactions with passengers (black cabs can pick up passengers who flag them down) and others are related to the use of the roads (black cabs can use many bus lanes, and are exempt from the congestion charge). The latter category of privileges are not enjoyed by other users of private cars, regardless of the number of passengers.
> In return they have some obligations. They have fixed fare rates;
Yes, and they're pretty high. For a journey within central London (with an average speed of 8-12 miles per hour), you'll be paying over US$1 per minute. For a longer journey (Heathrow Airport to Central London) you'd pay US$70-$130. (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/taxis-and-minicabs/taxi-fares?ci...)
The fares charged by minicabs are lower than this. Under a free market, taxi prices would be lower.
> they are wheel-chair accessible;
OK.
> they have tighter regulation about accepting passengers.
What? Taxis have _looser_ regulations about accepting passengers. Minicabs drivers would probably love to be able to pick up passengers from the street, but they cannot.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?).
> 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?
> 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".
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.
<cynical non-USA-centric view>
From _outside_ "your" healthcare and welfare systems, it appears that for a not insignificant number of people "living in caves and dying at age 30" is not some hyperbolic comparison to some distant neanderthal past - but something that's a lot closer to their reality that the privileges of the 1%...
(not that "government reguations" are "the good guy" here though...)
Fun fact: historically, placing someone outside the protection of the law was one of the most severe penalties governments could administer. Also cheap, because it means someone else -- whoever feels like it, basically -- carries out the execution without the government having to pay for it.
Perhaps you'd like that, though, since then the "statists" wouldn't be getting in your way with all those things that they claim are to "protect" you. And I'm sure you'd live to a ripe old age that way, yes?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.)
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.