

Starship - gsibble
http://onepercentbreadsticks.com/starship

======
donall
I don't mean to nitpick, but I have to take exception to the line "don’t talk
loudly on their cell phones about you in a foreign language".

Obviously talking loudly on a cell phone is an undesirable trait for a driver.
No question. But I do question the assertion that they're talking about you. I
speak a few common languages and have heard taxi drivers around the world
speak on their phones and assuming that I only speak English. They very rarely
talk about me and if they do, it's usually in a relatively professional
context, i.e. "I just picked a guy up at the airport", not "this idiot doesn't
know what I'm saying so I'm going to say insulting things about him".

I don't know quite why people who hear others speaking a foreign language tend
to assume they are the topic of conversation. People usually have more
important things to talk about. Of course, sometimes you do catch somebody
talking about you and that tends to be hilariously awkward when you respond in
his/her language!

~~~
Houshalter
People are for some reason really paranoid about that kind of stuff. Have you
never experienced a group of people laughing and think they were laughing at
you?

But I think the other was hyperbolizing to make his point.

~~~
donall
I have experienced a group of people laughing and suspected they were laughing
at me, but usually when there was some reason for it, like having a bad
haircut! I don't assume groups of people laugh at/about me unprovoked. I hope
I'm right... :)

------
danielweber
_Thousands of tellers lost their jobs when the ATM was invented_

From 1985 to 2002, bank teller employment went up by over 40,000, and from
2002 to 2008 over 75,000 more on top of that[1].

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/te...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/06/technology-
and-unemployment)

~~~
gsibble
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/17/atms-
dest...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/17/atms-destroy-
teller-jobs-yes-of-course-they-do-thats-the-point-of-having-them/)

~~~
jljljl
The difference between the Forbes article and the Economist article is the
Economist article cites facts and figures.

Economies tend to be more complicated than you think. For example: ATMs may
have led to an increase in banking activity, and a perception of greater value
for bank accounts, which may have actually led to a greater demand for local
branches and thank tellers.

~~~
gsibble
So in other words, taxi drivers should not be afraid of Uber.

Thank you for making that clear. :)

Please go tell them that. I'm sure that will put them at ease.

~~~
tedks
...no, I think what the comment parent is saying is that ATMs:Bank tellers ::
Uber : Taxi drivers is not a valid analogy.

------
dalke
I thought it was going to end up that the author decided to ride a bike around
the city. The starship of the past is still a starship.

As jwz pointed out, at [http://www.jwz.org/blog/2008/05/the-collected-jwz-
bicycle-wi...](http://www.jwz.org/blog/2008/05/the-collected-jwz-bicycle-
wisdom/) , SF "is only 7 miles across. Nothing is as far away as you think it
is."

~~~
snoldak924
7 miles across, but full of hills and cars.

~~~
ultimatedelman
and stop signs and traffic lights and people crossing the street whenever they
damn well feel like it

~~~
dalke
Don't all of these objections equally apply to driving in the city? Well,
except hills. The link I gave, however, does point to maps for how to avoid
the hills, and a route called "The Wiggle", at
[http://localwiki.net/sf/The_Wiggle](http://localwiki.net/sf/The_Wiggle) .

I've never lived in SF. I have bike commuted in a city with hills. Low gears,
go slow, and your leg muscles quickly build up to it.

------
stonogo
This article reminded me how important copy editors are.

On another note, I've never before experienced someone so vehemently excited
about replacing taxis with ... other ... taxis.

~~~
gsibble
I wrote my first article a week ago and don't have an editor. Taking
applications :)

@georgesibble

PS: I am currently unpublished and working on a book.

~~~
cbhl
Have you considered using Draft? They have a "Ask a Pro" button that will give
you reviewer for a modest fee: [http://docs.withdraft.com/#uber-for-copy-
editing](http://docs.withdraft.com/#uber-for-copy-editing)

~~~
gsibble
Looks awesome! Thank you kind internet stranger!

------
devindotcom
Sounds like the author has more money than time — which is not an insult, just
a condition. For such people, Uber is a great service, like the others that
allow one to pay for an increase in convenience and pleasantness. For people
who have less money and don't care quite as much about such intangibles as
rudeness, the savings are likely worthwhile.

 _Uber is under attack as being illegal. Why would a society that has created
a product so clearly superior ever challenge it as being illegal?_

It's not being "challenged" as being illegal, is it, though? The laws as
written are simply being enforced — with some laxity in many places. And it
was two different groups, not just one "society," that created the product and
the laws under which it is illegal. Those laws will change, but it takes time,
during which the service remains technically illegal. Marijuana was
technically illegal here in Seattle until very recently, but the police chief
publicly said it was the department's lowest priority. That's a tacit
disavowal of the law in anticipation of it being changed — and I suspect it
will be that way with Uber as well for some time, except where the laws
prohibiting it are particularly strong.

~~~
gsibble
Actually, they are changing the laws and adding regulations.

And time is money. I don't have enough of either.

------
npsimons
While there are many cogent points to take away from the OP, I feel that the
attack and attribution of motives to very large, very faceless organizations
is misguided at best. I'm sure there are some who value the revenue that comes
in, especially given how many other large organizations duck their
responsibility in supporting public infrastructure. But I'm also sure that
there are people who voted for politicians to create these laws, precisely
_because_ there were issues with unlicensed, unregulated taxis. Take the OP as
one data point; I'm sure that there are just as many horror stories about Uber
experiences out there, some of which could have been prevented by regulations.

Not saying it's perfect, there's definitely room for improvement. But the
broad brush strokes of this piece feel _too_ broad, and not nearly deep
enough.

------
jflowers45
"Thousands of tellers lost their jobs when the ATM was invented. Thousands of
taxi drivers should too because Uber is the next generation."

Not a great parallel - those taxi drivers can become Uber (or lyft, or
sidecar, etc) drivers

~~~
gcb0
but they lose 100k or more they paid for their medallion. and will have huge
competition instead of a monopoly.

on the other hand, uber price will only go up. until only the rich is allowed
to be driven in the city.

~~~
Houshalter
TIL more competition and lower barriers to entry drive prices up.

~~~
dalke
While I think you're being sarcastic, I believe the issue is this:

SF taxi rates are regulated. This can lead to scarcity for everyone.

Uber prices are not regulated. This can lead to scarcity for the poor.

(Morally speaking, which is better?)

So long as there's a linear (or perhaps "convex" might be a better term)
response, then yes, more competition and lower barriers tends to drive prices
down.

Traffic is not one of them. Adding a few percentage more drivers can
drastically slow everyone down. If small vehicles are the only way to get from
place to place, and since the price of the trip on average is a profit for the
driver, then it's advantageous for paid drivers to have more drivers on the
streets. This causes more congestion, which causes longer drive times, which
in turn requires more drivers to meet the demand. This is a stable solution,
so is an example where more competition and lower barriers to entry end up
increasing transportation costs.

The city doesn't want congested streets. They make it hard to get business
done, including goods deliveries and scheduling face-to-face meetings, and add
pollution and more chances for accidents with serious injuries.

Instead, observe that my preconditions are incorrect. There are other modes of
transportation, including walking, biking, and public or private mass transit.
A city might introduce a medallion system as one way to limit congestion, and
use the resulting artificial scarcity as a way to entice people to use other
transportation schemes which are overall better for the city.

~~~
Houshalter
That's good in theory, but is it _actually true_ that cities are currently
_full_ of mostly Uber cars to the point where it's a problem? Or unregulated
cabs, in cities that don't have medallions.

The optimal economic solution would be to tax _all_ traffic, have toll roads,
or some kind of technological solution. I can't see any city ever doing that
though. But it's only relevant if it really is a serious problem.

The parent comment was ridiculous. It asserted that eliminating $100k barrier
to entry, eliminating a monopoly (their own words), and increasing competition
would drive prices up. You could maybe argue that congestion would increase,
but prices almost certainly would not.

~~~
dalke
Yes, mine is a mathematical model. I believe that only NYC is close to that
point, but I have no evidence to prove it.

In any case, the SF mayor wants to raise the number of medallions as a source
of revenue, so it's clear they are not limiting the number in order to
influence transportation modality use. (The legislative history suggests that
a goal of Prop K, which put the current regulations into place, was to prevent
oligarchies in the local taxi cab industry.)

FWIW,
[http://www.emmanuelcombe.org/moor.pdf](http://www.emmanuelcombe.org/moor.pdf)
does an overview of what economists have written on the topic. Some papers
conclude that taxi deregulation does what you think it would do, some papers
conclude otherwise. There's no clear consensus.

See
[http://www.thelocal.se/20090112/16868](http://www.thelocal.se/20090112/16868)
for some of the situations that occur in a deregulated taxi marketplace.

The history of taxi medallions in SF shows that Prop K was voted on to prevent
oligarchies.

------
DatBear
9*9 = 81, your original area is 81 pi square miles... And your world only got
25 times larger. Just saying.

~~~
gsibble
Dammit. Edited. Thank you! :)

